The Project Gutenberg eBook of History for ready reference, Volume 3 (of 6), Greece to Nibelungen, by J. N. Larned

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 https://www.gutenberg.org/license. If you are not located in the United States, you’ll have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: History for ready reference, Volume 3 (of 6), Greece to Nibelungen

Author: J. N. Larned

Release Date: June 13, 2022 [EBook #68302]

Language: English

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ***

[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 3 of 6

From The Best

Historians, Biographers, And Specialists

Their Own Words In A Complete

System Of History

For All Uses, Extending To All Countries And Subjects,

And Representing For Both Readers And Students The Better

And Newer Literature Of History In The English Language.

BY J. N. LARNED

With Numerous Historical Maps From Original Studies

And Drawings By Alan C. Reiley

In Five Volumes

Volume III—Greece To Nibelungen Lied

Springfield, Mass.

The C. A. Nichols Co., Publishers

MDCCCXCV

Copyright, 1894.

By J. N. Larned.

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

Printed by H. O. Houghton & Company.

List Of Maps.

Map of India, about the close of the Sixteenth Century,

and map of the growth of the Anglo-Indian Empire,

To follow page 1708.

Two maps of Italy, at the beginning of the Seventh Century,

and A. D. 1492, To follow page 1804.

TWO maps of Italy, A. D. 1815 to 1859, and 1861,

To follow page 1864.

Four maps of the Empire of Alexander the Great

and his successors, To follow page 2061.

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

Logical Outline, In Colors.

Irish History, To follow page 1754

Chronological Tables.

The Seventh Century, On page 2073

The Eighth Century, On page 2074

{1565}

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

[Footnote: An important part of Greek history is treated

more fully under the heading "ATHENS" (in Volume 1), to

which the reader is referred.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/65306]

GREECE:

The Land.

Its geographical characteristics, and their influence upon the

People.

"The considerable part played by the people of Greece during

many ages must undoubtedly be ascribed to the geographical

position of their country. Other tribes having the same

origin, but inhabiting countries less happily situated—such,

for instance, as the Pelasgians of Illyria, who are believed

to be the ancestors of the Albanians—have never risen above a

state of barbarism, whilst the Hellenes placed themselves at

the head of civilised nations, and opened fresh paths to their

enterprise. If Greece had remained for ever what it was during

the tertiary geological epoch—a vast plain attached to the

deserts of Libya, and run over by lions and the

rhinoceros—would it have become the native country of a

Phidias, an Æschylos, or a Demosthenes? Certainly not. It

would have shared the fate of Africa, and, far from taking the

initiative in civilisation, would have waited for an impulse

to be given to it from beyond. Greece, a sub-peninsula of the

peninsula of the Balkans, was even more completely protected

by transverse mountain barriers in the north than was Thracia

or Macedonia. Greek culture was thus able to develop itself

without fear of being stifled at its birth by successive

invasions of barbarians. Mounts Olympus, Pelion, and Ossa,

towards the north and east of Thessaly, constituted the first

line of formidable obstacles towards Macedonia. A second

barrier, the steep range of the Othrys, runs along what is the

present political boundary of Greece. To the south of the Gulf

of Lamia a fresh obstacle awaits us, for the range of the Œta

closes the passage, and there is but the narrow pass of the

Thermopylæ between it and the sea. Having crossed the

mountains of the Locri and descended into the basin of Thebæ,

there still remain to be crossed the Parnes or the spurs of

the Cithæron before we reach the plains of Attica. The

'isthmus' beyond these is again defended by transverse

barriers, outlying ramparts, as it were, of the mountain

citadel of the Peloponnesus, that acropolis of all Greece.

Hellas has frequently been compared to a series of chambers,

the doors of which were strongly bolted; it was difficult to

get in, but more difficult to get out again, owing to their

stout defenders. Michelet likens Greece to a trap having three

compartments. You entered, and found yourself taken first in

Macedonia, then in Thessaly, then between the Thermopylæ and

the isthmus. But the difficulties increase beyond the isthmus,

and Lacedæmonia remained impregnable for a long time. At an

epoch when the navigation even of a land-locked sea like the

Ægean was attended with danger, Greece found herself

sufficiently protected against the invasions of oriental

nations; but, at the same time, no other country held out such

inducements to the pacific expeditions of merchants. Gulfs and

harbours facilitated access to her Ægean coasts, and the

numerous outlying islands were available as stations or as

places of refuge. Greece, therefore, was favourably placed for

entering into commercial intercourse with the more highly

civilised peoples who dwelt on the opposite coasts of Asia

Minor. The colonists and voyagers of Eastern Ionia not only

supplied their Achæan and Pelasgian kinsmen with foreign

commodities and merchandise, but they also imparted to them

the myths, the poetry, the sciences, and the arts of their

native country. Indeed, the geographical configuration of

Greece points towards the east, whence she has received her

first enlightenment. Her peninsulas and outlying islands

extend in that direction; the harbours on her eastern coasts

are most commodious, and afford the best shelter; and the

mountain-surrounded plains there offer the best sites for

populous cities. … The most distinctive feature of Hellas,

as far as concerns the relief of the ground, consists in the

large number of small basins, separated one from the other by

rocks or mountain ramparts. The features of the ground thus

favoured the division of the Greek people into a multitude of

independent republics. Every town had its river, its

amphitheatre of hills or mountains, its acropolis, its fields,

pastures, and forests, and nearly all of them had, likewise,

access to the sea. All the elements required by a free

community were thus to be found within each of these small

districts, and the neighbourhood of other towns, equally

favoured, kept alive perpetual emulation, too frequently

degenerating into strife and battle. The islands of the Ægean

Sea, likewise, had constituted themselves into miniature

republics. Local institutions thus developed themselves

freely, and even the smallest island of the Archipelago has

its great representatives in history. But whilst there thus

exists the greatest diversity, owing to the configuration of

the ground and the multitude of islands, the sea acts as a

binding element, washes every coast, and penetrates far

inland. These gulfs and numerous harbours have made the

maritime inhabitants of Greece a nation of sailors—amphibiæ,

as Strabo called them. From the most remote times the passion

for travel has always been strong amongst them. When the

inhabitants of a town grew too numerous to support themselves

upon the produce of their land, they swarmed out like bees,

explored the coasts of the Mediterranean, and, when they had

found a site which recalled their native home, they built

themselves a new city. … The Greeks held the same position

relatively to the world of the ancients which is occupied at

the present time by the Anglo-Saxons with reference to the

entire earth. There exists, indeed, a remarkable analogy

between Greece, with its archipelago, and the British Islands,

at the other extremity of the continent. Similar geographical

advantages have brought about similar results, as far as

commerce is concerned, and between the Ægean and the British

seas time and space have effected a sort of harmony."

E. Reclus,

The Earth and its Inhabitants: Europe,

volume 1, pages 36-38.

"The independence of each city was a doctrine stamped deep on

the Greek political mind by the very nature of the Greek land.

How truly this is so is hardly fully understood till we see

that land with our own eyes. The map may do something; but no

map can bring home to us the true nature of the Greek land

till we have stood on a Greek hill-top, on the akropolis of

Athens or the loftier akropolis of Corinth, and have seen how

thoroughly the land was a land of valleys cut off by hills, of

islands and peninsulas cut off by arms of sea, from their

neighbours on either side.

{1566}

Or we might more truly say that, while the hills fenced them

off from their neighbours, the arms of the sea laid them open

to their neighbours. Their waters might bring either friends

or enemies; but they brought both from one wholly distinct and

isolated piece of land to another. Every island, every valley,

every promontory, became the seat of a separate city; that is,

according to Greek notions, the seat of an independent power,

owning indeed many ties of brotherhood to each of the other

cities which helped to make up the whole Greek nation, but

each of which claimed the right of war and peace and separate

diplomatic intercourse, alike with every other Greek city and

with powers beyond the bounds of the Greek world. Corinth

could treat with Athens and Athens with Corinth, and Corinth

and Athens could each equally treat with the King of the

Macedonians and with the Great King of Persia. … How close

the Greek states are to one another, and yet how physically

distinct they are from one another, it needs, for me at least,

a journey to Greece fully to take in."

E. A. Freeman,

The Practical Bearings of European History

(Lectures to American Audiences),

pages 243-244.

GREECE: Ancient inhabitants.

Tribal divisions.

See PELASGIANS; HELLENES; ACHAIA; ÆOLIANS;

and DORIANS AND IONIANS.

GREECE: The Heroes and their Age.

"The period included between the first appearance of the

Hellenes in Thessaly and the return of the Greeks from Troy,

is commonly known by the name of the heroic age, or ages. The

real limits of this period cannot be exactly defined. The date

of the siege of Troy is only the result of a doubtful

calculation [ending B. C. 1183, as reckoned by Eratosthenes,

but fixed at dates ranging from 33 to 63 years later by

Isocrates, Callimachus and other Greek writers]; and … the

reader will see that it must be scarcely possible to ascertain

the precise beginning of the period: but still, so far as its

traditions admit of anything like a chronological connexion,

its duration may be estimated at six generations, or about 200

years [say from some time in the 14th to some time in the 12th

century before Christ]. … The history of the heroic age is

the history of the most celebrated persons belonging to this

class, who, in the language of poetry, are called 'heroes.'

The term 'hero' is of doubtful origin, though it was clearly a

title of honour; but, in the poems of Homer, it is applied not

only to the chiefs, but also to their followers, the freemen

of lower rank, without, however, being contrasted with any

other, so as to determine its precise meaning. In later times

its use was narrowed, and in some degree altered: it was

restricted to persons, whether of the heroic or of after ages,

who were believed to be endowed with a superhuman, though not

a divine, nature, and who were honoured with sacred rites, and

were imagined to have the power of dispensing good or evil to

their worshippers; and it was gradually combined with the

notion of prodigious strength and gigantic stature. Here,

however, we have only to do with the heroes as men. The

history of their age is filled with their wars, expeditions,

and adventures, and this is the great mine from which the

materials of the Greek poetry were almost entirely drawn."

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 5 (volume 1).

The legendary heroes whose exploits and adventures became the

favorite subjects of Greek tragedy and song were Perseus,

Hercules, Theseus, the Argonauts, and the heroes of the Siege

of Troy.

GREECE:

The Migrations of the Hellenic tribes in the Peninsula.

"If there is any point in the annals of Greece at which we can

draw the line between the days of myth and legend and the

beginnings of authentic history, it is at the moment of the

great migrations. Just as the irruption of the Teutonic tribes

into the Roman empire in the 5th century after Christ marks

the commencement of an entirely new era in modern Europe, so

does the invasion of Southern and Central Greece by the

Dorians, and the other tribes whom they set in motion, form

the first landmark in a new period of Hellenic history. Before

these migrations we are still in an atmosphere which we cannot

recognize as that of the historical Greece that we know. The

states have different boundaries, some of the most famous

cities have not yet been founded, tribes who are destined to

vanish occupy prominent places in the land, royal houses of a

foreign stock are established everywhere, the distinction

between Hellene and Barbarian is yet unknown. We cannot

realize a Greece where Athens is not yet counted as a great

city, while Mycenae is a seat of empire; where the Achaian

element is everywhere predominant, and the Dorian element is

as yet unknown. When, however, the migrations are ended, we at

once find ourselves in a land which we recognize as the Greece

of history. The tribes have settled into the districts which

are to be their permanent abodes, and have assumed their

distinctive characters. … The original impetus which set the

Greek tribes in motion came from the north, and the whole

movement rolled southward and eastward. It started with the

invasion of the valley of the Peneus by the Thessalians, a

warlike but hitherto obscure tribe, who had dwelt about Dodona

in the uplands of Epirus. They crossed the passes of Pindus,

and flooded down into the great plain to which they were to

give their name. The tribes which had previously held it were

either crushed and enslaved, or pushed forward into Central

Greece by the wave of invasion. Two of the displaced races

found new homes for themselves by conquest. The Arnaeans, who

had dwelt in the southern lowlands along the courses of

Apidanus and Enipeus, came through Thermopylae, pushed the

Locriams aside to right and left, and descended into the

valley of the Cephissus, where they subdued the Minyae of

Orchomenus [see MINYI], and then, passing south, utterly

expelled the Cadmeians of Thebes. The plain country which they

had conquered received a single name. Boeotia became the

common title of the basins of the Cephissus and the Asopus,

which had previously been in the hands of distinct races. Two

generations later the Boeotians endeavoured to cross

Cithaeron, and add Attica to their conquests; but their king

Xanthus fell in single combat with Melanthus, who fought in

behalf of Athens, and his host gave up the enterprise. In

their new country the Boeotians retained their national unity

under the form of a league, in which no one city had authority

over another, though in process of time Thebes grew so much

greater than her neighbours that she exercised a marked

preponderance over the other thirteen members of the

confederation. Orchomenus, whose Minyan inhabitants had been

subdued but not exterminated by the invaders, remained

dependent on the league without being

at first amalgamated with it.

{1567}

A second tribe who were expelled by the irruption of the

Thessalians were the Dorians, a race whose name is hardly

heard in Homer, and whose early history had been obscure and

insignificant. They had till now dwelt along the western slope

of Pindus. Swept on by the invaders, they crossed Mount

Othrys, and dwelt for a time in the valley of the Spercheius

and on the shoulders of Oeta. But the land was too narrow for

them, and, after a generation had passed, the bulk of the

nation moved southward to seek a wider home, while a small

fraction only remained in the valleys of Oeta. Legends tell us

that their first advance was made by the Isthmus of Corinth,

and was repulsed by the allied states of Peloponnesus, Hyllus

the Dorian leader having fallen in the fight by the hand of

Echemus, King of Tegea. But the grandsons of Hyllus resumed

his enterprise, and met with greater success. Their invasion

was made, as we are told, in conjunction with their neighbours

the Aetolians, and took the Aetolian port of Naupactus as its

base. Pushing across the narrow strait at the mouth of the

Corinthian Gulf, the allied hordes landed in Peloponnesus, and

forced their way down the level country on its western coast,

then the land of the Epeians, but afterwards to be known as

Elis and Pisatis. This the Aetolians took as their share,

while the Dorians pressed further south and east, and

successively conquered Messenia, Laconia, and Argolis,

destroying the Cauconian kingdom of Pylos and the Achaian

states of Sparta and Argos. There can be little doubt that the

legends of the Dorians pressed into a single generation the

conquests of a long series of years. … It is highly probable

that Messenia was the first seized of the three regions, and

Argos the latest … but of the details or dates of the Dorian

conquests we know absolutely nothing. Of the tribes whom the

Dorians supplanted, some remained in the land as subjects to

their newly found masters, while others took ship and fled

over sea. The stoutest-hearted of the Achaians of Argolis,

under Tisamenus, a grandson of Agamemnon, retired northward

when the contest became hopeless, and threw themselves on the

coast cities of the Corinthian Gulf, where up to this time the

Ionic tribe of the Aegialeans had dwelt. The Ionians were

worsted, and fled for refuge to their kindred in Attica, while

the conquerors created a new Achaia between the Arcadian

Mountains and the sea, and dwelt in the twelve cities which

their predecessors had built. The rugged mountains of Arcadia

were the only part of Peloponnesus which were to escape a

change of masters resulting from the Dorian invasion. A

generation after the fall of Argos, new war-bands thirsting

for land pushed on to the north and west, led by descendants

of Temenus. The Ionic towns of Sicyon and Phlius, Epidaurus

and Troezen, all fell before them. Even the inaccessible

Acropolis which protected the Aeolian settlement of Corinth

could not preserve it from the hands of the enterprising

Aletes. Nor was it long before the conquerors pressed on from

Corinth beyond the isthmus, and attacked Attica. Foiled in

their endeavour to subdue the land, they at least succeeded in

tearing from it its western districts, where the town of

Megara was made the capital of a new Dorian state, and served

for many generations to curb the power of Athens. From

Epidaurus a short voyage of fifteen miles took the Dorians to

Aegina, where they formed a settlement which, first as a

vassal to Epidaurus, and then as an independent community,

enjoyed a high degree of commercial prosperity. It is not the

least curious feature of the Dorian invasion that the leaders

of the victorious tribe, who, like most other royal houses,

claimed to descend from the gods and boasted that Heracles was

their ancestor, should have asserted that they were not

Dorians by race, but Achaians. Whether the rude northern

invaders were in truth guided by princes of a different blood

and higher civilization than themselves, it is impossible to

say. … In all probability the Dorian invasion was to a

considerable extent a check in the history of the development

of Greek civilization, a supplanting of a richer and more

cultured by a poorer and wilder race. The ruins of the

prehistoric cities, which were supplanted by new Dorian

foundations, point to a state of wealth to which the country

did not again attain for many generations. On the other hand,

the invasion brought about an increase in vigour and moral

earnestness. The Dorians throughout their history were the

sturdiest and most manly of the Greeks. The god to whose

worship they were especially devoted was Apollo, the purest,

the noblest, the most Hellenic member of the Olympian family.

By their peculiar reverence for this noble conception of

divinity, the Dorians marked themselves out as the most moral

of the Greeks."

C. W. C. Oman,

History of Greece,

chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

M. Duncker,

History of Greece,

book 2 (volume 1).

C. O. Müller,

History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,

introduction, and book 1, chapters 1-5.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapters 3-8 (volume 2).

See, also, DORIANS AND IONIANS;

ACHAIA; ÆOLIANS; THESSALY;

and BŒOTIA.

GREECE:

The Migrations to Asia Minor and the Islands of the Ægean.

Æolian, Ionian and Dorian colonies.

See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

GREECE:

Mycenæ and its kings.

The unburied memorials.

"Thucydides says that before the Dorian conquest, the date of

which is traditionally fixed at B. C. 1104, Mycenae was the

only city whence ruled a wealthy race of kings. Archaeology

produces the bodies of kings ruling at Mycenae about the

twelfth century and spreads their wealth under our eyes.

Thucydides says that this wealth was brought in the form of

gold from Phrygia by the founder of the line, Pelops.

Archaeology tells us that the gold found at Mycenae may very

probably have come from the opposite coast of Asia Minor which

abounded in gold; and further that the patterns impressed on

the gold work at Mycenae bear a very marked resemblance to the

decorative patterns found on graves in Phrygia. Thucydides

tells us that though Mycenae was small, yet its rulers had the

hegemony over a great part of Greece. Archæology shews us that

the kings of Mycenae were wealthy and important quite out of

proportion to the small city which they ruled, and that the

civilisation which centred at Mycenae spread over south Greece

and the Aegean, and lasted for some centuries at least. It

seems to me that the simplest way of meeting the facts of the

case is to suppose that we have recovered at Mycenae the

graves of the Pelopid race of monarchs. It will not of course

do to go too far. … It would be too much to suppose that we

have recovered the bodies of the Agamemnon who seems in the

Iliad to be as familiar to us as Caesar or Alexander, or of

his father Atreus, or of his charioteer and the rest.

{1568}

We cannot of course prove the Iliad to be history; and if we

could, the world would be poorer than before. But we can

insist upon it that the legends of heroic Greece have more of

the historic element in them than anyone supposed a few years

ago. … Assuming then that we may fairly class the Pelopidae

as Achaean, and may regard the remains at Mycenae as

characteristic of the Achaean civilisation of Greece, is it

possible to trace with bolder hand the history of Achaean

Greece? Certainly we gain assistance in our endeavour to

realize what the pre-Dorian state of Peloponnesus was like. We

secure a hold upon history which is thoroughly objective,

while all the history which before existed was so vague and

imaginative that the clear mind of Grote refused to rely upon

it at all. But the precise dates are more than we can venture

to lay down, in the present condition of our knowledge. …

The Achaean civilisation was contemporary with the eighteenth

Egyptian dynasty (B. C. 1700-1400). It lasted during the

invasions of Egypt from the north (1300-1100). When it ceased

we cannot say with certainty. There is every historical

probability that it was brought to a violent end in the Dorian

invasion. The traditional date of that invasion is B. C. 1104.

But it is obvious that this date cannot be relied upon."

P. Gardner,

New Chapters in Greek History,

chapters 2-3.

ALSO IN:

R. Schliemann,

Mycenæ.

C. Schuchhardt,

Schliemann's Excavations,

chapter 4.

GREECE:

Ancient political and geographical divisions.

"Greece was not a single country. … It was broken up into

little districts, each with its own government. Any little

city might be a complete state in itself, and independent of

its neighbours. It might possess only a few miles of land and

a few hundred inhabitants, and yet have its own laws, its own

government, and its own army. … In a space smaller than an

English county there might be several independent cities,

sometimes at war, sometimes at peace with one another.

Therefore when we say that the west coast of Asia Minor was

part of Greece, we do not mean that this coast-land and

European Greece were under one law and one government, for

both were broken up into a number of little independent

States: but we mean that the people who lived on the west

coast of Asia Minor were just as much Greeks as the people who

lived in European Greece. They spoke the same language, and

had much the same customs, and they called one another

Hellenes, in contrast to all other nations of the world, whom

they called barbarians … , that is, 'the unintelligible

folk,' because they could not understand their tongue."

C. A. Fyffe,

History of Greece (History Primers),

chapter 1.

"The nature of the country had … a powerful effect on the

development of Greek politics. The whole land was broken up by

mountains into a number of valleys more or less isolated;

there was no central point from which a powerful monarch could

control it. Hence Greece was, above all other countries, the

home of independence and freedom. Each valley, and even the

various hamlets of a valley, felt themselves possessed of a

separate life, which they were jealous to preserve."

E. Abbott,

History of Greece,

part 1, chapter 1.

See AKARNANIANS; ACHAIA;

ÆGINA; ÆTOLIA; ARCADIA; ARGOS; ATHENS;

ATTICA; BŒOTIA; CORINTH; DORIS AND

DRYOPIS; ELIS; EPIRUS; EUBŒA; KORKYRA;

LOCRI; MACEDONIA; MANTINEA; MEGALOPOLIS;

MEGARA; MESSENE; OLYNTHUS; PHOKIANS;

PLATÆA; SICYON; SPARTA; THEBES;

and THESSALY.

GREECE:

Political evolution of the leading States.

Variety in the forms of Government.

Rise of democracy at Athens.

"The Hellenes followed no common political aim. …

Independent and self-centred, they created, in a constant

struggle of citizen with citizen and state with state, the

groundwork of those forms of government which have been

established in the world at large. We see monarchy,

aristocracy, democracy, rising side by side and one after

another, the changes being regulated in each community by its

past experience and its special interests in the immediate

present. These forms of government did not appear in their

normal simplicity or in conformity with a distinct ideal, but

under the modifications necessary to give them vitality. An

example of this is Lakedæmon. If one of the families of the

Heracleidæ [the two royal families-see SPARTA: THE

CONSTITUTION] aimed at a tyranny, whilst another entered into

relations with the native and subject population, fatal to the

prerogatives of the conquerors, we can understand that in the

third case, that, of the Spartan community, the aristocratic

principle was maintained with the greatest strictness.

Independently of this, the divisions of the Lakedæmonian

monarchy between two lines, neither of which was to have

precedence, was intended to guard against the repetition in

Sparta of that which had happened in Argos. Above all, the

members of the Gerusia, in which the two kings had only equal

rights with the rest, held a position which would have been

unattainable to the elders of the Homeric age. But even the

Gerusia was not independent. There existed in addition to it a

general assembly, which, whilst very aristocratic as regards

the native and subject population, assumed a democratic aspect

in contrast with the king and the elders. The internal life of

the Spartan constitution depended upon the relations between

the Gerusia and the aristocratic demos. … The Spartan

aristocracy dominated the Peloponnesus. But the constitution

contained a democratic clement working through the Ephors, by

means of which the conduct of affairs might be concentrated in

a succession of powerful hands. Alongside of this system, the

purely aristocratic constitutions, which were without such a

centre, could nowhere hold their ground. The Bacchiadæ in

Corinth, two hundred in number, with a prytanis at their head,

and inter-marrying only among themselves, were one of the most

distinguished of these families. They were deprived of their

exclusive supremacy by Kypselus, a man of humble birth on his

father's side, but connected with the Bacchiadæ through his

mother. … As the Kypselidæ rose in Corinth, the metropolis

of the colonies towards the west, so in the corresponding

eastern metropolis, Miletus, Thrasybulus raised himself from

the dignity of prytanis to that of tyrant; in Ephesus,

Pythagoras rose to power, and overthrew the Basilidæ; in

Samos, Polycrates, who was master also of the Kyklades, and of

whom it is recorded that he confiscated the property of the

citizens and then made them a present of it again. By

concentrating the forces of their several communities the

tyrants obtained the means of surrounding themselves with a

certain splendor, and above all of liberally encouraging

poetry and art.

{1569}

To these Polycrates opened his citadel, and in it we find

Anacreon and Ibycus; Kypselus dedicated a famous statue to

Zeus, at Olympia. The school of art at Sikyon was without a

rival, and at the court of Periander were gathered the seven

sages—men in whom a distinguished political position was

combined with the prudential wisdom derived from the

experience of life. This is the epoch of the legislator of

Athens, Solon, who more than the rest has attracted to himself

the notice of posterity.

See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

He is the founder of the Athenian democracy. … His proverb

'Nothing in excess' indicates his character. He was a man who

knew exactly what the time has a right to call for, and who

utilized existing complications to bring about the needful

changes. It is impossible adequately to express what he was to

the people of Athens, and what services he rendered them. That

removal of their pecuniary burdens, the seisachtheia, made

life for the first time endurable to the humbler classes.

See DEBT, LAWS CONCERNING: ANCIENT GREEK.

Solon cannot be said to have introduced democracy, but, in

making the share of the upper classes in the government

dependent upon the good pleasure of the community at large, he

laid its foundations. The people were invested by him with

attributes which they afterwards endeavored to extend. …

Solon himself lived long enough to see the order which he

established serve as the basis of the tyranny which he wished

to avoid; it was the Four Hundred themselves who lent a hand

to the change. The radical cause of failure was that the

democratic element was too feebly constituted to control or to

repress the violence of the families. To elevate the democracy

into a true power in the state other events were necessary,

which not only rendered possible, but actually brought about,

its further development. The conflicts of the principal

families, hushed for a moment, were revived under the eyes of

Solon himself with redoubled violence. The Alemæonidæ

[banished about 595 B. C.—see ATHENS: B. C. 612-595] were

recalled, and Æthelred around them a party consisting mainly

of the inhabitants of the seacoast, who, favored by trade, had

the money in their hands; the genuine aristocrats, described

as the inhabitants of the plains, who were in possession of

the fruitful soil, were in perpetual antagonism to the

Alemæonidæ; and, whilst these two parties were bickering, a

third was formed from the inhabitants of the mountain

districts, inferior to the two others in wealth, but of

superior weight to either in the popular assemblies. At its

head stood Peisistratus, a man distinguished by warlike

exploits, and at an earlier date a friend of Solon. It was

because his adherents did not feel themselves strong enough to

protect their leader that they were induced to vote him a

body-guard chosen from their own ranks. … As soon, however,

as the first two parties combined, the third was at a

disadvantage, so that after some time sentence of banishment

was passed upon Peisistratus. … Peisistratus … found means

to gather around him a troop of brave mercenaries, with whom,

and with the support of his old adherents, he then invaded

Attica. His opponents made but a feeble resistance, and he

became without much trouble master both of the city and of the

country.

See ATHENS: B. C. 560-510.

He thus attained to power; it is true, with the approbation of

the people, but nevertheless by armed force. … We have

almost to stretch a point in order to call Peisistratus a

tyrant—a word which carries with it the invidious sense of a

selfish exercise of power. No authority could have been more

rightly placed than his; it combined Athenian with

Panhellenist tendencies. But for him Athens would not have

been what she afterwards became to the world. …

Nevertheless, it must be admitted that Peisistratus governed

Athens absolutely, and even took steps to establish a

permanent tyranny. He did, in fact, succeed in leaving the

power he possessed to his sons, Hippias and Hipparchus. … Of

the two brothers it was the one who had rendered most service

to culture, Hipparchus, who was murdered at the festival of

the Panathenæa. It was an act of revenge for a personal

insult. … In his dread lest he should be visited by a

similar doom, Hippias actually became an odious tyrant and

excited universal discontent. One effect, however, of the loss

of stability which the authority of the dominant family

experienced was that the leading exiles ejected by

Peisistratus combined in the enterprise which was a necessary

condition of their return, the overthrow of Hippias. The

Alcmæonidæ took the principal part. … The revolution to

which this opened the way could, it might seem, have but one

result, the establishment of an oligarchical government. …

But the matter had a very different issue," resulting in the

constitution of Cleisthenes and the establishment of democracy

at Athens, despite the hostile opposition and interference of

Sparta.

L. von Ranke,

Universal History:

The oldest Historical Group of Nations and the Greeks,

chapter 5.

See, also,

ATHENS: B. C. 510-507,

and 509-506.

GREECE: B. C. 752.

The Archonship at Athens thrown open to the whole body of the

people.

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

GREECE: B. C. 624.

The Draconian legislation at Athens.

See ATHENS: B. C. 624.

GREECE: B. C. 610-600.

War of Athens and Megara for Salamis.

Spartan Arbitration.

See ATHENS: B. C. 610-586.

GREECE: B. C. 595-586.

The Cirrhæan or first Sacred War.

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

GREECE: B. C. 500-493.

Rising of the Ionians of Asia Minor against the Persians.

Aid rendered to them by the Athenians.

Provocation to Darius.

The Ionic Greek cities, or states, of Asia Minor, first

subjugated by Crœsus, King of Lydia, in the sixth century B.

C., were swallowed up, in the same century, with all other

parts of the dominion of Crœsus, in the conquests of Cyrus,

and formed part of the great Persian Empire, to the

sovereignty of which Cambyses and Darius succeeded. In the

reign of Darius there occurred a revolt of the Ionians (about

502 B. C.), led by the city of Miletus, under the influence of

its governor, Aristagoras. Aristagoras, coming over to Greece

in person, sought aid against the Persians, first at Sparta,

where it was denied to him, and then, with better success, at

Athens. Presenting himself to the citizens, just after they

had expelled the Pisistratidæ, Aristagoras said to them "that

the Milesians were colonists from Athens, and that it was just

that the Athenians, being so mighty, should deliver them from

slavery.

{1570}

And because his need was great, there was nothing that he did

not promise, till at the last he persuaded them. For it is

easier, it seems, to deceive a multitude than to deceive one

man. Cleomenes the Spartan, being but one man, Aristagoras

could not deceive; but he brought over to his purpose the

people of Athens, being thirty thousand. So the Athenians,

being persuaded, made a decree to send twenty ships to help

the men of Ionia, and appointed one Melanthius, a man of

reputation among them, to be captain. These ships were the

beginning of trouble both to the Greeks and the barbarians.

… When the twenty ships of the Athenians were arrived, and

with them five ships of the Eretrians, which came, not for any

love of the Athenians, but because the Milesians had helped

them in the old time against the men of Chalcis, Aristagoras

sent an army against Sardis, but he himself abode in Miletus.

This army, crossing Mount Tmolus, took the city of Sardis

without any hindrance; but the citadel they took not, for

Artaphernes held it with a great force of soldiers. But though

they took the city they had not the plunder of it, and for

this reason. The houses in Sardis were for the most part built

of reeds, and such as were built of bricks had their roofs of

reeds; and when a certain soldier set fire to one of these

houses, the fire ran quickly from house to house till the

whole city was consumed. And while the city was burning, such

Lydians and Persians as were in it, seeing they were cut off

from escape (for the fire was in an the outskirts of the

city), gathered together in haste to the market-place. Through

this market-place flows the river Pactolus, which comes down

from Mount Tmolus, having gold in its sands, and when it has

passed out of the city it flows into the Hermus, which flows

into the sea. Here then the Lydians and Persians were gathered

together, being constrained to defend themselves. And when the

men of Ionia saw their enemies how many they were, and that

these were preparing to give battle, they were stricken with

fear, and fled out of the city to Mount Tmolus, and thence,

when it was night, they went back to the sea. In this manner

was burnt the city of Sardis, and in it the great temple of

the goddess Cybele, the burning of which temple was the cause,

as said the Persians, for which afterwards they burnt the

temples in Greece. Not long after came a host of Persians from

beyond the river Halys; and when they found that the men of

Ionia had departed from Sardis, they followed hard upon their

track, and came up with them at Ephesus. And when the battle

was joined, the men of Ionia fled before them. Many indeed

were slain, and such as escaped were scattered, every man to

his own city. After this the ships of the Athenians departed,

and would not help the men of Ionia any more, though

Aristagoras besought them to stay. Nevertheless the Ionians

ceased not from making preparations of war against the King,

making to themselves allies, some by force and some by

persuasion, as the cities of the Hellespont and many of the

Carians and the island of Cyprus. For all Cyprus, save Amathus

only, revolted from the King under Onesilus, brother of King

Gorgus. When King Darius heard that Sardis had been taken and

burned with fire by the Ionians and the Athenians, with

Aristagoras for leader, at the first he took no heed of the

Ionians, as knowing that they would surely suffer for their

deed, but he asked, 'Who are these Athenians?' And when they

told him he took a bow and shot an arrow into the air, saying,

'O Zeus, grant that I may avenge myself on these Athenians.'

And he commanded his servant that every day, when his dinner

was served, he should say three times, 'Master, remember the

Athenians.' … Meanwhile the Persians took not a few cities

of the Ionians and Æolians. But while they were busy about

these, the Carians revolted from the King; whereupon the

captains of the Persians led their army into Caria, and the

men of Caria came out to meet them; and they met them at a

certain place which is called the White Pillars, near to the

river Mæander. Then there were many counsels among the

Carians, whereof the best was this, that they should cross the

river and so contend with the Persians, having the river

behind them, that so there being no escape for them if they

fled, they might surpass themselves in courage. But this

counsel did not prevail. Nevertheless, when the Persians had

crossed the Meander, the Carians fought against them, and the

battle was exceeding long and fierce. But at the last the

Carians were vanquished, being overborne by numbers, so that

there fell of them ten thousand. And when they that

escaped—for many had fled to Labranda, where there is a great

temple of Zeus and a grove of plane trees—were doubting

whether they should yield themselves to the King or depart

altogether from Asia, there came to their help the men of

Miletus with their allies. Thereupon the Carians, putting away

their doubts altogether, fought with the Persians a second

time, and were vanquished yet more grievously than before. But

on this day the men of Miletus suffered the chief damage. And

the Carians fought with the Persians yet again a third time;

for, hearing that these were about to attack their cities one

by one, they laid an ambush for them on the road to Pedasus.

And the Persians, marching by night, fell into the ambush, and

were utterly destroyed, they and their captains. After these

things, Aristagoras, seeing the power of the Persians, and

having no more any hope to prevail over them—and indeed, for

all that he had brought about so much trouble, he was of a

poor spirit—called together his friends and said to them, 'We

must needs have some place of refuge, if we be driven out of

Miletus. Shall we therefore go to Sardinia, or to Myrcinus on

the river Strymon; which King Darius gave to Histiæus?' To

this Hecateus, the writer of chronicles, made answer, 'Let

Aristagoras build a fort in Leros (this Leros is an island

thirty miles distant from Miletus) and dwell there quietly, if

he be driven from Miletus. And hereafter he can come from

Leros and set himself up again in Miletus.' But Aristagoras

went to Myrcinus, and not long afterwards was slain while he

besieged a certain city of the Thracians."

Herodotus,

The Story of the Persian War

(version of A. J. Church, chapter 2).

See, also,

PERSIA: B. C. 521-493;

and ATHENS: B. C. 501-490.

GREECE: B. C. 496.

War of Sparta with Argos.

Overwhelming reverse of the Argives.

See ARGOS: B. C. 496-421.

GREECE: B. C. 492-491.

Wrath of the Persian king against Athens.

Failure of his first expedition of invasion.

Submission of 'Medizing' Greek states.

Coercion of Ægina.

Enforced union of Hellas.

Headship of Sparta recognized.

{1571}

The assistance given by Athens to the Ionian revolt stirred

the wrath of the Persian monarch very deeply, and when he had

put down the rebellion he prepared to chastise the audacious

and insolent Greeks. "A great fleet started from the

Hellespont, with orders to sail round the peninsula of Mt.

Athos to the Gulf of Therma, while Mardonius advanced by land.

His march was so harassed by the Thracians that when he had

effected the conquest of Macedonia his force was too weak for

any further attempt. The fleet was overtaken by a storm off

Mt. Athos, on whose rocks 300 ships were dashed to pieces, and

20,000 men perished. Mardonius returned in disgrace to Asia

with the remnant of his fleet and army. This failure only

added fury to the resolution of Darius. While preparing all

the resources of his empire for a second expedition, he sent

round heralds to the chief cities of Greece, to demand the

tribute of earth and water as signs of his being their

rightful lord. Most of them submitted: Athens and Sparta alone

ventured on defiance. Both treated the demand as an outrage

which annulled the sanctity of the herald's person. At Athens

the envoy was plunged into the loathsome Barathrum, a pit into

which the most odious public criminals were cast. At Sparta

the herald was hurled into a well, and bidden to seek his

earth and water there. The submission of Ægina, the chief

maritime state of Greece, and the great enemy of Athens,

entailed the most important results. The act was denounced by

Athens as treason against Greece, and the design was imputed

to Ægina of calling in the Persians to secure vengeance on her

rival. The Athenians made a formal complaint to Sparta against

the 'Medism' of the Æginetans; a charge which is henceforth

often repeated both against individuals and states. The

Spartans had recently concluded a successful war with Argos,

the only power that could dispute her supremacy in

Peloponnesus; and now this appeal from Athens, the second city

of Greece, at once recognized and established Sparta as the

leading Hellenic state. In that character, her king Cleomenes

undertook to punish the Medizing party in Ægina 'for the

common good of Greece'; but he was met by proofs of the

intrigues of his colleague Demaratus in their favour. …

Cleomenes obtained his deposition on a charge of illegitimacy,

and a public insult from his successor Leotychides drove

Demaratus from Sparta. Hotly pursued as a 'Medist,' he

effected his escape to Darius, whose designs against Athens

and Sparta were now stimulated by the councils of their exiled

sovereigns, Hippias and Demaratus. Meanwhile, Cleomenes and

his new colleague returned to Ægina, which no longer resisted,

and having seized ten of her leading citizens, placed them as

hostages in the hands of the Athenians. Ægina was thus

effectually disabled from throwing the weight of her fleet

into the scale of Persia: Athens and Sparta, suspending their

political jealousies, were united when their disunion would

have been fatal; their conjunction drew after them most of the

lesser states: and so the Greeks stood forth for the first

time as a nation prepared to act in unison, under the

leadership of Sparta (B. C. 491). That city retained her proud

position till it was forfeited by the misconduct of her

statesmen."

P. Smith,

History of the World: Ancient,

chapter 13 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

G. W. Cox,

The Greeks and the Persians,

chapter 6.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

chapter 36 (volume 4.)

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

GREECE: B. C. 490.

The Persian Wars: Marathon.

The second and greater expedition launched by Darius against

the Greeks sailed from the Cilician coast in the summer of the

year 490 B. C. It was under the command of two generals,—a

Mede, named Datis, and the king's nephew, Artaphernes. It made

the passage safely, destroying Naxos on the way, but sparing

the sacred island and temple of Delos. Its landing was on the

shores of Eubœa, where the city of Eretria was easily taken,

its inhabitants dragged into slavery, and the first act of

Persian vengeance accomplished. The expedition then sailed to

the coast of Attica and came to land on the plain of Marathon,

which spreads along the bay of that name. "Marathon, situated

near to a bay on the eastern coast of Attica, and in a

direction E. N. E. from Athens, is divided by the high ridge

of Mount Pentelikus from the city, with which it communicated

by two roads, one to the north, another to the south of that

mountain. Of these two roads, the northern, at once the

shortest and the most difficult, is 22 miles in length. …

[The plain] 'is in length about six miles, in breadth never

less than about one mile and a half. Two marshes bound the

extremities of the plain; the southern is not very large and

is almost dry at the conclusion of the great heats; but the

northern, which generally covers considerably more than a

square mile, offers several parts which are at all seasons

impassable. Both, however, leave a broad, firm sandy beach

between them and the sea. The uninterrupted flatness of the

plain is hardly relieved by a single tree; and an amphitheatre

of rocky hills and rugged mountains separates it from the rest

of Attica."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 36 (volume 4).

The Athenians waited for no nearer approach of the enemy to

their city, but met them at their landing-place. They were few

in number—only 10,000, with 1,000 more from the grateful city

of Platæa, which Athens had protected against Thebes. They had

sent to Sparta for aid, but a superstition delayed the march

of the Spartans and they came the day after the battle. Of all

the nearer Greeks none came to the help of Athens in that hour

of extreme need; and so much the greater to her was the glory

of Marathon. The ten thousand Athenian hoplites and the one

thousand brave Platæans confronted the great host of Persia,

of the numbers in which there is no account. Ten generals had

the right of command on successive days, but Miltiades was

known to be the superior captain and his colleagues gave place

to him. "On the morning of the seventeenth day of the month of

Metagitnion (September 12th), when the supreme command

according to the original order of succession fell to

Miltiades, he ordered the army to draw itself up according to

the ten tribes. … The troops had advanced with perfect

steadiness across the trenches and palisadings of their camp,

as they had doubtless already done on previous days. But as

soon as they had approached the enemy within a distance of

5,000 feet they changed their march to a double-quick pace,

which gradually rose to the rapidity of a charge, while at the

same time they raised the war-cry with a loud voice.

{1572}

When the Persians saw these men rushing down from the heights,

they thought they beheld madmen: they quickly placed

themselves in order of battle, but before they had time for an

orderly discharge of arrows the Athenians were upon them,

ready in their excitement to begin a closer contest, man

against man in hand-to-hand fight, which is decided by

personal courage and gymnastic agility, by the momentum of

heavy-armed warriors, and by the use of lance and sword. Thus

the well-managed and bold attack of the Athenians had

succeeded in bringing into play the whole capability of

victory which belonged to the Athenians. Yet the result was

not generally successful. The enemy's centre stood firm. …

But meanwhile both wings had thrown themselves upon the enemy;

and after they had effected a victorious advance, the one on

the way to Rhamnus, the other towards the coast, Miltiades …

issued orders at the right moment for the wings to return from

the pursuit, and to make a combined attack upon the Persian

centre in its rear. Hereupon the rout speedily became general,

and in their flight the troubles of the Persians increased;

… they were driven into the morasses and there slain in

numbers."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2).

The Athenian dead, when gathered for the solemn obsequies,

numbered 192; the loss of the Persians was estimated by

Herodotus at 6,400.

Herodotus,

History,

book 6.

ALSO IN:

E. S. Creasy,

Fifteen Decisive Battles,

chapter 1.

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 14 (volume 2).

G. W. Cox,

The Greeks and Persians,

chapter 6.

Sir E. Bulwer Lytton,

Athens: Its Rise and Fall,

book 2, chapter 5.

GREECE: B. C. 489-480.

The Æginetan War.

Naval power of Athens created by Themistocles.

SEE ATHENS: B. C. 489-480.

GREECE: B. C. 481-479.

Congress at Corinth.

Hellenic union against Persia.

Headship of Sparta.

"When it was known in Greece that Xerxes was on his march into

Europe, it became necessary to take measures for the defence

of the country. At the instigation of the Athenians, the

Spartans, as the acknowledged leaders of Hellas and head of

the Peloponnesian confederacy, called on those cities which

had resolved to uphold the independence of their country to

send plenipotentiaries to a congress at the Isthmus of

Corinth. When the envoys assembled, a kind of Hellenic

alliance was formed under the presidency of Sparta, and its

unity was confirmed by an oath, binding the members to visit

with severe penalties those Greeks who, without compulsion,

had given earth and water to the envoys of Xerxes. This

alliance was the nearest approach to a Hellenic union ever

seen in Greece; but though it comprised most of the

inhabitants of the Peloponnesus, except Argos and Achæa, the

Megarians, Athenians, and two cities of Bœotia, Thespiæ and

Platæa, were the only patriots north of the Isthmus. Others,

who would willingly have been on that side, such as the common

people of Thessaly, the Phocians and Locrians, were compelled

by the force of circumstances to 'medize.' From the time at

which it met in the autumn or summer of 481 to the autumn of

480 B. C., the congress at the Isthmus directed the military

affairs of Greece. It fixed the plan of operations. Spies were

sent to Sardis to ascertain the extent of the forces of

Xerxes; envoys visited Argos, Crete, Corcyra, and Syracuse, in

the hope, which proved vain, of obtaining assistance in the

impending struggle. As soon as Xerxes was known to be in

Europe, an army of 10,000 men was sent to hold the pass of

Tempe, but afterwards, on the advice of Alexander of Macedon,

this barrier was abandoned; and it was finally resolved to

await the approaching forces at Thermopylæ and Artemisium. The

supreme authority, both by land and sea, was in the hands of

the Spartans; they were the natural leaders of any army which

the Greeks could put into the field, and the allies refused to

follow unless the ships also were under their charge. … When

hostilities were suspended, the congress re-appears, and the

Greeks once more meet at the Isthmus to apportion the spoil

and adjudge the prizes of valour. In the next year we hear of

no common plan of operations, the fleet and army seeming to

act independently of each other; yet we observe that the

chiefs of the medizing Thebans were taken to the Isthmus

(Corinth) to be tried, after the battle of Platæa. It appears

then that, under the stress of the great Persian invasion, the

Greeks were brought into an alliance or confederation; and for

the two years from midsummer 481 to midsummer 479 a congress

continued to meet, with more or less interruption, at the

Isthmus, consisting of plenipotentiaries from the various

cities. This congress directed the affairs of the nation, so

far as they were in any way connected with the Persian

invasion. When the Barbarians were finally defeated, and there

was no longer any alarm from that source, the congress seems

to have discontinued its meetings. But the alliance remained;

the cities continued to act in common, at any rate, so far as

naval operations were concerned, and Sparta was still the

leading power."

E. Abbott,

Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens,

chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

C. O. Müller,

History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,

volume 1, appendix 4.

GREECE: B. C. 480.

The Persian War: Thermopylæ.

"Now when tidings of the battle that had been fought at

Marathon [B. C. 490] reached the ears of King Darius, the son

of Hystaspes, his anger against the Athenians," says

Herodotus, "which had been already roused by their attack on

Sardis, waxed still fiercer, and he became more than ever

eager to lead an army against Greece. Instantly he sent off

messengers to make proclamation through the several states

that fresh levies were to be raised, and these at an increased

rate; while ships, horses, provisions and transports were

likewise to be furnished. So the men published his commands;

and now all Asia was in commotion by the space of three

years." But before his preparations were completed Darius

died. His son Xerxes, who ascended the Persian throne, was

cold to the Greek undertaking and required long persuasion

before he took it up. When he did so, however, his

preparations were on a scale more stupendous than those of his

father, and consumed nearly five years. It was not until ten

years after Marathon that Xerxes led from Sardis a host which,

Herodotus computes at 1,700,000 men, besides half a million

more which manned the fleet he had assembled. "Was there a

nation in all Asia," cries the Greek historian, "which Xerxes

did not bring with him against Greece? Or was there a river,

except those of unusual size, which sufficed for his troops to

drink?" By a bridge of boats at Abydos the army crossed the

Hellespont, and moved slowly through Thrace, Macedonia and

Thessaly; while the fleet, moving on the

coast circuit of the same countries, avoided the perilous

promontory of Mount Athos by cutting a canal.

{1573}

The Greeks had determined at first to make their stand against

the invaders in Thessaly, at the vale of Tempe; but they found

the post untenable and were persuaded, instead, to guard the

narrower Pass of Thermopylæ. It was there that the Persians,

arriving at Trachis, near the Malian gulf, found themselves

faced by a small body of Greeks. The spot is thus described by

Herodotus: "As for the entrance into Greece by Trachis, it is,

at its narrowest point, about fifty feet wide. This, however,

is not the place where the passage is most contracted; for it

is still narrower a little above and a little below

Thermopylae. At Alpeni, which is lower down than that place,

it is only wide enough for a single carriage; and up above, at

the river Phœnix, near the town called Anthela, it is the

same. West of Thermopylæ rises a lofty and precipitous hill,

impossible to climb, which runs up into the chain of Œta;

while to the east the road is shut in by the sea and by

marshes. In this place are the warm springs, which the natives

call 'The Cauldrons'; and above them stands an altar sacred to

Hercules. A wall had once been carried across the opening; and

in this there had of old times been a gateway. … King Xerxes

pitched his camp in the region of Malis called Trachinia,

while on their side the Greeks occupied the straits. These

straits the Greeks in general call Thermopylæ (the Hot Gates);

but the natives and those who dwell in the neighbourhood call

them Pylæ (the Gates). … The Greeks who at this spot awaited

the coming of Xerxes were the following:—From Sparta, 300

men-at-arms; from Arcadia, 1,000 Tegeans and Mantineans, 500

of each people; 120 Orchomenians, from the Arcadian

Orchomenus; and 1,000 from other cities; from Corinth, 400

men; from Phlius, 200; and from Mycenæ 80. Such was the number

from the Peloponnese. There were also present, from Bœotia,

700 Thespians and 400 Thebans. Besides these troops, the

Locrians of Opus and the Phocians had obeyed the call of their

countrymen, and sent, the former all the force they had, the

latter 1,000 men. … The various nations had each captains of

their own under whom they served; but the one to whom all

especially looked up, and who had the command of the entire

force, was the Lacedæmonian, Leonidas. … The force with

Leonidas was sent forward by the Spartans in advance of their

main body, that the sight of them might encourage the allies

to fight, and hinder them from going over to the Medes, as it

was likely they might have done had they seen Sparta backward.

They intended presently, when they had celebrated the Carneian

festival, which was what now kept them at home, to leave a

garrison in Sparta, and hasten in full force to join the army.

The rest of the allies also intended to act similarly; for it

happened that the Olympic festival fell exactly at this same

period. None of them looked to see the contest at Thermopylæ

decided so speedily." For two days Leonidas and his little

army held the pass against the Persians. Then, there was found

a traitor, a man of Malis, who betrayed to Xerxes the secret

of a pathway across the mountains, by which he might steal

into the rear of the post held by the Greeks. A thousand

Phocians had been stationed on the mountain to guard this

path; but they took fright when the Persians came upon them in

the early dawn, and fled without a blow. When Leonidas learned

that the way across the mountain was open to the enemy he knew

that his defense was hopeless, and he ordered his allies to

retreat while there was yet time. But he and his Spartans

remained, thinking it "unseemly" to quit the post they had

been specially sent to guard. The Thespians remained with

them, and the Thebans—known partisans at heart of the

Persians—were forced to stay. The latter deserted when the

enemy approached; the Spartans and the Thespians fought and

perished to the last man.

Herodotus,

History

(translated by Rawlinson), book 7.

ALSO IN:

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 3, chapter 1.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 40 (volume 4).

See, also,

ATHENS: B. C. 480-479.

GREECE: B. C. 480.

The Persian Wars: Artemisium.

On the approach of the great invading army and fleet of

Xerxes, the Greeks resolved to meet the one at the pass of

Thermopylæ and the other at the northern entrance of the

Eubœan channel. "The northern side of Eubœa afforded a

commodious and advantageous station: it was a long beach,

called, from a temple at its eastern extremity, Artemisium,

capable of receiving the galleys, if it should be necessary to

draw them upon the shore, and commanding a view of the open

sea and the coast of Magnesia, and consequently an opportunity

of watching the enemy's movements as he advanced towards the

south; while, on the other hand, its short distance from

Thermopylæ enabled the fleet to keep up a quick and easy

communication with the land force."

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 15 (volume 1).

The Persian fleet, after suffering heavily from a destructive

storm on the Magnesian coast, reached Aphetæ, opposite

Artemisium, at the mouth of the Pagasæan gulf. Notwithstanding

its losses, it still vastly outnumbered the armament of the

Greeks, and feared nothing but the escape of the latter. But,

in the series of conflicts which ensued, the Greeks were

generally victorious and proved their superior naval genius.

They could not, however, afford the heavy losses which they

sustained, and, upon hearing of the disaster at Thermopylæ and

the Persian possession of the all-important pass, they deemed it

necessary to retreat.

W. Mitford,

History of Greece,

chapter 8, section 4 (volume 2).

GREECE: B. C. 480.

The Persian Wars: Salamis.

Leonidas and his Spartan band having perished vainly at

Thermopylæ, in their heroic attempt to hold the pass against

the host of Xerxes, and the Greek ships at Artemisium having

vainly beaten their overwhelming enemies, the whole of Greece

north of the isthmus of Corinth lay completely at the mercy of

the invader. The Thebans and other false-hearted Greeks joined

his ranks, and saved their own cities by helping to destroy

their neighbors. The Platæans, the Thespians and the Athenians

abandoned their homes in haste, conducted their families, and

such property as they might snatch away, to the nearer islands

and to places of refuge in Peloponnesus. The Greeks of

Peloponnesus rallied in force to the isthmus and began there

the building of a defensive wall. Their fleet, retiring from

Artemisium, was drawn together, with some re-enforcements,

behind the island of Salamis, which stretches across the

entrance to the bay of Eleusis, off the inner coast of Attica,

near Athens.

{1574}

Meantime the Persians had advanced through Attica, entered the

deserted city of Athens, taken the Acropolis, which a small

body of desperate patriots resolved to hold, had slain its

defenders and burned its temples. Their fleet had also been

assembled in the bay of Phalerum, which was the more easterly

of the three harbors of Athens. At Salamis the Greeks were in

dispute. The Corinthians and the Peloponnesians were bent upon

falling back with the fleet to the isthmus; the Athenians, the

Eginetans and the Megarians looked upon all as lost if the

present combination of the whole naval power of Hellas in the

narrow strait of Salamis was permitted to be broken up. At

length Themistocles, the Athenian leader, a man of fertile

brain and overbearing resolution, determined the question by

sending a secret message to Xerxes that the Greek ships had

prepared to escape from him. This brought down the Persian

fleet upon them at once and left them no chance for retreat.

Of the memorable fight which ensued (September 20 B. C. 480)

the following is a part of the description given by Herodotus:

"Against the Athenians, who held the western extremity of the

line towards Eleusis, were placed the Phœnicians; against the

Lacedæmonians, whose station was eastward towards the Piræus,

the Ionians. Of these last, a few only followed the advice of

Themistocles, to fight backwardly; the greater number did far

otherwise. … Far the greater number of the Persian ships

engaged in this battle were disabled, either by the Athenians

or by the Eginetans. For as the Greeks fought in order and

kept their line, while the barbarians were in confusion and

had no plan in anything that they did, the issue of the battle

could scarce be other than it was. Yet the Persians fought far

more bravely here than at Eubœa, and indeed surpassed

themselves; each did his utmost through fear of Xerxes, for

each thought that the king's eye was upon himself. … During

the whole time of the battle Xerxes sat at the base of the

hill called Ægaleos, over against Salamis; and whenever he saw

any of his own captains perform any worthy exploit he inquired

concerning him; and the man's name was taken down by his

scribes, together with the names of his father and his city.

… When the rout of the barbarians began, and they sought to

make their escape to Phalêrum, the Eginetans, awaiting them in

the channel, performed exploits worthy to be recorded. Through

the whole of the confused struggle the Athenians employed

themselves in destroying such ships as either made resistance

or fled to shore; while the Eginetans dealt with those which

endeavoured to escape down the straits; so that the Persian

vessels were no sooner clear of the Athenians than straightway

they fell into the hands of the Eginetan squadron. … Such of

the barbarian vessels as escaped from the battle fled to

Phalêrum, and there sheltered themselves under the protection

of the land army. … Xerxes, when he saw the extent of his

loss, began to be afraid lest the Greeks might be counselled

by the Ionians, or without their advice might determine, to

sail straight to the Hellespont and break down the bridges

there; in which case he would be blocked up in Europe and run

great risk of perishing. He therefore made up his mind to

fly."

Herodotus,

History

(edited and translated by Rawlinson),

book 8, sections 85—97 (volume 4).

ALSO IN:

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2).

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 4 (volume 4).

W. W. Goodwin,

The Battle of Salamis

(Papers of the American School at Athens, volume 1).

GREECE: B. C. 479.

The Persian Wars: Platæa.

When Xerxes, after the defeat of his fleet at Salamis, fled

back to Asia with part of his disordered host, he left his

lieutenant, Mardonius, with a still formidable army, to repair

the disaster and accomplish, if possible, the conquest of the

Greeks. Mardonius retired to Thessaly for the winter, but

returned to Attica in the spring and drove the Athenians once

more from their shattered city, which they were endeavoring to

repair. He made overtures to them which they rejected with

scorn, and thereupon he destroyed everything in city and

country which could be destroyed, reducing Athens to ruins and

Attica to a desert. The Spartans and other Peloponnesians who

had promised support to the Athenians were slow in coming, but

they came in strong force at last. Mardonius fell back into

Bœotia, where he took up a favorable position in a plain on

the left bank of the Asopus, near Platæa. This was in

September, B. C. 479. According to Herodotus, he had 300,000

"barbarian" troops and 50,000 Greek allies. The opposing

Greeks, who followed him to the Asopus, were 110,000 in

number. The two armies watched one another for more than ten

days, unwilling to offer battle because the omens were on both

sides discouraging. At length the Greeks undertook a change of

position and Mardonius, mistaking this for a movement of

retreat, led his Persians on a run to attack them. It was a

fatal mistake. The Spartans, who bore the brunt of the Persian

assault, soon convinced the deluded Mardonius that they were

not in flight, while the Athenians dealt roughly with his

Theban allies. "The barbarians," says Herodotus, "many times

seized hold of the Greek spears and brake them; for in

boldness and warlike spirit the Persians were not a whit

inferior to the Greeks; but they were without bucklers,

untrained, and far below the enemy in respect of skill in

arms. Sometimes singly, sometimes in bodies of ten, now fewer

and now more in number, they dashed forward upon the Spartan

ranks, and so perished. … After Mardonius fell, and the

troops with him, which were the main strength of the army,

perished, the remainder yielded to the Lacedæmonians and took

to flight. Their light clothing and want of bucklers were of

the greatest hurt to them: for they had to contend against men

heavily armed, while they themselves were without any such

defence." Artabazus, who was second in command of the

Persians, and who had 40,000 immediately under him, did not

strike a blow in the battle, but quitted the field as soon as

he saw the turn events had taken, and led his men in a retreat

which had no pause until they reached and crossed the

Hellespont. Of the remainder of the 300,000 of Mardonius'

host, only 3,000, according to Herodotus, outlived the battle.

It was the end of the Persian invasions of Greece.

Herodotus,

History

(translated by Rawlinson), book 9.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 42 (volume 5).

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 16 (volume 1).

G. W. Cox,

History of Greece,

book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1).

{1575}

In celebration of the victory an altar to Zeus was erected and

consecrated by the united Greeks with solemn ceremonies, a

quintennial festival, called the Feast of Liberty, was

instituted at Platæa, and the territory of the Platæans was

declared sacred and inviolable, so long as they should

maintain the appointed sacrifices and funeral honors to the

dead. But these agreements did not avail to protect the

Platæans when the subsequent Peloponnesian War broke out, and

they stood faithfully among the allies of Athens. "The last

act of the assembled army was the expedition against Thebes,

in order, according to the obligation incumbent upon them, to

take revenge on the most obstinate ally of the national enemy.

Eleven days after the battle Pausanias appeared before the

city and demanded the surrender of the party-leaders,

responsible for the policy of Thebes. Not until the siege had

lasted twenty days was the surrender obtained. … Timagenidas

and the other leaders of the Thebans were executed as traitors

against the nation, by order of Pausanias, after he had

dismissed the confederate army."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2).

GREECE: B. C. 479.

The Persian Wars: Mycale.

The same day, in September, B. C. 479, on which the Greeks at

Platæa destroyed the army of Mardonius, witnessed an almost

equal victory won by their compatriots of the fleet, on the

coast of Asia Minor. The Persian fleet, to avoid a battle with

them, had retreated to Mycale on the narrow strait between the

island of Samos and the mainland, where a land army of 60,000

men was stationed at the time. Here they drew their ships on

shore and surrounded them with a rampart. The Greeks, under

Leotychides the Lacedæmonian, landed and attacked the whole

combined force. The Ionians in the Persian army turned against

their masters and helped to destroy them. The rout was

complete and only a small remnant escaped to reach Sardis,

where Xerxes was still lingering.

Herodotus,

History

(translated by Rawlinson),

book 9.

ALSO IN:

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 16 (volume 1).

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 42 (volume 5).

GREECE: B. C. 479-478.

Athens assumes the protection of Ionia.

Siege and capture of Sestus.

Rebuilding and enlargement of Athens and its walls.

Interference of Sparta foiled by Themistocles.

See ATHENS: B. C. 479-478.

GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

Reduction of Byzantium.

Mad conduct of Pausanias.

His recall.

Alienation of the Asiatic Greeks from Sparta.

Their closer union with Athens.

Withdrawal of the Spartans from the war.

Formation of the Delian Confederacy.

"Sestos had fallen: but Byzantion and the Thrakian Doriskos,

with Eion on the Strymon and many other places on the northern

shores of the Egean, were still held by Persian garrisons,

when, in the year after the battle of Plataiai, Pausanias, as

commander of the confederate fleet, sailed with 20

Peloponnesian and 30 Athenian ships to Kypros (Cyprus) and

thence, having recovered the greater part of the island, to

Byzantion. The resistance here was as obstinate perhaps as at

Sestos; but the place was at length reduced, and Sparta stood

for the moment at the head of a triumphant confederacy. It was

now in her power to weld the isolated units, which made up the

Hellenic world, into something like an organised society, and

to kindle in it something like national life. … But she had

no statesman capable, like Themistokles, of seizing on a

golden opportunity, while in her own generals she found her

greatest enemies." Pausanias "was, it would seem, dazzled by

Persian wealth and enamoured of Persian pleasures. He had

roused the indignation of his own people by having his name

inscribed, as leader of all the Greek forces, on the tripod

which was to commemorate the victory of Plataiai: and now his

arrogance and tyranny were to excite at Byzantion a discontent

and impatience destined to be followed by more serious

consequences to his country as well as to himself. On the fall

of Byzantion he sent to the Persian king the prisoners taken

in the city, and spread the report that they had escaped. He

forwarded at the same time, it is said, … a letter in which

he informed Xerxes that he wished to marry his daughter and to

make him lord of all Hellas." Xerxes opened negotiations with

him, and "the head of this miserable man was now fairly

turned. Clad in Persian garb, he aped the privacy of Asiatic

despots; and when he came forth from his palace it was to make

a royal progress through Thrace, surrounded by Median and

Egyptian life guards, and to show his insolence to men who

were at least his equals. The reports of this significant

change in the behaviour of Pausanias led to his recall. He was

put on his trial; but his accusers failed to establish the

personal charges brought against him, while his Medism also

was dismissed as not fully proved. The suspicion, however, was

so strong that he was deprived of his command. … All these

events were tending to alienate the Asiatic Greeks and the

islanders of the Egean from a state which showed itself

incapable of maintaining its authority over its own servants."

Even before the recall of Pausanius, "the Asiatic Greeks

intreated Aristeides the Athenian commander to admit them into

direct relations with Athens; and the same change of feeling

had passed over all the non-medising Greek states with the

exception of the Peloponnesian allies of Sparta. In short, it

had become clear that all Hellas was divided into two great

sections, the one gravitating as naturally to Sparta, the

great land power, as the other gravitated to Athens with her

maritime preponderance. When therefore a Spartan commission

headed by Dorkis arrived with a small force to take the place

of Pausanias, they were met by passive resistance where they

had looked for submission; and their retirement from the field

in which they were unable to compel obedience left the

confederacy an accomplished fact."

G. W. Cox,

History of Greece,

book 2, chapter 8 (volume 2).

This confederacy of the Asiatic Greeks with Athens, now

definitely organized, is known as the Confederacy of Delos, or

the Delian League. "To Athens, as decidedly the preponderant

power, both morally and materially, was of necessity, and also

with free good-will, consigned the headship and chief control

of the affairs and conduct of the alliance; a position that

carried with it the responsibility of the collection and

administration of a common fund, and the presidency of the

assemblies of delegates. As time went on and circumstances

altered, the terms of confederation were modified in various

instances; but at first the general rule was the contribution,

not only of money or ships, but of actual personal service.

… We have no precise enumeration of the allies of Athens at

this early time, but the course of the history brings up the

mention of many.

{1576}

… Crete was never directly affected by these events, and

Cyprus was also soon to be left aside; but otherwise all the

Greek islands of the Aegean northwards—except Melos, Thera,

Aegina, and Cythera—were contributory, including Euboea; as

were the cities on the coasts of Thrace and the Chalcidic

peninsula from the Macedonian boundary to the Hellespont;

Byzantium and various cities on the coasts of the Propontis,

and less certainly of the Euxine; the important series of

cities on the western coast of Asia Minor—though apparently

with considerable exceptions—Aeolian, Ionian, Dorian, and

Carian, as far as Caunus at least on the borders of Lycia, if

not even round to the Chelidonian isles. The sacred island of

Delos was chosen as the depository of the common treasure and

the place of meeting of the contributors. Apart from its

central convenience and defensibleness as an island, and the

sanctity of the temple, … it was a traditional centre for

solemn reunions of Ionians from either side the Aegean. … At

the distinct request of the allies the Athenians appointed

Aristides to superintend the difficult process of assessing

the various forms and amounts of contribution. … The total

annual amount of the assessment was the large sum of 460

talents (£112,125), and this perhaps not inclusive of, but

only supplementary to, the costly supply of equipped ships."

W. W. Lloyd,

The Age of Pericles,

chapter 14 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

E. Abbott,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapters 6 and 8.

GREECE: B. C. 477-462.

Advancing democracy of Athens.

Sustentation of the Commons from the Confederate Treasury.

The stripping of power from the Areopagus.

See ATHENS: B. C. 477-462.

GREECE: B. C. 477-461.

Athens as the head of the Delian League.

Triumph of Anti-Spartan policy at Athens and approach of war.

Ostracism of Cimon.

"Between the end of the Persian war and the year 464 B. C.,

Sparta had sunk from the champion of the whole of Hellas to

the half-discredited leader of the Peloponnese only. Athens,

on the contrary, had risen from a subordinate member of the

league controlled by Sparta to be the leader and almost the

mistress of a league more dangerous than that over which

Sparta held sway. Sparta unquestionably entertained towards

Athens the jealous hatred of a defeated rival. By what steps

Athens was increasing her control over the Delian League, and

changing her position from that of a president to that of an

absolute ruler will be explained. …

See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

She was at the same time prosecuting the war against Persia

with conspicuous success. Her leader in this task was Cimon.

In the domain of practice Athens produced no nobler son than

this man. He was the son of Miltiades, the victor of Marathon,

and by heredity and inclination took his stand with the

conservative party in Athens.

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

He succeeded here to the leading position of Aristides, and he

possessed all that statesman's purity of character. … It was

as a naval commander, and as a supporter of a forward policy

against Persia, that Cimon won his greatest renown. But he had

also a keen interest in the domestic development of Athens and

her attitude to the other states of Greece. To maintain

friendship with Sparta was the root of all his policy. His

perfect honesty in supporting this policy was never

questioned, and Sparta recognised his good will to them by

appointing him Proxenus in Athens. It was his duty in this

capacity to protect any Spartan resident in or visiting

Athens. His character and personality were eminently

attractive. … Under his guidance the Athenian fleet struck

Persia blow on blow. … In 466, near the mouth of the

Eurymedon in Pamphylia [see ATHENS: B. C. 470-466], the

Persian fleet was destroyed, and after a fierce struggle her

land forces also were defeated with very great slaughter. It

was long before Persian influence counted for anything again

on the waters of the Mediterranean. Cimon, with the personal

qualities of Aristides, had obtained the successes of

Themistocles. Opposition to Cimon was not wanting. The

Athenian democracy had entered on a path that seemed blocked

by his personal supremacy. And now the party of advancing

democracy possessed a leader, the ablest and greatest that it

was ever to possess. Pericles was about thirty years of age.

… He was related to great families through both father and

mother, and to great families that had championed the

democratic side. His father Zanthippus had prosecuted

Miltiades, the father of Cimon. … To lead the party of

advanced democracy was to attack Cimon, against whom he had

hereditary hostility. … When in 465 Thasos rebelled from

Athens, defeat was certain unless she found allies. She

applied to Sparta for assistance. Athens and Sparta were still

nominally allies, for the creation of the Delian League had

not openly destroyed the alliance that had subsisted between

them since the days of the Persian war. But the Thasians hoped

that Sparta's jealousy of Athens might induce her to disregard

the alliance. And they reckoned rightly. The Spartan fleet was

so weak that no interference upon the sea could be thought of,

but if Attica were attacked by land the Athenians would be

forced to draw off some part of their armament from Thasos.

Sparta gave a secret promise that this attack should be made.

But before they could fulfil their promise their own city was

overwhelmed by a terrible earthquake. … Only five houses

were left standing, and twenty thousand of the inhabitants

lost their lives. King Archidamus saved the state from even

more appalling ruin. While the inhabitants were dazed with the

catastrophe, he ordered the alarm-trumpet to be blown; the

military instincts of the Spartans answered to the call, and

all that were left assembled outside of the city safe from the

falling ruins. Archidamus's presence of mind saved them from

even greater danger than that of earthquake. The disaster

seemed to the masses of Helots that surrounded Sparta clear

evidence of the wrath of the god Poseidon. … The Helots

seized arms, therefore, and from all sides rushed upon Sparta.

Thanks to Archidamus's action, they found the Spartans

collected and ready for battle. They fell back upon Messenia,

and concentrated their strength round Mount Ithome, the

natural Acropolis of that district. … All the efforts of

their opponents, never very successful in sieges, failed to

dislodge them. At last, in 464, Sparta had to appeal to her

allies for help against her own slaves; and, as Athens was her

ally, she appealed to Athens. Should the help be granted? …

Cimon advocated the granting of Sparta's demand with all his

strength. … But there was much to be said on the other side,

and it was said by Ephialtes and Pericles.

{1577}

The whole of Pericles's foreign policy is founded on the

assumption that union between Athens and Sparta was

undesirable and impossible. In everything they stood at

opposite poles of thought. …. Cimon gained the vote of the

people. He went at once with a force of four thousand

heavy-armed soldiers to Ithome. Athenian soldiers enjoyed a

great reputation for their ability in the conduct of sieges;

but, despite their arrival, the Helots in Ithome still held

out. And soon the Spartans grew suspicious of the Athenian

contingent. The failure of Sparta was so clearly to the

interest of Athens that the Spartans could not believe that

the Athenians were in earnest in trying to prevent it; and at

last Cimon was told that Sparta no longer had need of the

Athenian force. The insult was all the more evident because

none of the other allies were dismissed. Cimon at once

returned to Athens. …

See MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD.

On his return he still opposed those complete democratic

changes that Pericles and Ephialtes were at this time

introducing into the state. A vote of ostracism was demanded.

The requisite number of votes fell to Cimon, and he had to

retire into exile (461). … His ostracism doubtless allowed

the democratic changes, in any case inevitable, to be

accomplished without much opposition or obstruction, but it

also deprived Athens of her best soldier at a time when she

needed all her military talent. For Athens could not forget

Sparta's insult. In 461 she renounced the alliance with her

that had existed since the Persian wars; and that this rupture

did not mean neutrality was made clear when, immediately

afterwards, Athens contracted an alliance with Argos, always

the enemy and now the dangerous enemy of Sparta, and with the

Thessalians, who also had grounds of hostility to Sparta.

Under such circumstances war could not be long in coming."

A. J. Grant,

Greece in the Age of Pericles,

chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

Plutarch,

Cimon; Pericles.

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 17 (volume 3).

E. Abbott,

Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens,

chapters 5-6.

GREECE: B. C. 460-449.

Disastrous Athenian expedition to Egypt.

Cimon's last enterprise against the Persians.

The disputed Peace of Cimon, or Callias.

Five years truce between Athens and Sparta.

See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

Alliance of Corinth and Ægina against Athens and Megara.

Athenian victories.

Siege and conquest of Ægina.

The Spartans in Bœotia.

Defeat of Athens at Tanagra.

Her success at Œnophyta.

Humiliation of Thebes.

Athenian ascendancy restored.

Crippled by the great earthquake of 464 B. C., and harassed by

the succeeding Messenian War, "nothing could be done, on the

part of Sparta, to oppose the establishment and extension of

the separate alliance between Athens and Argos; and

accordingly the states of Northern Peloponnesus commenced

their armaments against Athens on their own account, in order

to obtain by force what formerly they had achieved by secret

intrigues and by pushing forward Sparta. To stop the progress

of the Attic power was a necessary condition of their own

existence; and thus a new warlike group of states formed

itself among the members of the disrupted confederation. The

Corinthians entered into a secret alliance with Ægina and

Epidaurus, and endeavored to extend their territory and obtain

strong positions beyond the Isthmus at the expense of Megara.

This they considered of special importance to them, inasmuch

as they knew the Megareans, whose small country lay in the

midst between the two hostile alliances, to be allies little

deserving of trust. … The fears of the Corinthians were

realized sooner than they had anticipated. The Megareans,

under the pressure of events, renounced their treaty

obligations to Sparta, and joined the Attico-Argive alliance.

… The passes of the Geranea, the inlets and outlets of the

Doric peninsula, now fell into the hands of the Athenians;

Megara became an outwork of Athens; Attic troops occupied its

towns; Attic ships cruised in the Gulf of Corinth, where

harbors stood open to them at Pegæ and Ægosthena. The

Athenians were eager to unite Megara as closely as possible to

themselves, and for this reason immediately built two lines of

walls, which connected Megara with its port Nisæa, eight

stadia off, and rendered both places impregnable to the

Peloponnesians. This extension of the hostile power to the

boundaries of the Isthmus, and into the waters of the western

gulf, seemed to the maritime cities of Peloponnesus to force

them into action. Corinth, Epidaurus, and Ægina commenced an

offensive war against Athens—a war which opened without

having been formally declared; and Athens unhesitatingly

accepted the challenge thrown out with sufficient distinctness

in the armaments of her adversaries. Myronides, an experienced

general and statesman, … landed with an Attic squadron near

Halieis (where the frontiers of the Epidaurians and Argives

met), and here found a united force of Corinthians,

Epidaurians, and Æginetans awaiting him. Myronides was

unsuccessful in his campaign. A few months later the hostile

fleets met off the island of Cecryphalea, between Ægina and

the coast of Epidaurus. The Athenians were victorious, and the

struggle now closed round Ægina itself. Immediately opposite

the island ensued a second great naval battle. Seventy of the

enemy's ships fell into the hands of the Athenians, whose

victorious fleet without delay surrounded Ægina. The

Peloponnesians were fully aware of the importance of Ægina to

them. Three hundred hoplites came to the relief of the island,

and the Corinthians marched across the Geranea into Megaris to

the relief of Ægina. It seemed impossible that, while the

fleet of the Athenians was fighting in the land of the Nile,

and another was lying before Ægina, they should have a third

army in readiness for Megara. But the Peloponnesians had no

conception of the capabilities of action belonging to the

Athenians. True, the whole military levy was absent from the

country, and only enough men were left at home for the mere

defence of the walls. Yet all were notwithstanding agreed that

neither should Ægina be given up nor the new allies be left in

the lurch. Myronides advanced to meet the Corinthians with

troops composed of those who had passed the age of military

service or not yet reached it. In the first fight he held his

ground: when the hostile forces returned for the second time,

they were routed with tremendous loss. Megara was saved, and

the energy of the Athenians had been most splendidly

established.

{1578}

In attestation of it the sepulchral pillars were erected in

the Ceramicus, on which were inscribed the names of the

Athenian soldiers who had fallen in one and the same year (Ol.

lxxx 3; B. C. 458-7) off Cyprus, in Egypt, Phœicia, Halieis,

Ægina, and Megara. A fragment of this remarkable historical

document is preserved to this day. While thus many years'

accumulation of combustible materials had suddenly broken out

into a flame of the fiercest war in Central Greece, new

complications also arose in the north. The Thebans, who had

suffered so deep a humiliation, believed the time to have

arrived when the events of the past were forgotten, and when

they could attain to new importance and power. In opposition

to them the Phocians put forth their strength. … After the

dissolution of the Hellenic Confederation, and the calamities

which had befallen the Spartans, the Phocians thought they

might venture an attack upon the Dorian tetrapolis, in order

to extend their frontiers in this direction. … For Sparta it

was a point of honor not to desert the primitive communities

of the Dorian race. She roused herself to a vigorous effort,

and, notwithstanding all her losses and the continuance of the

war in Messenia, was able to send 11,500 men of her own troops

and those of the confederates across the Isthmus before the

Athenians had time to place any obstacles in their way [B. C.

457]. The Phocians were forced to relinquish their conquests.

But when the Spartan troops were about to return home across

the Isthmus they found the mountain-passes occupied by Athens,

and the Gulf of Corinth made equally insecure by the presence

of hostile ships. Nothing remained for the Lacedæmonians but

to march into Bœotia, where their presence was welcome to

Thebes. They entered the valley of the Asopus, and encamped in

the territory of Tanagra, not far from the frontiers of

Attica. Without calculating the consequences, the Athenians

had brought themselves into an extremely dangerous situation.

… Their difficulties increased when, contemporaneously, evil

signs of treasonable plots made their appearance in the

interior of the city. …

See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

Thus, then, it was now necessary to contend simultaneously

against foes within and foes without, to defend the

constitution as well as the independence of the state. Nor was

the question merely as to an isolated attack and a transitory

danger; for the conduct of the Spartans in Bœotia clearly

showed that it was now their intention to restore to power

Thebes … because they were anxious to have in the rear of

Athens a state able to stop the extension of the Attic power

in Central Greece. This intention could be best fulfilled by

supporting Thebes in the subjugation of the other Bœotian

cities. For this purpose the Peloponnesians had busily

strengthened the Theban, i. e. the oligarchical party, in the

whole of the country, and encircled Thebes itself with new

fortifications. Thebes was from a country town to become a

great city, an independent fortified position, and a base for

the Peloponnesian cause in Central Greece. Hence Athens could

not have found herself threatened by a more dangerous

complication. The whole civic army accordingly took the field,

amounting, together with the Argives, and other allies, to

14,000 men, besides a body of Thessalian cavalry. In the low

ground by the Asopus below Tanagra the armies met. An arduous

and sanguinary struggle ensued, in which for the first time

Athens and Sparta mutually tested their powers in a regular

battle. For a long time the result was doubtful; till in the

very thick of the battle the cavalry went over to the enemy,

probably at the instigation of the Laconian party. This act of

treason decided the day in favor of Sparta, although patriotic

Athenians would never consent to count this among the battles

lost by Athens. The Spartans were far from fulfilling the

expectations of the party of the Oligarchs. As soon as they

knew that the passes of the Isthmus were once more open, they

took their departure, towards the fall of the year, through

Megara, making this little country suffer for its defection by

the devastation of its territory. … They reckoned upon

Thebes being for the present strong enough to maintain herself

against her neighbors; for ulterior offensive operations

against Athens, Tanagra was to serve as a base. The plan was

good, and the conjuncture of affairs favorable. But whatever

the Spartans did, they did only by halves: they concluded a

truce for four months, and quitted the ground. The Athenians,

on the other hand, had no intention of allowing a menacing

power to establish itself on the frontiers of their country.

Without waiting for the return of the fair season, they

crossed Mount Parnes two months after the battle, before any

thoughts of war were entertained in Bœotia; Myronides, who was

in command, defeated the Theban army which was to defend the

valley of the Asopus, near Œnophyta. This battle with one blow

put an end to all the plans of Thebes; the walls of Tanagra

were razed. Myronides continued his march from town to town;

everywhere the existing governments were overthrown, and

democratic constitutions established with the help of Attic

partisans. … Thus, after a passing humiliation, Athens was

soon more powerful than ever, and her sway extended as far as

the frontiers of the Phocians. Nay, during the same campaign

she extended her military dominion as far as Locris. …

Meanwhile the Æginetans also were gradually losing their power

of resistance. For nine months they had resisted the Attic

squadron. … Now their strength was exhausted; and the proud

island of the Æacidæ, which Pindar had sung as the mother of

the men who in the glorious rivalry of the festive games shone

out before all other Hellenes, had to bow down before the

irresistible good fortune of the Athenians, and was forced to

pull down her walls, to deliver up her vessels of war, and

bind herself to the payment of tribute. Contemporaneously with

this event, the two arms of walls [at ATHENS] … between the

upper and lower town were completed. Athens was now placed

beyond the fear of any attack. … The Peloponnesian

confederation was shaken to its very foundations; and Sparta

was still let and hindered by the Messenian revolt, while the

Athenians were able freely to dispose of their military and

naval forces."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 3, chapter 2 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

G. W. Cox,

History of Greece,

book 2, chapter 9 (volume 2).

Thucydides,

Peloponnesian War

(translated by Jowett),

book 1, sections 107-108.

{1579}

GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

Quarrel of Delphians and Phocians.

Interference of Sparta and Athens.

Bœotian revolution.

Defeat of Athenians at Coroneia.

Revolt of Eubœa and Megara.

The Thirty Years Truce.

In 449 B. C. "on occasion of a dispute between the Delphians

and the Phocians as to which should have the care of the

temple and its treasures, the Lacedæmonians sent an army, and

gave them to the former; but as soon as they were gone,

Pericles led thither an Athenian army, and put the Phocians in

possession. Of this the Lacedæmonians took no notice. The

right of Promanty, or first consulting the oracle, which had

been given to Sparta by the Delphians, was now assigned to

Athens by the Phocians; and this honor was probably the cause

of the interference of both states. As the Athenians had given

the upper hand to the democratic party in Bœotia, there was of

course a large number of the opposite party in exile. These

had made themselves masters of Orchomenus, Chæroneia, and some

other places, and if not checked in time, might greatly

endanger the Athenian influence. Tolmidas, therefore, led an

army and took and garrisoned Chæroneia; but, as he was

returning, he was attacked at Coroneia by the exiles from

Orchomenus, joined by those of Eubœa and their other friends.

Tolmidas fell, and his troops were all slain or made

prisoners. (Ol. 83, 2.) [B. C. 447.] The Athenians, fearing a

general war, agreed to a treaty, by which, on their prisoners

being restored, they evacuated Bœotia. The exiles returned to

their several towns, and things were placed on their old

footing. … Eubœa was now (Ol. 83, 3) [B. C. 446] in revolt:

and while Pericles was at the head of an army reducing it, the

party in Megara adverse to Athens rose and massacred all the

Athenian garrisons except that of Nisæa. Corinthians,

Sicyonians, and Epidaurians came to their aid: and the

Peloponnesians, led by one of the Spartan kings, entered and

wasted the plain of Eleusis. Pericles led back his army from

Eubœa, but the enemy was gone; he then returned and reduced

that island, and having expelled the people of Hestiæa, gave

their lands to Athenian colonists; and the Athenians, being

unwilling to risk the chance of war with the Dorian

confederacy, gladly formed (Ol. 83, 4) [B. C. 445] a truce for

thirty years, surrendering Nisæa and Pegæ, and withdrawing a

garrison which they had in Trœzen, and ceasing to interfere in

Achaia."

T. Keightley,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 1.

"The Athenians saw themselves compelled to give up their

possessions in Peloponnesus, especially Achaia, as well as

Trœzene and Pagæ, an important position for their

communication with the peninsula. Even Nisæa was abandoned.

Yet these losses, sensibly as they affected their influence

upon the Grecian continent, were counterbalanced by a

concession still more significant, the acknowledgment of the

Delian League. It was left open to states and cities which

were members of neither confederacy to join either at

pleasure. These events happened in Ol. 83,3 (B. C. 445)—the

revolt of Megara and Eubœa, the invasion of Pleistoanax, the

re-conquest of Eubœa, and the conclusion of the treaty, which

assumed the form of an armistice for thirty years. Great

importance must be attributed to this settlement, as involving

an acknowledgment which satisfied both parties and did justice

to the great interests at stake on either side. If Athens

renounced some of her possessions, the sacrifice was

compensated by the fact that Sparta recognized the existence

of the naval supremacy of Athens, and the basis on which it

rested. We may perhaps assume that the compromise between

Pericles and Pleistoanax was the result of the conviction felt

by both these leading men that a fundamental dissociation of

the Peloponnesian from the Delian league was a matter of

necessity. The Spartans wished to be absolutely supreme in the

one, and resigned the other to the Athenians."

L. von Ranke,

Universal History:

The Oldest Historical Group of Nations and the Greeks,

chapter 7, section 2.

ALSO IN:

Sir E. B. Lytton,

Athens: Its Rise and Fall,

book 5, chapter 1.

GREECE: B. C. 445-431.

Splendor of Athens and greatness of the Athenian Empire under

the rule of Pericles.

See ATHENS: B. C. 445-431.

GREECE: B. C. 440.

Subjugation of revolted Samos by the Athenians.

Spartan interference prevented by Corinth.

See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

GREECE: B. C. 435-432.

Causes of the Peloponnesian War.

"In B. C. 431 the war broke out between Athens and the

Peloponnesian League, which, after twenty-seven years, ended

in the ruin of the Athenian empire. It began through a quarrel

between Corinth and Kerkyra [or Korkyra, or Corcyru], in which

Athens assisted Kerkyra. A congress was held at Sparta;

Corinth and other States complained of the conduct of Athens,

and war was decided on. The real cause of the war was that

Sparta and its allies were jealous of the great power that

Athens had gained. A far greater number of Greek States were

engaged in this war than had ever been engaged in a single

undertaking before. States that had taken no part in the

Persian war were now fighting on one side or the other. Sparta

was an oligarchy, and the friend of the nobles everywhere;

Athens was a democracy, and the friend of the common people;

so that the war was to some extent a struggle between these

classes all over Greece."

C. A. Fyffe,

History of Greece (History Primer),

chapter 5.

"The Peloponnesian War was a protracted struggle, and attended

by calamities such as Hellas had never known within a like

period of time. Never were so many cities captured and

depopulated—some by Barbarians, others by Hellenes themselves

fighting against one another; and several of them after their

capture were re-peopled by strangers. Never were exile and

slaughter more frequent, whether in the war or brought about

by civil strife. … There were earthquakes unparalleled in

their extent and fury, and eclipses of the sun more numerous

than are recorded to have happened in any former age; there

were also in some places great droughts causing famines, and

lastly the plague which did immense harm and destroyed numbers

of the people. All these calamities fell upon Hellas

simultaneously with the war, which began when the Athenians

and Peloponnesians violated the thirty years' truce concluded

by them after the recapture of Euboea. Why they broke it and

what were the grounds of quarrel I will first set forth, that

in time to come no man may be at a loss to know what was the

origin of this great war. The real though unavowed cause I

believe to have been the growth of the Athenian power, which

terrified the Lacedaemonians and forced them into war."

Thucydides,

History

(translated by Jowett),

book 1, section 23.

The quarrel between Corinth and Korkyra, out of which, as an

immediate excitement, the Peloponnesian War grew, concerned

"the city of Epidamnus, known afterwards, in the Roman times,

as Dyrrachium, hard by the modern Durazzo—a colony founded by

the Korkyreans on the coast of Illyria, in the Ionic gulf,

considerably to the north of their own island."

{1580}

The oligarchy of Epidamnus, driven out by the people, had

allied themselves with the neighboring Illyrians and were

harassing the city. Korkyra refused aid to the latter when

appealed to, but Corinth (of which Korkyra was itself a

colony) promptly rendered help. This involved Corinth and

Korkyra in hostilities, and Athens gave support to the latter.

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

volume 3, book 4.

ALSO IN:

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapters 19-30.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapters 47-48 (volume 5).

GREECE: B. C. 432.

Great Sea-fight of the Corinthians

with the Korkyrians and Athenians.

Revolt of Potidæa.

"Although Korkyra became the ally of Athens, the force sent to

her aid was confined to the small number of ten ships, for the

express purpose of making it clear to the Corinthians that no

aggressive measures were intended; and the generals received

precise instructions to remain strictly neutral unless the

Corinthians should attempt to effect a landing either on

Korkyra or on any Korkyraian settlements. The Corinthians lost

no time in bringing the quarrel to an issue. With a fleet of

150 ships, of which 60 were furnished by their allies, they

sailed to the harbor of Cheimerion near the lake through which

the river Acheron finds its way into the sea about thirty

miles to the east of the southernmost promontory of Korkyra.

The conflict which ensued exhibited a scene of confusion which

the Athenian seamen probably regarded with infinite contempt.

After a hard struggle the Korkyraians routed the right wing of

the enemy's fleet, and chasing it to its camp on shore, lost

time in plundering it and burning the tents. For this folly

they paid a terrible price. The remainder of the Korkyraian

fleet, borne down by sheer force of numbers, was put to

flight, and probably saved from utter ruin only by the open

interference of the Athenians, who now dashed into the fight

without scruple, and came into direct conflict with the

Corinthians. The latter were now resolved to press their

advantage to the utmost. Sailing through the enemy's ships,

they applied themselves to the task not of taking prizes, but

of indiscriminate slaughter, to which not a few of their own

people fell victims. After this work of destruction, they

conveyed their disabled ships with their dead to Sybota, and,

still unwearied, advanced again to the attack, although it was

now late in the day. Their Paian, or battle cry, had already

rung through the air, when they suddenly backed water. Twenty

Athenian ships had come into sight, and the Corinthians,

supposing them to be only the vanguard of a larger force,

hastily retreated. The Korkyraians, ignorant of the cause of

this movement, marvelled at their departure: but the darkness

was now closing in, and they also withdrew to their own

ground. So ended the greatest sea-fight in which Hellenes had

thus far contended not with barbarians but with their own

kinsfolk. On the following day the Korkyraians sailed to

Sybota with such of their ships as were still fit for service,

supported by the thirty Athenian ships. But the Corinthians,

far from wishing to come to blows with the newcomers, were

anxious rather for their own safety. Concluding that the

Athenians now regarded the Thirty Years' Truce as broken, they

were afraid of being forcibly hindered by them in their

homeward voyage. It became necessary therefore to learn what

they meant to do. The answer of the Athenians was plain and

decisive. They did not mean to break the truce, and the

Corinthians might go where they pleased, so long as they did

not go to Korkyra or to any city or settlement belonging to

her. … Upwards of a thousand prisoners had fallen into the

hands of the Corinthians. Of these 250 were conveyed to

Corinth, and treated with the greatest kindness and care. Like

the Athenians, the Corinthians were acting only from a regard

to their own interests. Their object was to send these

prisoners back to Korkyra, nominally under pledge to pay a

heavy ransom for their freedom, but having really covenanted

to put down the Demos, and thus to insure the hearty alliance

of Korkyra with Corinth. These men returned home to stir up

the most savage seditions that ever disgraced an Hellenic

city.

G. W. Cox,

General History of Greece,

book 3, chapter 1.

"The evils of this imprudent interference of the Athenians

began now to be seen. In consequence of the Corcyrian

alliance, the Athenians issued an order to Potidæa, a

Macedonian town acknowledging their supremacy, to demolish its

walls; to send back certain officers whom they had received

from Corinth, and to give hostages for their good conduct.

Potidæa, although an ally of Athens, had originally been a

colony of Corinth, and thus arose the jealousy which

occasioned these harsh and peremptory orders. Symptoms of

universal hostility to Athens now appeared in the states

around. The Corinthians and their allies were much irritated;

the oppressed Potidæans were strongly instigated to revolt;

and Perdiccas, king of Macedon, who had some time since been

at open war with the Athenians, now gladly seized the

opportunity to distress them, by exciting and assisting the

malcontents. The Potidæans, however, deputed ambassadors to

Athens to deprecate the harsh orders which had been sent them;

but in the mean time to prepare for the worst, they also sent

messengers to Sparta entreating support, where they met

deputies from Corinth and Megara. By these loud and general

complaints Sparta was at length roused to head the conspiracy

against Athens, and the universal flames of war shortly

afterwards broke forth throughout Greece." The revolt of

Potidæa followed immediately; the Corinthians placed a strong

force in the town, under Aristeus, and the Athenians sent an

army under Phormion to lay siege to it.

Early History of Greece

(Enc. Metropolitana),

page 283.

GREECE: B. C. 432-431.

Charges brought by Corinth against Athens.

The hearing and the Congress at Sparta.

Decision for war.

Theban attack on Platæa.

The Peloponnesian War begun.

The Corinthians "invited deputies from the other states of the

confederacy to meet them at Sparta, and there charged the

Athenians with having broken the treaty, and trampled on the

rights of the Peloponnesians. The Spartans held an assembly to

receive the complaints of their allies, and to discuss the

question of peace or war. Here the Corinthians were seconded

by several other members of the confederacy, who had also

wrongs to complain of against Athens, and urged the Spartans

for redress. … It happened that at this time Athenian

envoys, who had been sent on other business, were still in

Sparta.

{1581}

They desired permission to attend and address the assembly.

… When the strangers had all been heard, they were desired

to withdraw, that the assembly might deliberate. The feeling

against the Athenians was universal; most voices were for

instant war. … The deputies of the allies were then informed

of the resolution which the assembly had adopted, and that a

general congress of the confederacy would shortly be summoned

to deliberate on the same question, in order that war, if

decided on, might be decreed by common consent. … The

congress decided on the war; but the confederacy was totally

unprepared for commencing hostilities, and though the

necessary preparations were immediately begun and vigorously

prosecuted, nearly a year elapsed before it was ready to bring

an army into the field. In the meantime embassies were sent to

Athens with various remonstrances and demands, for the double

purpose of amusing the Athenians with the prospect of peace,

and of multiplying pretexts for war. An attempt was made, not,

perhaps, so foolish as it was insolent, to revive the popular

dread of the curse which had been supposed to hang over the

Alcmæonids. The Athenians were called upon, in the name of the

gods, to banish all who remained among them of that

blood-stained race. If they had complied with this demand,

they must have parted with Pericles, who, by the mother's

side, was connected with the Alcmæonids. This, indeed, was not

expected; but it was hoped that the refusal might afford a

pretext to his enemies at Athens for treating him as the

author of the war. The Athenians retorted by requiring the

Spartans to expiate the pollution with which they had profaned

the sanctuary of Tænarus, by dragging from it some Helots who

had taken refuge there, and that of Athene, by the death of

Pausanias. … Still, war had been only threatened, not

declared; and peaceful intercourse, though not wholly free

from distrust, was still kept up between the subjects of the

two confederacies. But early in the following spring, B. C.

431, in the fifteenth year of the Thirty Years' Truce, an

event took place which closed all prospects of peace,

precipitated the commencement of war, imbittered the animosity

of the contending parties, and prepared some of the most

tragical scenes of the ensuing history. In the dead of night

the city of Platæa was surprised by a body of 300 Thebans,

commanded by two of the great officers called Bœotarchs. They

had been invited by a Platæan named Nauclides, and others of

the same party, who hoped, with the aid of the Thebans, to rid

themselves of their political opponents, and to break off the

relation in which their city was standing to Athens, and

transfer its alliance to Thebes. The Thebans, foreseeing that

a general war was fast approaching, felt the less scruple in

strengthening themselves by this acquisition, while it might

be made with little cost and risk. The gates were unguarded,

as in time of peace, and one of them was secretly opened to

the invaders, who advanced without interruption into the

marketplace. … The Platæans, who were not in the plot,

imagined the force by which their city had been surprised to

be much stronger than it really was, and, as no hostile

treatment was offered to them, remained quiet, and entered

into a parley with the Thebans. In the course of these

conferences they gradually discovered that the number of the

enemy was small, and might be easily overpowered. … Having

barricaded the streets with wagons, and made such other

preparations as they thought necessary, a little before

daybreak they suddenly fell upon the Thebans. The little band

made a vigorous defence, and twice or thrice repulsed the

assailants; but as these still returned to the charge, and

were assisted by the women and slaves, who showered stones and

tiles from the houses on the enemy, all, at the same time,

raising a tumultuous clamour, and a heavy rain increased the

confusion caused by the darkness, they at length lost their

presence of mind, and took to flight. But most were unable to

find their way in the dark through a strange town, and several

were slain as they wandered to and fro in search of an outlet.

… The main body, which had kept together, entered a large

building adjoining the walls, having mistaken its gates, which

they found open, for those of the town, and were shut in. The

Platæans at first thought of setting fire to the building; but

at length the men within, as well as the rest of the Thebans,

who were still wandering up and down the streets, surrendered

at discretion. Before their departure from Thebes it had been

concerted that as large a force as could be raised should

march the same night to support them. The distance between the

two places was not quite nine miles, and these troops were

expected to reach the gates of Platæa before the morning; but

the Asopus, which crossed their road, had been swollen by the

rain, and the state of the ground and the weather otherwise

retarded them, so that they were still on their way when they

heard of the failure of the enterprise. Though they did not

know the fate of their countrymen, as it was possible that

some might have been taken prisoners, they were at first

inclined to seize as many of the Platæans as they could find

without the walls, and to keep them as hostages. … The

Thebans afterward alleged that they had received a promise,

confirmed by an oath, that, on condition of their retiring

from the Platæan territory, the prisoners should be released;

and Thucydides seems disposed to believe this statement. The

Platæans denied that they had pledged themselves to spare the

lives of the prisoners, unless they should come to terms on

the whole matter with the Thebans; but it does not seem likely

that, after ascertaining the state of the case, the Thebans

would have been satisfied with so slight a security. It is

certain, however, that they retired, and that the Platæans, as

soon as they had transported their movable property out of the

country into the town, put to death all the prisoners—

amounting to 180, and including Eurymachus, the principal

author of the enterprise, and the man who possessed the

greatest influence in Thebes. On the first entrance of the

Thebans into Platæa, a messenger had been despatched to Athens

with the intelligence, and the Athenians had immediately laid

all the Bœotians in Attica under arrest; and when another

messenger brought the news of the victory gained by the

Platæans, they sent a herald to request that they would

reserve the prisoners for the disposal of the Athenians. The

herald came too late to prevent the execution; and the

Athenians, foreseeing that Platæa would stand in great need of

defence, sent a body of troops to garrison it, supplied it

with provisions, and removed the women and children and all

persons unfit for service in a siege.

{1582}

After this event it was apparent that the quarrel could only

be decided by arms. Platæa was so intimately united with

Athens, that the Athenians felt the attack which had been made

on it as an outrage offered to themselves, and prepared for

immediate hostilities. Sparta, too, instantly sent notice to

all her allies to get their contingents ready by an appointed

day for the invasion of Attica."

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 19 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

Thucydides,

History,

books 1-2.

GREECE: B. C. 431-429.

The Peloponnesian War: How Hellas was divided.

The opposing camps.

Peloponnesian invasions of Attica.

The Plague at Athens.

Death of Pericles.

Surrender of Potidæa to the Athenians.

"All Hellas was excited by the coming conflict between her two

chief cities. … The feeling of mankind was strongly on the

side of the Lacedaemonians; for they professed to be the

liberators of Hellas. … The general indignation against the

Athenians was intense; some were longing to be delivered from

them, others fearful of falling under their sway. … The

Lacedaemonian confederacy included all the Peloponnesians with

the exception of the Argives and the Achaeans—they were both

neutral; only the Achaeans of Pellene took part with the

Lacedaemonians at first; afterwards all the Achaeans joined

them. Beyond the borders of the Peloponnese, the Megarians,

Phocians, Locrians, Boeotians, Ambraciots, Leucadians, and

Anactorians were their allies. Of these the Corinthians,

Megarians, Sicyonians, Pellenians, Eleans, Ambraciots, and

Leucadians provided a navy, the Boeotians, Phocians, and

Locrians furnished cavalry, the other states only infantry.

The allies of the Athenians were Chios, Lesbos, Plataea, the

Messenians of Naupactus, the greater part of Acarnania,

Corcyra, Zacynthus, and cities in many other countries which

were their tributaries. There was the maritime region of

Caria, the adjacent Dorian peoples, Ionia, the Hellespont, the

Thracian coast, the islands that lie to the east within the

line of Peloponnesus and Crete, including all the Cyclades

with the exception of Melos and Thera. Chios, Lesbos and

Corcyra furnished a navy; the rest, land forces and money.

Thus much concerning the two confederacies, and the character

of their respective forces. Immediately after the affair at

Plataea the Lacedaemonians determined to invade Attica, and

sent round word to their Peloponnesian and other allies,

bidding them equip troops and provide all things necessary for

a foreign expedition. The various states made their

preparations as fast as they could, and at the appointed time,

with contingents numbering two-thirds of the forces of each,

met at the Isthmus." Then followed the invasion of Attica, the

siege of Athens, the plague in the city, the death of

Pericles, and the success won by the indomitable Athenians, at

Potidaea, in the midst of their sore distress.

Thucydides,

History

(translated by Jowett),

book 2, sections 8-70 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

E. Abbott,

Pericles,

chapters 13-15.

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

GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

The Peloponnesian War:

Siege, capture and destruction of Platæa.

"In the third spring of the war, the Peloponnesians changed

their plan of offence. By the invasion and ravage of Attica

for two following summers, tho much injury had been done to

the Athenians, little advantage had accrued to themselves: the

booty was far from paying the expense of the expedition; the

enemy, it was found, could not be provoked to risk a battle,

and the great purpose of the war was little forwarded. The

Peloponnesians were yet very unequal to attempt naval

operations of any consequence. Of the continental dependencies

of Athens none was so open to their attacks, none so

completely excluded from naval protection, none so likely by

its danger to superinduce that war of the field which they

wished, as Platæa. Against that town therefore it was

determined to direct the principal effort. … Under the

command still of Archidamus, the confederate army accordingly

entered the Platæid, and ravage was immediately begun. … The

town was small, as may be judged from the very small force

which sufficed for an effectual garrison; only 400 Platæans,

with 80 Athenians. There were besides in the place 110 women

to prepare provisions, and no other person free or slave. The

besieging army, composed of the flower of the Peloponnesian

youth, was numerous. The first operation was to surround the

town with a palisade, which might prevent any ready egress;

the neighboring forest of Cithæron supplying materials. Then,

in a chosen spot, ground was broken, according to the modern

phrase, for making approaches. The business was to fill the

town-ditch, and against the wall to form a mound, on which a

force sufficient for assault might ascend. … Such was at

that time the inartificial process of a siege. Thucydides

appears to have been well aware that it did no credit to the

science of his age. … To oppose this mode of attack, the

first measure of the besieged was to raise, on that part of

their wall against which the mound was forming, a strong

wooden frame, covered in front with leather and hides; and,

within this, to build a rampart with bricks from the

neighboring houses. The wooden frame bound the whole, and kept

it firm to a considerable height: the covering of hides

protected both work and workmen against weapons discharged

against them, especially fiery arrows. But the mound still

rising as the superstructure on the wall rose, and this

superstructure becoming unavoidably weaker with increasing

height, while the mound was liable to no counterbalancing

defect, it was necessary for the besieged to devise other

opposition. Accordingly they broke through the bottom of

their wall, where the mound bore against it, and brought in

the earth. The Peloponnesians, soon aware of this, instead of

loose earth, repaired their mound with clay or mud inclosed in

baskets. This requiring more labor to remove, the besieged

undermined the mound; and thus, for a long time unperceived,

prevented it from gaining height. Still, however, fearing that

the efforts of their scanty numbers would be overborne by the

multitude of hands which the besiegers could employ, they had

recourse to another device. Within their town-wall they built,

in a semilunar form, a second wall, connected with the first

at the extremities. These extended, on either side, beyond the

mound; so that should the enemy possess themselves of the

outer wall, their work would be to be renewed in a far less

favorable situation. … A ram, advanced upon the

Peloponnesian mound, battered the superstructure on the

Platæan rampart, and shook it violently; to the great alarm of

the garrison, but with little farther effect.

{1583}

Other machines of the same kind were employed against

different parts of the wall itself, but to yet less purpose.

… No means however were neglected by the besiegers that

either approved practice suggested, or their ingenuity could

devise, to promote their purpose; yet, after much of the

summer consumed, they found every effort of their numerous

forces so completely baffled by the vigilance, activity, and

resolution of the little garrison, that they began to despair

of succeeding by assault. Before however they would recur to

the tedious method of blockade, they determined to try one

more experiment, for which their numbers, and the neighboring

woods of Cithæron, gave them more than ordinary facility.

Preparing a very great quantity of faggots, they filled with

them the town-ditch in the parts adjoining to their mound, and

disposed piles in other parts around the place, wherever

ground or any other circumstance gave most advantage. On the

faggots they put sulphur and pitch, and then set all on fire.

The conflagration was such as was never before known, says

Thucydides, to have been prepared and made by the hands or

men. … But fortunately for the garrison, a heavy rain,

brought on by a thunderstorm without wind, extinguished the

fire, and relieved them from an attack far more formidable

than any they had before experienced. This attempt failing,

the Peloponnesians determined immediately to reduce the siege

to a blockade. … To the palisade, which already surrounded

the town, a contravallation was added; with a double ditch,

one without, and one within. A sufficient body of troops being

then appointed to the guard of these works, the Bœotians

undertaking one half, the other was allotted to detachments

drafted from the troops of every state of the confederacy,

and, a little after the middle of September, the rest of the

army was dismissed for the winter."

W. Mitford,

History of Greece,

chapter 15, section 1 (volume 2).

When the blockade had endured for more than a year, and food

in the city grew scarce, about half of the defending force

made a bold dash for liberty, one stormy night, scaled the

walls of circumvallation, and escaped. The remainder held out

until some time in the next year, when they surrendered and

were all put to death, the city being destroyed. The families

of the Platæans had been sheltered at Athens before the siege

began.

Thucydides,

History,

books 2-3.

GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

The Peloponnesian War:

Phormio's sea-fights.

Revolt of Lesbos.

Siege and capture of Mitylene.

The ferocious decree of Cleon reversed.

"At the same time that Archidamus laid siege to Plataea, a

small Peloponnesian expedition, under a Spartan officer named

Cnemus, had crossed the mouth of the Gulf of Corinth, and

joined the land forces of the Leucadians and Ambraciots. They

were bent on conquering the Acarnanians and the Messenians of

Naupactus, the only continental allies whom Athens possessed

in Western Greece. … When Cnemus had been joined by the

troops of Leucas and the other Corinthian towns, and had

further strengthened himself by summoning to his standard a

number of the predatory barbarian tribes of Epirus, he

advanced on Stratus, the chief city of Acarnania. At the same

time a squadron of Peloponnesian ships collected at Corinth,

and set sail down the gulf towards Naupactus. The only

Athenian force in these waters consisted of twenty galleys

under an able officer named Phormio, who was cruising off the

straits of Rhium, to protect Naupactus and blockade the

Corinthian Gulf. Both by land and by sea the operations of the

Peloponnesians miscarried miserably. Cnemus collected a very

considerable army, but as he sent his men forward to attack

Stratus by three separate roads, he exposed them to defeat in

detail. … By sea the defeat of the Peloponnesians was even

more disgraceful; the Corinthian admirals Machaon and

Isocrates were so scared, when they came across the squadron

of Phormio at the mouth of the gulf, that, although they

mustered 47 ships to his 20, they took up the defensive.

Huddling together in a circle, they shrank from his attack,

and allowed themselves to be hustled and worried into the

Achaian harbour of Patrae, losing several ships in their

flight. Presently reinforcements arrived; the Peloponnesian

fleet was raised to no less than 77 vessels, and three Spartan

officers were sent on board, to compel the Corinthian

admirals, who had behaved so badly, to do their best in

future. The whole squadron then set out to hunt down Phormio.

They found him with his 20 ships coasting along the Aetolian

shore towards Naupactus, and at once set out in pursuit. The

long chase separated the larger fleet into scattered knots,

and gave the fighting a disconnected and irregular character.

While the rear ships of Phormio's squadron were compelled to

run on shore a few miles outside Naupactus, the 11 leading

vessels reached the harbour in safety. Finding that he was now

only pursued by about a score of the enemy—the rest having

stayed behind to take possession of the stranded Athenian

vessels—Phormio came boldly out of port again. His 11

vessels took 6, and sunk one of their pursuers; and then,

pushing on westward, actually succeeded in recapturing most of

the 9 ships which had been lost in the morning. This

engagement, though it had no great results, was considered the

most daring feat performed by the Athenian navy during the

whole war. … The winter passed uneventfully, and the war

seemed as far as ever from showing any signs of producing a

definite result. But although the Spartan invasion of 428 B.

C. had no more effect than those of the preceding years, yet

in the late summer there occurred an event so fraught with

evil omens for Athens, as to threaten the whole fabric of her

empire. For the first time since the commencement of

hostilities, an important subject state made an endeavour to

free itself by the aid of the Spartan fleet. Lesbos was one of

the two Aegean islands which still remained free from tribute,

and possessed a considerable war-navy. Among its five towns

Mitylene was the chief, and far exceeded the others in wealth

and resources. It was governed by an oligarchy, who had long

been yearning to revolt, and had made careful preparation by

accumulating war-like stores and enlisting foreign

mercenaries. … The whole island except Methymna, where a

democracy ruled, rose in arms, and determined to send for aid

to Sparta. The Athenians at once despatched against Mitylene a

squadron of 40 ships under Cleïppides, which had just been

equipped for a cruise in Peloponnesian waters. This force had

an engagement with the Lesbian fleet, and drove it back into

the harbour of Mitylene.

{1584}

To gain time for assistance from across the Aegean to arrive,

the Lesbians now pretended to be anxious to surrender, and

engaged Cleïppides in a long and fruitless negotiation, while

they were repeating their demands at Sparta. But at last the

Athenian grew suspicious, established a close blockade of

Mitylene by sea, and landed a small force of hoplites to hold

a fortified camp on shore. … Believing the revolt of the

Lesbians to be the earnest of a general rising of all the

vassals of Athens, the Peloponnesians determined to make a

vigorous effort in their favour. The land contingents of the

various states were summoned to the Isthmus—though the

harvest was now ripe, and the allies were loath to leave their

reaping—while it was also determined to haul over the

Corinthian Isthmus the fleet which had fought against Phormio,

and then to despatch it to relieve Mitylene. … The Athenians

were furious at the idea that their vassals were now about to

be stirred up to revolt, and strained every nerve to defend

themselves. While the blockade of Mitylene was kept up, and

100 galleys cruised in the Aegean to intercept any succours

sent to Lesbos, another squadron of 100 ships sailed round

Peloponnesus and harried the coastland with a systematic

ferocity that surpassed any of their previous doings. To

complete the crews of the 250 ships now afloat and in active

service proved so great a drain on the military force of

Athens, that not only the Thetes but citizens of the higher

classes were drafted on shipboard. Nevertheless the effect

which they designed by this display of power was fully

produced. To defend their own harvests the confederates who

had met at the Isthmus went homewards, while the dismay at the

strength of the Athenian fleet was so great that the plan of

sending naval aid to Lesbos was put off for the present. …

All through the winter of 428-7 B. C. the blockade of Mitylene

was kept up, though its maintenance proved a great drain on

the resources of Athens. On the land side a considerable force

of hoplites under Paches strengthened the troops already on

the spot, and made it possible to wall the city in with lines

of circumvallation. … When the spring of 427 B. C. arrived,

the Spartans determined to make a serious attempt to send aid

to Lesbos; but the fear of imperiling all their naval

resources in a single expedition kept them from despatching a

fleet of sufficient size. Only 42 galleys, under an admiral

named Alcidas, were sent forth from Corinth. This squadron

managed to cross the Aegean without meeting the Athenians, by

steering a cautious and circuitous course among the islands.

But so much time was lost on the way, that on arriving off

Embatum in Ionia, Ælia found that Mitylene had surrendered

just seven days before. … Learning the fall of Mitylene, he

made off southward, and, after intercepting many merchant

vessels off the Ionian coast and brutally slaying their crews,

returned to Corinth without having struck a single blow for

the cause of Sparta. Paches soon reduced Antissa, Eresus, and

Pyrrha, the three Lesbian towns which had joined in the revolt

of Mitylene, and was then able to sail home, taking with him

the Laconian general Salaethus, who had been caught in hiding

at Mitylene, together with the other leaders of the revolt.

When the prisoners arrived at Athens Salaethus was at once put

to death without a trial. But the fate of the Lesbians was the

subject of an important and characteristic debate in the

Ecclesia. Led by the demagogue Cleon, the Athenians at first

passed the monstrous resolution that the whole of the

Mitylenaeans, not merely the prisoners at Athens, but every

adult male in the city, should be put to death, and their

wives and families sold as slaves. It is some explanation but

no excuse for this horrible decree that Lesbos had been an

especially favoured ally, and that its revolt had for a moment

put Athens in deadly fear of a general rising of Ionia and

Aeolis. Cleon the leather-seller, the author of this infamous

decree, was one of the statesmen of a coarse and inferior

stamp, whose rise had been rendered possible by the democratic

changes which Pericles had introduced into the state. … On

the eve of the first day of debate the motion of Cleon had

been passed, and a galley sent off to Paches at Mitylene,

bidding him slay all the Lesbians; but on the next morning …

the decree of Cleon was rescinded by a small majority, and a

second galley sent off to stay Paches from the massacre. …

By extraordinary exertions the bearers of the reprieve

contrived to reach Lesbos only a few hours after Paches had

received the first despatch, and before he had time to put it

into execution. Thus the majority of the Mitylenaeans were

saved; but all their leaders and prominent men, not less than

1,000 in number, were put to death. … The land of the

Lesbians was divided into 3,000 lots, of which a tenth was

consecrated to the gods, while the rest were granted out to

Athenian cleruchs, who became the landlords of the old

owners."

C. W. C. Oman,

History of Greece,

chapter 28.

ALSO IN:

Thucydides,

History,

book 2, sections 80-92,

and book 3, sections 1-50.

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 4, chapter 2 (volume 3).

GREECE: B. C. 425.

The Peloponnesian War:

Spartan catastrophe at Sphacteria.

Peace pleaded for and refused by Athens.

In the seventh year of the Peloponnesian War (B. C. 425), the

enterprising Athenian general, Demosthenes, obtained

permission to seize and fortify a harbor on the west coast of

Messenia, with a view to harassing the adjacent Spartan

territory and stirring up revolt among the subjugated

Messenians. The position he secured was the promontory of

Pylus, overlooking the basin now called the Bay of Navarino,

which latter was protected from the sea by the small island of

Sphacteria, stretching across its front. The seizure of Pylus

created alarm in Sparta at once, and vigorous measures were

taken to expel the intruders. The small force of Demosthenes

was assailed, front and rear, by a strong land army and a

powerful Peloponnesian fleet; but he had fortified himself

with skill and stoutly held his ground, waiting for help from

Athens. Meantime his assailants had landed 420 men on the

island of Sphacteria, and these were mostly hoplites, or

heavy-armed soldiers, from the best citizenship of Sparta. In

this situation an Athenian fleet made its sudden and

unexpected appearance, defeated the Peloponnesian fleet

completely, took possession of the harbor and surrounded the

Spartans on Sphacteria with a ring from which there was no

escape. To obtain the release of these citizens the Spartans

were reduced to plead for peace on almost any terms, and

Athens had her opportunity to end the war at that moment with

great advantage to herself. But Cleon, the demagogue,

persuaded the people to refuse peace. The beleaguered hoplites

on Sphacteria were made prisoners by force, and little came of

it in the end.

{1585}

Thucydides,

History,

book 4, sections 2-38.

Pylus remained in the possession of the Athenians until

B. C. 408, when it was retaken by the Spartans.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 52.

ALSO IN:

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 4, chapter 2 (volume 3).

GREECE: B. C. 424-421.

The Peloponnesian War:

Brasidas in Chalcidice.

Athenian defeat at Delium.

A year's Truce.

Renewed hostilities.

Death of Brasidas and Cleon at Amphipolis.

The Peace of Nikias (Nicias).

"About the beginning of 424 B. C. Brasidas did for Sparta what

Demosthenes had done for the Athenians. Just as Demosthenes

had understood that the severest blow which he could inflict

on Sparta was to occupy the coasts of Laconia, so Brasidas

understood that the most effective method of assailing the

Athenians was to arouse the allies to revolution, and by all

means to aid the uprising. But since, from lack of a

sufficient naval force, he could not work on the islands, he

resolved to carry the war to the allied cities of the

Athenians situated on the coast of Macedonia; especially since

Perdikkas, king of Macedonia, the inhabitants of Chalkidike,

and some other districts subject to the Athenians, had sought

the assistance of Sparta, and had asked Brasidas to lead the

undertaking. Sparta permitted his departure, but so little did

she appear disposed to assist him, that she granted him only

700 Helots. In addition to these, however, he succeeded,

through the money sent from Chalkidike, in enrolling about

1,000 men from the Peloponnesus. With this small force of

1,700 hoplites, Brasidas resolved to undertake this

adventurous and important expedition. He started in the spring

of 424, and reached Macedonia through eastern Hellas and

Thessaly. He effected the march with great daring and wisdom,

and on his way he also saved Megara, which was in extreme

danger from the Athenians. Reaching Macedonia and uniting

forces with Perdikkas, Brasidas detached from the Athenians

many cities, promising them liberty from the tyranny they

suffered, and their association in the Peloponnesian alliance

on equal terms. He made good these promises by great military

experience and perfectly honest dealings. In December he

became master of Amphipolis, perhaps the most important of all

the foreign possessions of Athens. The historian Thucydides,

to whom was intrusted the defense of that important town, was

at Thasos when Brasidas surprised it. He hastened to the

assistance of the threatened city, but did not arrive in time

to prevent its capture. Dr. Thirlwall says it does not appear

that human prudence and activity could have accomplished

anything more under the same circumstances; yet his

unavoidable failure proved the occasion of a sentence under

which he spent twenty years of his life in exile, where he

composed his history. … The revolution of the allied cities

in Macedonia astonished the Athenians, who almost at the same

time sustained other misfortunes. Following the advice of

Kleon, instead of directing their main efforts to the

endangered Chalkidike, they decided, about the middle of 424,

to recover Bœotia itself, in conjunction as usual with some

malcontents in the Bœotian towns, who desired to break down

and democratize the oligarchical governments. The undertaking,

however, was not merely unsuccessful, but attended with a

ruinous defeat. A force of 7,000 hoplites [among them,

Socrates, the philosopher—see DELIUM], several hundred

horsemen, and 25,000 light-armed under command of Hippokrates,

took possession of Delium, a spot strongly situated,

overhanging the sea, about five miles from Tanagra, and very

near the Attic confines. But while the Athenians were still

occupied in raising their fortifications, they were suddenly

startled by the sound of the Bœotian pæan, and found

themselves attacked by an army of 7,000 hoplites, 1,000 horse,

and 500 peltasts. The Athenians suffered a complete defeat,

and were driven away with great loss. Such was the change of

affairs which took place in 424 B. C. During the preceding

year they could have ended the war in a manner most

advantageous to them. They did not choose to do so, and were

now constantly defeated. Worse still, the seeds of revolt

spread among the allied cities. The best citizens, among whom

Nikias was a leader, finally persuaded the people that it was

necessary to come to terms of peace, while affairs were yet

undecided. For, although the Athenians had suffered the

terrific defeat near Delium, and had lost Amphipolis and other

cities of Macedonia, they were still masters of Pylos, of

Kythera, of Methone, of Nisæa, and of the Spartans captured in

Sphakteria; so that there was now an equality of advantages

and of losses. Besides, the Lacedæmonians were ever ready to

lay aside the sword in order to regain their men. Again, the

oligarchy in Sparta envied Brasidas, and did not look with

pleasure on his splendid achievements. Lately they had refused

to send him any assistance whatever: The opportunity,

therefore, was advantageous for the conclusion of peace, …

Such were the arguments by which Nikias and his party finally

gained the ascendency over Kleon, and in the beginning of 423

B. C. persuaded the Athenians to enter into an armistice of

one year, within which they hoped to be able to put an end to

the destructive war by a lasting peace. Unfortunately, the

armistice could not be carried out in Chalkidike. The cities

there continued in their rebellion against the Athenians.

Brasidas could not be prevailed upon to leave them unprotected

in the struggle which they had undertaken, relying on his

promises of assistance. The war-like party at Athens, taking

advantage of this, succeeded in frustrating any definite

conditions of peace. On the other hand, the Lacedæmonians,

seeing that the war was continued, sent an ample force to

Brasidas. This army did not succeed in reaching him, because

the king of Macedonia, Perdikkas, had in the meantime become

angered with Brasidas, and persuaded the Thessalians to oppose

the Lacedæmonians in their passage. The year of the armistice

passed, and Kleon renewed his expostulations against the

incompetency of the generals who had the control of affairs in

Chalkidike. … The Athenians decided to forward a new force,

and intrusted its command to Kleon. He therefore, in August,

422 B. C., started from the Peiræus, with 1,200 hoplites, 300

horsemen, a considerable number of allies, and thirty

triremes. Reaching Chalkidike, he engaged in battle against

Brasidas in Amphipolis, suffered a disgraceful defeat, and was

killed while fleeing. Brasidas also ended his short but

glorious career in this battle, dying the death of a hero. The

way in which his memory was honored was the best evidence of

the deep impression that he had made on the Hellenic world.

{1586}

All the allies attended his funeral in arms, and interred him

at the public expense, in front of the market-place of

Amphipolis. … Thus disappeared the two foremost champions of

the war—its good spirit, Brasidas, and its evil, Kleon. The

party of Nikias finally prevailed at Athens, and that general

soon after arranged a conference with King Pleistoanax of

Sparta, who was also anxious for peace. Discussions continued

during the whole autumn and winter after the battle of

Amphipolis, without any actual hostilities on either side.

Finally, at the beginning of the spring of 421 B. C., a peace

of fifty years was agreed upon. The principal conditions of

this peace, known in history as the 'peace of Nikias,' were as

follows:

1. The Lacedæmonians and their allies were to restore

Amphipolis and all the prisoners to the Athenians. They were

further to relinquish to the Athenians Argilus, Stageirus,

Acanthus, Skolus, Olynthus, and Spartolus. But, with the

exception of Amphipolis, these cities were to remain

independent, paying to the Athenians only the usual tribute of

the time of Aristeides.

2. The Athenians should restore to the Lacedæmonians

Koryphasium, Kythera, Methone, Pteleum, and Atalante, with all

the captives in their hands from Sparta or her allies.

3. Respecting Skione, Torone, Sermylus, or any other town in

the possession of Athens, the Athenians should have the right

to adopt such measures as they pleased.

4. The Lacedæmonians and their allies should restore Panaktum

to the Athenians.

When these terms were submitted at Sparta to the consideration

of the allied cities, the majority accepted them. The

Bœotians, Megarians, and Corinthians, however, summarily

refused their consent. The Peloponnesian war was now

considered to be at an end, precisely ten years from its

beginning; Both the combatants came out from it terribly

maimed. Sparta not only did not attain her object—the

emancipation of the Hellenic cities from the tyranny of the

Athenians—but even officially recognized this tyranny, by

consenting that the Athenians should adopt such measures as

they choose toward the allied cities. Besides, Sparta obtained

an ill repute throughout Hellas, because she had abandoned the

Greeks in Chalkidike, who had at her instigation revolted, and

because she had also sacrificed the interests of her principal

allies. … Athens, on the other hand, preserved intact her

supremacy, for which she undertook the struggle. This,

however, was gained at the cost of Attica ravaged, a multitude

of citizens slain, the exhaustion of the treasury, and the

increase of the common hatred."

T. T. Timayenis,

History of Greece,

part 5, chapter 4 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 23 (volume 3).

GREECE: B. C. 421-418.

The Peloponnesian War:

New combinations.

The Argive League against Sparta.

Conflicting alliances of Athens with both.

Rising influence of Alcibiades.

War in Argos.

Spartan victory at Mantinea.

Revolution in Argos.

"All the Spartan allies in Peloponnesus and the Boeotians

refused to join in this treaty [of Nicias]. The latter

concluded with the Athenians only a truce of ten days … ,

probably on condition, that, if no notice was given to the

contrary, it was to be constantly renewed after the lapse of

ten days. With Corinth there existed no truce at all. Some of

the terms of the peace were not complied with, though this was

the case much less on the part of Athens than on that of

Sparta. … The Spartans, from the first, were guilty of

infamous deception, and this immediately gave rise to bitter

feelings. But before matters had come to this, and when the

Athenians were still in the full belief that the Spartans were

honest, all Greece was startled by a treaty of alliance

between Athens and Sparta against their common enemies. This

treaty was concluded very soon after the peace. … The

consequence was, that Sparta suddenly found herself deserted

by all her allies; the Corinthians and Boeotians renounced

her, because they found themselves given over to the

Athenians, and the Boeotians perhaps thought that the

Spartans, if they could but reduce the Eleans to the condition

of Helots, would readily allow Boeotia to be subdued by the

Athenians. Thus Argos found the means of again following a

policy which ever since the time of Cleomenes it had not

ventured to think of, and … became the centre of an alliance

with Mantinea, 'which had always been opposed to the

Lacedaemonians,' and some other Arcadian towns, Achaia, Elis,

and some places of the Acte. The Arcadians had dissolved their

union, the three people of the country had separated

themselves, though sometimes they united again; and thus it

happened that only some of their towns were allied with Argos.

Corinth at first would listen to neither party, and chose to

remain neutral; 'for although for the moment it was highly

exasperated against Sparta, yet it had at all times

entertained a mortal hatred of Argos, and its own interests

drew it towards Sparta.' But when, owing to Sparta's

dishonesty, the affairs on the coasts of Thrace became more

and more complicated, when the towns refused to submit to

Athens, and when it became evident that this was the

consequence of the instigations of Sparta, then the relation

subsisting between the two states became worse also in Greece,

and various negotiations and cavillings ensued. … After much

delay, the Athenians and Spartans were already on the point of

taking up arms against each other; but then they came to the

singular agreement (Olympiad 89, 4), that the Athenians should

retain possession of Pylos, but keep in it only Athenian

troops, and not allow the Helots and Messenians to remain

there. After this the loosened bonds between the Spartans,

Corinthians, and Boeotians, were drawn more closely. The

Boeotians were at length prevailed upon to surrender Panacton

to the Spartans, who now restored it to the Athenians. This

was in accordance with the undoubted meaning of the peace; but

the Boeotians had first destroyed the place, and the Spartans

delivered it to the Athenians only a heap of ruins. The

Athenians justly complained, that this was not an honest

restoration, and that the place ought to have been given back

to them with its fortifications uninjured. The Spartans do not

appear to have had honest intentions in any way. … While

thus the alliance between Athens and Sparta, in the eyes of

the world, still existed, it had in reality ceased and become

an impossibility. Another alliance, however, was formed

between Athens and Argos (Olympiad 89, 4) through the

influence of Alcibiades, who stood in the relation of an

hereditary proxenus to Argos.

{1587}

A more natural alliance than this could not be conceived, and

by it the Athenians gained the Mantineans, Eleans, and other

Peloponnesians over to their side. Alcibiades now exercised a

decisive influence upon the fate of his country. … We

generally conceive Alcibiades as a man whose beauty was his

ornament, and to whom the follies of life were the main thing,

and we forget that part of his character which history reveals

to us. … Thucydides, who cannot be suspected of having been

particularly partial to Alcibiades, most expressly recognises

the fact, that the fate of Athens depended upon him, and that,

if he had not separated his own fate from that of his native

city, at first from necessity, but afterwards of his own

accord, the course of the Peloponnesian war, through his

personal influence alone, would have taken quite a different

direction, and that he alone would have decided it in favour

of Athens. This is, in fact, the general opinion of all

antiquity, and there is no ancient writer of importance who

does not view and estimate him in this light. It is only the

moderns that entertain a derogatory opinion of him, and speak

of him as an eccentric fool, who ought not to be named among

the great statesmen of antiquity. … Alcibiades is quite a

peculiar character; and I know no one in the whole range of

ancient history who might be compared with him, though I have

sometimes thought of Caesar. … Alcibiades was opposed to the

peace of Nicias from entirely personal, perhaps even mean,

motives. … It was on his advice that Athens concluded the

alliance with Argos and Elis. Athens now had two alliances

which were equally binding, and yet altogether opposed to each

other: the one with Sparta, and an equally stringent one with

Argos, the enemy of Sparta. This treaty with Argos, the

Peloponnesians, etc., was extremely formidable to the

Spartans; and they accordingly, for once, determined to act

quickly, before it should be too late. The alliance with

Argos, however, did not confer much real strength upon Athens,

for the Argives were lazy, and Elis did not respect them,

whence the Spartans had time again to unite themselves more

closely with Corinth, Boeotia, and Megara. When, therefore,

the war between the Spartans and Argives broke out, and the

former resolutely took the field, Alcibiades persuaded the

Athenians to send succour to the Argives, and thus the peace

with Sparta was violated in an unprincipled manner. But still

no blow was struck between Argos and Sparta. … King Agis had

set out with a Spartan army, but concluded a truce with the

Argives (Olympiad 90, 2); this, however, was taken very ill at

Sparta, and the Argive commanders who had concluded it were

censured by the people and magistrates of Argos. Soon

afterwards the war broke out again, and, when the Athenian

auxiliaries appeared, decided acts of hostility commenced. The

occasion was an attempt of the Mantineans to subdue Tegea: the

sad condition of Greece became more particularly manifest in

Arcadia, by the divisions which tore one and the same nation

to pieces. The country was distracted by several parties; had

Arcadia been united, it would have been invulnerable. A battle

was fought (Olympiad 90, 3) in the neighbourhood of Mantinea,

between the Argives, their Athenian allies, the Mantineans,

and part of the Arcadians ('the Eleans, annoyed at the conduct

of the Argives, had abandoned their cause'), on the one hand,

and the Spartans and a few allies on the other. The Spartans

gained a most decisive victory; and, although they did not

follow it up, yet the consequence was, that Argos concluded

peace, the Argive alliance broke up, and at Argos a revolution

took place, in which an oligarchical government was

instituted, and by which Argos was drawn into the interest of

Sparta (Olympiad 90, 4). This constitution, however, did not

last, and very soon gave way to a democratic form of

government. Argos, even at this time, and still more at a

later period, is a sad example of the most degenerate and

deplorable democracy, or, more properly speaking, anarchy."

B. G. Niebuhr,

Lectures on Ancient History,

lecture 49 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

Plutarch,

Alcibiades.

W. Mitford,

History of Greece,

chapter 17 (volume 3).

GREECE: B. C. 416.

Siege and conquest of Melos by the Athenians.

Massacre of the inhabitants.

"It was in the beginning of summer 416 B. C. that the

Athenians undertook the siege and conquest of the Dorian

island of Mêlos, one of the Cyclades, and the only one, except

Thêra, which was not already included in their empire. Mêlos

and Thêra were both ancient colonies of Lacedæmon, with whom

they had strong sympathies of lineage. They had never joined

the confederacy of Delos, nor been in any way connected with

Athens; but, at the same time, neither had they ever taken

part in the recent war against her, nor given her any ground

of complaint, until she landed and attacked them in the sixth

year of the recent war. She now renewed her attempt, sending

against the island a considerable force under Kleomêdês and

Tisias."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 56.

"They desired immediate submission on the part of Melos, any

attempt at resistance being regarded as an inroad upon the

omnipotence of Athens by sea. For this reason they were wroth

at the obstinate courage of the islanders, who broke off all

further negotiations, and thus made it necessary for the

Athenians to commence a costly circumvallation of the city.

The Melians even succeeded on two successive occasions in

breaking through part of the wall built round them by the

enemy, and obtaining fresh supplies; but no relief arrived;

and they had to undergo sufferings which made the 'Melian

famine' a proverbial phrase to express the height of misery;

and before the winter ended the island was forced to surrender

unconditionally. … There was no question of quarter. All the

islanders capable of bearing arms who had fallen into the

hands of the Athenians were sentenced to death, and all the

women and children to slavery."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 4, chapter 4 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

Thucydides,

History,

book 5, sections 84-116.

GREECE: B. C. 415.

The mutilation of the Hermæ at Athens.

See ATHENS: B. C. 415.

GREECE: B. C. 415-413.

The Peloponnesian War:

Disastrous Athenian expedition against Syracuse.

Alcibiades a fugitive in Sparta.

His enmity to Athens.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

{1588}

GREECE: B. C. 413.

The Peloponnesian War:

Effects and consequences of the Sicilian expedition.

Prostration of Athens.

Strengthening of Sparta.

Negotiations with the Persians against Athens.

Peloponnesian invasion of Attica.

The Decelian War.

"The Sicilian expedition ended in a series of events which, to

this day, it is impossible to recall without a feeling of

horror. … Since the Persian wars it had never come to pass,

that on the one side all had been so completely lost, while on

the other all was won. … When the Athenians recovered from

the first stupefaction of grief, they called to mind the

causes of the whole calamity, and hereupon in passionate fury

turned round upon all who had advised the expedition, or who

had encouraged vain hopes of victory, as orators, prophets, or

soothsayers. Finally, the general excitement passed into the

phase of despair and terror, conjuring up dangers even greater

and more imminent than existed in reality. The citizens every

day expected to see the Sicilian fleet with the Peloponnesians

appear off the harbor, to take possession of the defenceless

city; and they believed that the last days of Athens had

arrived. … Athens had risked all her military and naval

resources for the purpose of overcoming Syracuse. More than

200 ships of state, with their entire equipment, had been

lost; and if we reckon up the numbers despatched on successive

occasions to Sicily, the sum total, inclusive of the auxiliary

troops, may be calculated at about 60,000 men. A squadron

still lay in the waters of Naupactus; but even this was in

danger and exposed to attack from the Corinthians, who had

equipped fresh forces. The docks and naval arsenals were

empty, and the treasury likewise. In the hopes of enormous

booty and an abundance of new revenues, no expense had been

spared; and the resources of the city were entirely exhausted.

… But, far heavier than the material losses in money, ships,

and men, was the moral blow which had been received by Athens,

and which was more dangerous in her case than in that of any

other state, because her whole power was based on the fear

inspired in the subject states, so long as they saw the fleets

of Athens absolutely supreme at sea. The ban of this fear had

now been removed; disturbances arose in those island-states

which were most necessary to Athens, and whose existence

seemed to be most indissolubly blended with that of Attica,

—in Eubœa, Chios, and Lesbos; everywhere the oligarchical

parties raised their head, in order to overthrow the odious

dominion of Athens. … Sparta, on the other hand, had in the

course of a few months, without sending out an army or

incurring any danger or losses, secured to herself the

greatest advantages, such as she could not have obtained from

the most successful campaign. Gylippus had again proved the

value of a single Spartan man: inasmuch as in the hour of the

greatest danger his personal conduct had altered the course of

the most important and momentous transaction of the entire

war. He was, in a word, the more fortunate successor of

Brasidas. The authority of Sparta in the Peloponnesus, which

the peace of Nicias had weakened, was now restored; with the

exception of Argos and Elis, all her allies were on amicable

terms with her; the brethren of her race beyond the sea, who

had hitherto held aloof, had, by the attack made by the

Athenian invasion, been drawn into the war, and had now become

the most zealous and ardent allies of the Peloponnesians. …

Moreover, the Athenians had driven the most capable of all

living statesmen and commanders into the enemy's camp. No man

was better adapted than Alcibiades for rousing the

slowly-moving Lacedæmonians to energetic action; and it was he

who supplied them with the best advice, and with the most

accurate information as to Athenian politics and localities.

Lastly, the Spartans were at the present time under a warlike

king, the enterprising and ambitious Agis, the son of

Archidamus. … Nothing was now required, except pecuniary

means. And even these now unexpectedly offered themselves to

the Spartans, in consequence of the events which had in the

meantime occurred in the Persian empire. … Everywhere [in

that empire] sedition raised its head, particularly in Asia

Minor. Pissuthnes, the son of Hystaspes, who had on several

previous occasions interfered in Greek affairs, rose in

revolt. He was supported by Greek soldiers, under the command

of an Athenian of the name of Lycon. The treachery of the

latter enabled Darius to overthrow Pissuthnes, whose son,

Amorges, maintained himself by Athenian aid in Caria. After

the fall of Pissuthnes, Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus appear in

Asia Minor as the first dignitaries of the Great King.

Tissaphernes succeeded Pissuthnes as satrap in the maritime

provinces. He was furious at the assistance offered by Athens

to the party of his adversary; moreover, the Great King

(possibly in consequence of the Sicilian war and the

destruction of the Attic fleet) demanded that the tributes

long withheld by the coast-towns, which were still regarded as

subject to the Persian empire, should now be levied.

Tissaphernes was obliged to pay the sums according to the rate

at which they were entered in the imperial budget of Persia;

and thus, in order to reimburse himself, found himself forced

to pursue a war policy. … Everything now depended for the

satrap upon obtaining assistance from a Greek quarter. He

found opportunities for this purpose in Ionia itself, in all

the more important cities of which a Persian party existed.

… The most important and only independent power in Ionia was

Chios. Here the aristocratic families had with great sagacity

contrived to retain the government. … It was their

government which now became the focus of the conspiracy

against Athens, in the first instance establishing a

connection on the opposite shore with Erythræ. Hereupon

Tissaphernes opened negotiations with both cities, and in

conjunction with them despatched an embassy to Peloponnesus

charged with persuading the Spartans to place themselves at

the head of the Ionian movement, the satrap at the same time

promising to supply pay and provisions to the Peloponnesian

forces. The situation of Pharnabazus was the same as that of

Tissaphernes. Pharnabazus was the satrap of the northern

province. … Pharnabazus endeavored to outbid Tissaphernes in

his promises; and two powerful satraps became rival suitors

for the favor of Sparta, to whom they offered money and their

alliance. … While thus the most dangerous combinations were

on all sides forming against Athens, the war had already

broken out in Greece. This time Athens had been the first to

commence direct hostilities. … A Peloponnesian army under

Agis invaded Attica, with the advent of the spring of B. C.

413 (Olympiad xci. 3); at which date it was already to be

anticipated how the Sicilian war would end. For twelve years

Attica had been spared hostile invasions, and the vestiges of

former wars had been effaced.

{1589}

The present devastations were therefore doubly ruinous; while

at the same time it was now impossible to take vengeance upon

the Peloponnesians by means of naval expeditions. And the

worst point in the case was that they were now fully resolved,

instead of recurring to their former method of carrying on the

war and undertaking annual campaigns, to occupy permanently a

fortified position on Attic soil." The invaders seized a

strong position at Decelea, only fourteen miles northward from

Athens, on a rocky peak of Mount Parnes, and fortified

themselves so strongly that the Athenians ventured on no

attempt to dislodge them. From this secure station they

ravaged the surrounding country at pleasure. "This success was

of such importance that even in ancient times it gave the name

of the Decelean War to the entire last division of the

Peloponnesian War. The occupation of Decelea forms the

connecting link between the Sicilian War and the

Attico-Peloponnesian, which now broke out afresh. … Its

immediate object … it failed to effect; inasmuch as the

Athenians did not allow it to prevent their despatching a

fresh armament to Sicily. But when, half a year later, all was

lost, the Athenians felt more heavily than ever the burden

imposed upon them by the occupation of Decelea. The city was

cut off from its most important source of supplies, since the

enemy had in his power the roads communicating with Eubœa. …

One-third of Attica no longer belonged to the Athenians, and

even in the immediate vicinity of the city communication was

unsafe; large numbers of the country-people, deprived of labor

and means of subsistence, thronged the city; the citizens were

forced night and day to perform the onerous duty of keeping

watch."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 4, chapters 4-5 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

chapter 61 (volume 7).

GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

The Peloponnesian War:

Revolt of Chios, Miletus, Lesbos, and Rhodes from Athens.

Revolution at Samos.

Intrigues of Alcibiades for a revolution at Athens and for his

own recall.

"Alkibiades … persuaded the Spartans to build a fleet, and

send it over to Asia to assist the Ionians in revolting. He

himself crossed at once to Chios with a few ships, in order to

begin the revolt. The government of Chios was in the hands of

the nobles; but they had hitherto served Athens so well that

the Athenians had not altered the government to a democracy.

Now, however, they revolted (B. C. 413). This was a heavy blow

to Athens, for Chios was the most powerful of the Ionian

States, and others would be sure to follow its example.

Miletus and Lesbos revolted in B. C. 412. The nobles of Samos

prepared to revolt, but the people were in favour of Athens,

and rose against the nobles, killing 200 of them, and

banishing 400 more. Athens now made Samos its free and equal

ally, instead of its subject, and Samos became the

head-quarters of the Athenian fleet and army. … The

Athenians … had now manned a fresh navy. They defeated the

Peloponnesian and Persian fleets together at Miletus, and were

only kept from besieging Miletus by the arrival of a fleet

from Syracuse. [This reinforcement of the enemy held them

powerless to prevent a revolt in Rhodes, carried out by the

oligarchs though opposed by the people.] Alkibiades had made

enemies among the Spartans, and when he had been some time in

Asia Minor an order came over from Sparta to put him to death.

He escaped to Tissaphernes, and now made up his mind to win

back the favour of Athens by breaking up the alliance between

Tissaphernes and the Spartans. He contrived to make a quarrel

between them about the rate of pay, and persuaded Tissaphernes

that it would be the best thing for Persia to let the Spartans

and Athenians wear one another out, without giving help to

either. Tissaphernes therefore kept the Spartans idle for

months, always pretending that he was on the point of bringing

up his fleet to help them. Alkibiades now sent a lying message

to the generals of the Athenian army at Samos that he could

get Athens the help of Tissaphernes, if the Athenians would

allow him to return from his exile: but he said that he could

never return while there was a democracy; so that if they

wished for the help of Persia they must change the government

to an oligarchy (B. C. 412). In the army at Samos there were

many rich men willing to see an oligarchy established at

Athens, and peace made with Sparta. … Therefore, though the

great mass of the army at Samos was democratical, a certain

number of powerful men agreed to the plan of Alkibiades for

changing the government. One of the conspirators, named

Pisander, was sent to Athens to instruct the clubs of nobles

and rich men to work secretly for this object. In these clubs

the overthrow of the democracy was planned. Citizens known to

be zealous for the constitution were secretly murdered. Terror

fell over the city, for no one except the conspirators knew

who did, and who did not, belong to the plot; and at last,

partly by force, the assembly was brought to abolish the

popular government."

C. A. Fyffe,

History of Greece

(History Primer),

chapter 5, sections 36-39.

ALSO IN:

G. W. Cox,

The Athenian Empire,

chapter 6.

Thucydides,

History,

book 8, chapters 4-51.

GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

The Peloponnesian War:

Athenian victories at Cynossema and Abydos.

Exploits of Alcibiades.

His return to Athens and to supreme command.

His second deposition and exile.

While Athens was in the throes of its revolution, "the war was

prosecuted with vigour on the coast of Asia Minor. Mindarus,

who now commanded the Peloponnesian fleet, disgusted at length

by the often-broken promises of Tissaphernes, and the scanty

and irregular pay which he furnished, set sail from Miletus

and proceeded to the Hellespont, with the intention of

assisting the satrap Pharnabazus, and of effecting, if

possible, the revolt of the Athenian dependencies in that

quarter. Hither he was pursued by the Athenian fleet under

Thrasyllus. In a few days an engagement ensued (in August, 411

B. C.), in the famous straits between Sestos and Abydos, in

which the Athenians, though with a smaller force, gained the

victory, and erected a trophy on the promontory of Cynossema

[see CYNOSSEMA] near the tomb and chapel of the Trojan queen

Hecuba. The Athenians followed up their victory by the

reduction of Cyzicus, which had revolted from them. A month or

two afterward, another obstinate engagement took place between

the Peloponnesian and Athenian fleets near Abydos, which

lasted a whole day, and was at length decided in favour of the

Athenians by the arrival of Alcibiades with his squadron of 18

ships from Samos."

W. Smith,

Smaller History of Greece,

chapter 13.

{1590}

Alcibiades, although recalled, had "resolved to delay his

return until he had performed such exploits as might throw

fresh lustre over his name, and endear him to all classes of

his fellow-citizens. With this ambition he sailed with a small

squadron from Samos, and having gained information that

Mindarus, with the Peloponnesian fleet, had gone in pursuit of

the Athenian navy, he hastened to afford his countrymen

succour. Happily he arrived at the scene of action, near

Abydos, at a most critical moment; when, after a severe

engagement, the Spartans had on one side obtained an

advantage, and were pursuing the broken lines of the

Athenians. … He speedily decided the fortune of the day,

completely routed the Spartans, … broke many of their ships

in pieces, and took 30 from them. … His vanity after this

signal success had, however, nearly destroyed him; for, being

desirous of appearing to Tissaphernes as a conqueror instead

of a fugitive, he hastened with a splendid retinue to visit

him, when the crafty barbarian, thinking he should thus

appease the suspicions of the Spartans, caused him to be

arrested and confined in prison at Sardis. Hence, however, he

found means to escape. … He sailed immediately for the

Athenian camp to diffuse fresh animation among the soldiers,

and induce them hastily to embark on an expedition against

Mindarus and Pharnabazus, who were then with the residue of

the Peloponnesian fleet at Cyzicum" (Cyzicus). Mindarus was

defeated and killed and Pharnabazus driven to flight (B. C.

410). "Alcibiades pursued his victory, took Cyzicum without

difficulty, and, staining his conquest with a cruelty with

which he was not generally chargeable, put to death all the

Peloponnesians whom he found within the city. A very short

space of time elapsed after this brilliant success before

Alcibiades found another occasion to deserve the gratitude of

Athens," by defeating Pharnabazus, who had attacked the troops

of Thrasyllus while they were wasting the territory of Abydos.

He next reduced Chalcedon, bringing it back into the Athenian

alliance, and once more defeating Pharnabazus, when the

Persian satrap attempted to relieve the town. He also

recovered Selymbria, and took Byzantium (which had revolted)

after a severe fight (B. C. 408). "Alcibiades having raised

the fortunes of his country from the lowest state of

depression, not only by his brilliant victories, but his

conciliating policy, prepared to return and enjoy the praise

of his successes. He entered the Piræus [B. C. 407] in a

galley adorned with the spoils of numerous victories, followed

by a long line of ships which he had taken from the foe. …

The whole city came down to the harbour to see and welcome

him, and took no notice of Thrasybulus or Theramenes, his

fellow-commanders. … An assembly of the people being

convened, he addressed them in a gentle and modest speech,

imputing his calamities not to their envy, but to some evil

genius which pursued him. He exhorted them to take courage,

bade them oppose their enemies with all the fresh inspiration

of their zeal, and taught them to hope for happier days.

Delighted with these assurances, they presented him with a

crown of brass and gold, which never was before given to any

but the Olympic victors, invested him with absolute control

over their naval and military affairs, restored to him his

confiscated wealth, and ordered the ministers of religion to

absolve him from the curses which they had denounced against

him. Theodorus, however, the high-priest, evaded the last part

of the decree, by alleging that he had never cast any

imprecation on him, if he had committed no offence against the

republic. The tablets on which the curses against him had been

inscribed were taken to the shore, and thrown with eagerness

into the sea. His next measure heightened, if possible, the

brief lustre of his triumph. In consequence of the

fortification of Decelea by the Lacedæmonians, and their

having possession of the passes of the country, the procession

to Eleusis, in honour of Athene, had been long unable to take

its usual course, and being conducted by sea, had lost many of

its solemn and august ceremonials. He now, therefore, offered

to conduct the solemnity by land. … His proposal being

gladly accepted, he placed sentinels on the hills; and,

surrounding the consecrated band with his soldiers, conducted

the whole to Eleusis and back to Athens, without the slightest

opposition, or breach of that order and profound stillness

which he had exhorted the troops to maintain. After this

graceful act of homage to the religion he was once accused of

destroying, he was regarded by the common people as something

more than human; they looked on him as destined never to know

defeat, and believed their triumph was certain so long as he

was their commander. But, in the very height of his

popularity, causes of a second exile were maturing. The great

envied him in proportion to the people's confidence, and that

confidence itself became the means of his ruin: for, as the

people really thought the spell of invincibility was upon him,

they were prepared to attribute the least pause in his career

of glory to a treacherous design. He departed with a hundred

vessels, manned under his inspection, with colleagues of his

own choice, to reduce the isle of Chios to obedience. At

Andros he once more gained a victory over both the natives and

the Spartans, who attempted to assist them. But, on his

arrival at the chief scene of action, he found that he would

be unable to keep the soldiers from deserting, unless he could

raise money to pay them sums more nearly equal to those which

the Lacedæmonians offered, than the pay he was able to bestow.

He was compelled, therefore, to leave the fleet [at Notium]

and go into Caria in order to obtain supplies. While absent on

this occasion, he left Antiochus in the command. … To this

officer Alcibiades gave express directions that he should

refrain from coming to an engagement, whatever provocations he

might receive. Anxious, however, to display his bravery,

Antiochus took the first occasion to sail out in front of the

Lacedæmonian fleet, which lay near Ephesus, under the command

of Lysander, and attempt, by insults, to incite them to attack

him. Lysander accordingly pursued him; the fleets came to the

support of their respective admirals, and a general engagement

ensued, in which Antiochus was slain, and the Athenians

completely defeated. On receiving intelligence of this unhappy

reverse, Alcibiades hastened to the fleet, and eager to repair

the misfortune, offered battle to the Spartans; Lysander,

however, did not choose to risk the loss of his advantage by

accepting the challenge, and the Athenians were compelled to

retire. This event, for which no blame really attached to

Alcibiades, completed the ruin of his influence at Athens.

{1591}

It was believed that this, the first instance of his failure,

must have arisen from corruption, or, at least, from a want of

inclination to serve his country. He was also accused of

leaving the navy under the direction of those who had no other

recommendation to the charge but having been sharers in his

luxurious banquets, and of having wandered about to indulge in

profligate excesses. … On these grounds, the people in his

absence took from him his command, and confided it to other

generals. As soon as he heard of this new act of ingratitude,

he resolved not to return home, but withdrew into Thrace, and

fortified three castles … near to Perinthus. Here, having

collected a formidable band, as an independent captain, he

made incursions on the territories of those of the Thracians

who acknowledged no settled form of government, and acquired

considerable spoils."

Sir T. N. Talfourd,

Early History of Greece (Encyclopedia Metropolitana),

chapter 11.

ALSO IN:

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 29 (volume 4).

Plutarch,

Alcibiades.

Xenophon,

Hellenica,

book 1, chapters 1-4.

GREECE: B. C. 406.

The Peloponnesian War:

Battle of Arginusæ.

Trial and execution of the generals at Athens.

Alcibiades was succeeded by Conon and nine colleagues in

command of the Athenian fleet on the coast of Asia Minor. The

Athenians, soon afterwards, were driven into the harbor of

Mitylene, on the island of Lesbos, by a superior Peloponnesian

fleet, commanded by Callicratidas, and were blockaded there

with small chance of escape. Conon contrived to send news of

their desperate situation to Athens, and vigorous measures

were promptly taken to rescue the fleet and to save Mitylene.

Within thirty days, a fleet of 110 triremes was fitted out at

the Piræus, and manned with a crew which took nearly the last

able-bodied Athenian to make it complete. At Samos these were

joined by 40 more triremes, making 150 in all, against which

Callicratidas was able to bring out only 120 ships from

Mitylene, when the relieving armament approached. The two

fleets encountered one another near the islands of Arginusæ,

off Cape Malea, the southern promontory of Lesbos. In the

battle that ensued, which was the greatest naval conflict of

the Peloponnesian War, the Athenians were completely

victorious; Callicratidas was drowned and no less than 77 of

the Peloponnesian ships were destroyed, while the Athenians

themselves lost 25. As the result of this battle Sparta again

made overtures of peace, as she had done after the battle of

Cyzicus, and Athens, led by her demagogues, again rejected

them. But the Athenian demagogues and populace did worse. They

summoned home the eight generals who had won the battle of

Arginusæ, to answer to a charge of having neglected, after the

victory, to pick up the floating bodies of the Athenian dead

and to rescue the drowning from the wrecked ships of their

fleet. Six of the accused generals came home to meet the

charge; but two thought it prudent to go into voluntary exile.

The six were brought to trial; the forms of legality were

violated to their prejudice and all means were unscrupulously

employed to work up the popular passion against them. One man,

only, among the prytanes—senators, that is, of the tribe then

presiding, and who were the presidents of the popular

assembly—stood out, without flinching, against the lawless

rage of his fellow citizens, and refused, in calm scorn of all

fierce threats against himself, to join in taking the

unconstitutional vote. That one was the philosopher Socrates.

The generals were condemned to death and received the fatal

draught of hemlock from the same populace which pressed it a

little later to the lips of the philosopher. "Thus died the

son of Pericles and Aspasia [one of the generals, who bore his

father's name], to whom his father had made a fatal gift in

obtaining for him the Attic citizenship, and with him

Erasinides, Thrasylus, Lysias, Aristocrates, and Diomedon. The

last-named, the most innocent of all, who had wished that the

whole fleet should immediately be employed in search of the

wrecked, addressed the people once more; he expressed a wish

that the decree dooming him to death might be beneficial to

the state, and called upon his fellow-citizens to perform the

thanksgiving offerings to the saving gods which they, the

generals, had vowed on account of their victory. These words

may have sunk deep into the hearts of many of his hearers; but

their only effect has been to cast a yet brighter halo in the

eyes of subsequent generations around the memory of these

martyrs. Their innocence is best proved by the series of

glaring infractions of law and morality which were needed to

ensure their destruction, as well as by the shame and

repugnance which seized upon the citizens, when they had

recognized how fearfully, they had been led astray by a

traitorous faction.

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 4, chapter 5 (volume 3).

Mr. Grote attempts to uphold a view more unfavorable to the

generals and less severe upon the Athenian people.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 64.

ALSO IN:

Xenophon,

Hellenica,

book 1, chapters 5-7.

See, also,

ATHENS: B. C. 424-406.

GREECE: B. C. 405.

The Peloponnesian War

Decisive battle of Aigospotamoi.

Defeat of the Athenians.

After the execution of the generals, "no long time passed

before the Athenians repented of their madness and their

crimes: but, yielding still to their old besetting sin, they

insisted, as they had done in the days of Miltiades and after

the catastrophe at Syracuse, on throwing the blame not on

themselves but on their advisers. This great crime began at

once to produce its natural fruits. The people were losing

confidence in their officers, who, in their turn, felt that no

services to the state could secure them against illegal

prosecutions and arbitrary penalties. Corruption was eating

its way into the heart of the state, and treason was losing

its ugliness in the eyes of many who thought themselves none

the worse for dallying with it. … The Athenian fleet had

fallen back upon Samos; and with this island as a base, the

generals were occupying themselves with movements, not for

crushing the enemy, but for obtaining money. … The Spartans,

whether at home or on the Asiatic coast, were now well aware

that one more battle would decide the issue of the war; for

with another defeat the subsidies of the Persians would be

withdrawn from them as from men doomed to failure, and perhaps

be transferred to the Athenians. In the army and fleet the cry

was raised that Lysandros was the only man equal to the

emergency. Spartan custom could not appoint the same man twice

to the office of admiral; but when Arakos was sent out with

Lysandros [Lysander] as his secretary, it was understood that

the latter was really the man in power."

{1592}

In the summer of 405 B. C. Lysandros made a sudden movement

from the southern Ægean to the Hellespont, and laid siege to

the rich town of Lampsacus, on the Asiatic side. The Athenians

followed him, but not promptly enough to save Lampsacus, which

they found in his possession when they arrived. They took

their station, thereupon, at the mouth of the little stream

called the Aigospotamoi (the Goat's Stream), directly opposite

to Lampsacus, and endeavored for four successive days to

provoke Lysandros to fight. He refused, watching his

opportunity for the surprise which he effected on the fifth

day, when he dashed across the narrow channel and caught the

Athenian ships unprepared, their crews mostly scattered on

shore. One only, of the six Athenian generals, Conon, had

foreseen danger and was alert. Conon, with twelve triremes,

escaped. The remaining ships, about one hundred and seventy in

number, were captured almost without the loss of a man on the

Peloponnesian side. Of the crews, some three or four thousand

Athenians were pursued on shore and taken prisoners, to be

afterwards slaughtered in cold blood. Two of the incapable

generals shared their fate. Of the other generals who escaped,

some at least were believed to have been bribed by Lysandros

to betray the fleet into his hands. The blow to Athens was

deadly. She had no power of resistance left, and when her

enemies closed around her, a little later, she starved within

her walls until resistance seemed no longer heroic, and then

gave herself up to their mercy.

G. W. Cox,

The Athenian Empire,

chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 30 (volume 4).

Plutarch,

Lysander.

Xenophon,

Hellenica,

book 2, chapter 1.

GREECE: B. C. 404.

End of the Peloponnesian War.

Fall of Athens.

See ATHENS: B. C. 404.

GREECE: B. C. 404-403.

The Year of Anarchy at Athens.

Reign of the Thirty.

See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

GREECE: B. C. 401-400.

The expedition of Cyrus, and the Retreat of the Ten Thousand

Greeks.

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

GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

Spartan war with Persia.

Greek confederacy against Sparta.

The Corinthian War.

Peace of Antalcidas.

The successful retreat of the Ten Thousand from Cunaxa,

through the length of the Persian dominions (B. C. 401-400),

and the account which they brought of the essential hollowness

of the power of the Great King, produced an important change

among the Greeks in their estimate of the Persian monarchy as

an enemy to be feared. Sparta became ashamed of having

abandoned the Greek cities of Asia Minor to their old

oppressors, as she did after breaking the strength of their

protector, Athens, in the Peloponnesian War. When, therefore,

the Persians began to lay siege to the coast cities which

resisted them, Sparta found spirit enough to interfere (B. C.

399) and sent over a small army, into which the surviving

Cyreans were also enlisted. The only immediate result was a

truce with the Persian satrap. But, meantime, the Athenian

general Conon—he who escaped with a few triremes from

Ægospotami and fled to Cyprus—had there established relations

with the Persian court at Susa and had acquired a great

influence, which he used to bring about the creation of a

powerful Persian armament against Sparta, himself in command.

The news of this armament, reaching Sparta, provoked the

latter to a more vigorous prosecution of the war in Asia

Minor. King Agesilaus took the field in Ionia with a strong

army and conducted two brilliant campaigns (B. C. 396-395),

pointing the way, as it were, to the expedition of Alexander a

couple of generations later. The most important victory won

was on the Pactolus, not far from Sardis. But, in the midst of

his successes, Agesilaus was called home by troubles which

arose in Greece. Sparta, by her arrogance and oppressive

policy, had already alienated all the Greek states which

helped her to break down Athens in the Peloponnesian War.

Persian agents, with money, had assisted her enemies to

organize a league against her. Thebes and Athens, first, then

Argos and Corinth, with several of the lesser states, became

confederated in an agreement to overthrow her domination. In

an attempt to crush Thebes, the Spartans were badly beaten at

Haliartus (B. C. 395), where their famous Lysander, conqueror

of Athens, was killed. Their power in central and northern

Greece was virtually annihilated, and then followed a struggle

with their leagued enemies for the control or the Corinthian

isthmus, whence came the name of the Corinthian War. It was

this situation of things at home which called back King

Agesilaus from his campaigns in Asia Minor. He had scarcely

crossed the Hellespont on his return, in July B. C. 394,

before all his work in Asia was undone by an overwhelming

naval victory achieved at Cnydus by the Athenian Conon,

commanding the Persian-Phœnician fleet. With his veteran army,

including the old Cyreans, now returning home after seven

years of incredible adventures and hardships, he made his way

through all enemies into Bœotia and fought a battle with the

league at Coronea, in which he so far gained a victory that he

held the field, although the fruits of it were doubtful. The

Spartans on the isthmus had also just gained a considerable

success near Corinth, on the banks of the Nemea. On the whole,

the results of the war were in their favor, until Conon and

the Persian satrap, Pharnabazus, came over with the victorious

fleet from Cnydus and lent its aid to the league. The most

important proceeding of Conon was to rebuild (B. C. 393), with

the help of his Persian friends, the Long Walls of Athens,

which the Peloponnesians had required to be thrown down eleven

years before. By this means he restored to Athens her

independence and secured for her a new career of commercial

prosperity. During six years more the war was tediously

prolonged, without important or decisive events, while Sparta

intrigued to detach the Persian king from his Athenian allies

and the latter intrigued to retain his friendship. In the end,

all parties were exhausted—Sparta, perhaps, least so—and

accepted a shameful peace which was practically dictated by

the Persian and had the form of an edict or mandate from Susa,

in the following terms: "The king, Artaxerxes, deems it just

that the cities in Asia, with the islands of Clazomenae and

Cyprus, should belong to himself; the rest of the Hellenic

cities he thinks it just to leave independent, both small and

great, with the exception of Lemnos, Imbros, and Scyros, which

three are to belong to Athens as of yore. Should any of the

parties concerned not accept this peace, I, Artaxerxes, will

war against him or them with those who share my views.

{1593}

This will I do by land and by sea, with ships and with money."

By this, called the Peace of Antalcidas (B. C. 387) from the

Lacedæmonian who was instrumental in bringing it about, the

Ionian Greeks were once more abandoned to the Persian king and

his satraps, while Sparta, which assumed to be the

administrator and executor of the treaty, was confirmed in her

supremacy over the other Grecian states.

Xenophon,

Hellenica (translated by Dakyns),

books 3-5 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

C. Sankey,

The Spartan and Theban Supremacies,

chapters 7-9.

W. Mitford,

History of Greece,

chapters 24-25 (volume 4).

G. Rawlinson,

The Five Great Monarchies,

volume 3; Persia, chapter 7.

GREECE: B. C. 385.

Destruction of Mantinea by the Spartans.

The Mantineians, having displayed unfriendliness to Sparta

during the Corinthian War, were required by the latter, after

the Peace of Antalcidas, to demolish their walls. On their

refusal, king Agesipolis was sent to subdue them. By damming

up the waters of the river Ophis he flooded the city and

brought it to terms. "The city of Mantineia was now broken up,

and the inhabitants were distributed again into the five

constituent villages. Out of four-fifths of the population

each man pulled down his house in the city, and rebuilt it in

the village near to which his property lay. The remaining

fifth continued to occupy Mantineia as a village. Each village

was placed under oligarchical government and left

unfortified."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 76 (volume 9).

ALSO IN:

Xenophon,

Hellenica,

book 5, chapter 2.

GREECE: B. C. 383.

The betrayal of Thebes to the Spartans.

When the Spartans sent their expedition against Olynthus, in

383 B. C., it marched in two divisions, the last of which,

under Phoebidas, halted at Thebes, on the way, probably having

secret orders to do so. "On reaching Thebes the troops

encamped outside the city, round the gymnasium. Faction was

rife within the city. The two polemarchs in office, Ismenias

and Leontiades, were diametrically opposed, being the

respective heads of antagonistic political clubs. Hence it was

that, while Ismenias, ever inspired by hatred to the

Lacedaemonians, would not come anywhere near the Spartan

general, Leontiades, on the other hand, was assiduous in

courting him; and when a sufficient intimacy was established

between them, he made a proposal as follows: 'You have it in

your power,' he said, addressing Phoebidas, 'this very day to

confer supreme benefit on your country. Follow me with your

hoplites, and I will introduce you into the citadel.'"

Xenophon,

Hellenica

(translated by Dakyns),

book 5, chapter 2 (volume 2).

"On the day of the Thesmophoria, a religious festival

celebrated by the women apart from the men, during which the

acropolis, or Kadmeia, was consecrated to their exclusive use,

Phœbidas, affecting to have concluded his halt, put himself in

march to proceed as if towards Thrace; seemingly rounding the

walls of Thebes, but not going into it. The Senate was

actually assembled in the portico of the agora, and the heat

of a summer's noon had driven everyone out of the streets,

when Leontiades, stealing away from the Senate, hastened on

horseback to overtake Phœbidas, caused him to face about, and

conducted the Lacedæmonians straight up to the Kadmeia; the

gates of which, as well as those of the town, were opened to

his order as Polemarch. There were not only no citizens in the

streets, but none even in the Kadmeia; no male person being

permitted to be present at the feminine Thesmophoria; so that

Phœbidas and his army became possessed of the Kadmeia without

the smallest opposition. … The news of the seizure of the

Kadmeia and of the revolution at Thebes [was] … received at

Sparta with the greatest surprise, as well as with a mixed

feeling of shame and satisfaction. Everywhere throughout

Greece, probably, it excited a greater sensation than any

event since the battle of Ægospotami. Tried by the recognised

public law of Greece, it was a flagitions iniquity, for which

Sparta had not the shadow of a pretence. … It stood

condemned by the indignant sentiment of all Greece,

unwillingly testified even by the philo-Laconian Xenophon

himself. But it was at the same time an immense accession to

Spartan power. … Phœbidas might well claim to have struck

for Sparta the most important blow since Ægospotami, relieving

her from one of her two really formidable enemies."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 76.

ALSO IN:

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 37 (volume 5).

GREECE: B. C. 383-379.

Overthrow of the Olynthian confederacy by Sparta.

Among the Greek cities which were founded at an early day in

that peninsula of Macedonia called Chalcidice, from Chalcis,

in Eubœa, which colonized the greater number of them, Olynthus

became the most important. It long maintained its independence

against the Macedonian kings, on one hand, and against Athens,

when Athens ruled the Ægean and its coasts, on the other. As

it grew in power, it took under its protection the lesser

towns of the peninsula and adjacent Macedonia, and formed a

confederacy among them, which gradually extended to the larger

cities and acquired a formidable character. But two of the

Chalcidian cities watched this growth of Olynthus with

jealousy and refused to be confederated with her. More than

that, they joined the Macedonians in sending an embassy (B. C.

383) to Sparta, then all-powerful in Greece, after the Peace

of Antalcidas, and invoked her intervention, to suppress the

rising Olynthian confederacy. The response of Sparta was

prompt, and although the Olynthians defended themselves with

valor, inflicting one severe defeat upon the Lacedæmonian

allies, they were forced at last (B. C. 379) to submit and the

confederacy was dissolved. "By the peace of Antalkidas, Sparta

had surrendered the Asiatic Greeks to Persia; by crushing the

Olynthian confederacy, she virtually surrendered the Thracian

Greeks to the Macedonian princes. … She gave the victory to

Amyntas [king of Macedonia], and prepared the indispensable

basis upon which his son Philip afterwards rose, to reduce not

only Olynthus, but … the major part of the Grecian world, to

one common level of subjection."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 76 (volume 9).

ALSO IN:

E. A. Freeman,

History of Federal Government,

chapter 4, section 3.

GREECE: B. C. 379-371.

The liberation of Thebes and her rise to supremacy.

The humbling of Sparta.

For three years after the betrayal of the Acropolis, or

Cadmea, of Thebes to the Spartans, the city groaned under the

tyranny of the oligarchical party of Leontiades, whom the

Spartans supported. Several hundreds of the more prominent of

the democratic and patriotic party found a refuge at Athens,

and the deliverance of Thebes was effected at last, about

December, B. C. 379, by a daring enterprise on the part of

some of these exiles.

{1594}

Their plans were concerted with friends at Thebes, especially

with one Phyllidas, who had retained the confidence of the

party in power, being secretary to the polemarchs. The leader

of the undertaking was Melon. "After a certain interval Melon,

accompanied by six of the trustiest comrades he could find

among his fellow-exiles, set off for Thebes. They were armed

with nothing but daggers, and first of all crept into the

neighbourhood under cover of night. The whole of the next day

they lay concealed in a desert place, and drew near to the

city gates in the guise of labourers returning home with the

latest comers from the fields. Having got safely within the

city, they spent the whole of that night at the house of a man

named Charon, and again the next day in the same fashion.

Phyllidas meanwhile was busily taken up with the concerns of

the polemarchs, who were to celebrate a feast of Aphrodite on

going out of office. Amongst other things, the secretary was

to take this opportunity of fulfilling an old undertaking,

which was the introduction of certain women to the polemarchs.

They were to be the most majestic and the most beautiful to be

found in Thebes. … Supper was over, and, thanks to the zeal

with which the master of the ceremonies responded to their

mood, they were speedily intoxicated. To their oft-repeated

orders to introduce their mistresses, he went out and fetched

Melon and the rest, three of them dressed up as ladies and the

rest as their attendant maidens. … It was preconcerted that

as soon as they were seated they were to throw aside their

veils and strike home. That is one version of the death of the

polemarchs. According to another, Melon and his friends came

in as revellers, and so despatched their victims."

Xenophon,

Hellenica,

(translated by Dakyns),

book 5, chapter 4.

Having thus made way with the polemarchs, the conspirators

surprised Leontiades in his own house and slew him. They then

liberated and armed the prisoners whom they found in

confinement and sent heralds through the city to proclaim the

freedom of Thebes. A general rally of the citizens followed

promptly. The party of the oppression was totally crushed and

its prominent members put to death. The Spartan garrison in

the Cadmea capitulated and was suffered to march out without

molestation. The government of Thebes was reorganized on a

more popular basis, and with a view to restoring the Bœotian

League, in a perfected state, with Thebes for its head.

See THEBES: B. C. 378.

In the war with Sparta which followed, Athens was soon

involved, and the Spartans were driven from all their

footholds in the Bœotian towns. Then Athens and Thebes

quarreled afresh, and the Spartans, to take advantage of the

isolation of the latter, invaded her territory once more. But

Thebes, under the training of her great statesman and soldier,

Epaminondas, had become strong enough to face her Lacedæmonian

enemy without help, and in the momentous battle of Leuctra,

fought July 6, B. C. 371, on a plain not far from Platæa, the

domineering power of Sparta was broken forever. "It was the

most important of all the battles ever fought between Greeks.

On this day Thebes became an independent power in Greece, and

a return of Spartan despotism was henceforth impossible for

all times."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 6, chapter 1 (volume 4).

ALSO IN:

Plutarch,

Pelopidas.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapters 77-78.

C. Sankey,

The Spartan and Theban Supremacies,

chapters 10-11.

GREECE: B. C. 378-357.

The new Athenian Confederacy.

The Social War.

See ATHENS: B. C. 378-357.

GREECE: B. C. 371.

The Arcadian union.

Restoration of Mantinea.

Building of Megalopolis.

One of the first effects of the battle of Leuctra (B. C. 371),

which ended the domination of Sparta in Greek affairs, was to

emancipate the Arcadians and to work great changes among them.

Mantinea, which the Spartans had destroyed, was rebuilt the

same year. Then "the chiefs of the parties opposed to the

Spartan interest in the principal Arcadian towns concerted a

plan for securing the independence of Arcadia, and for raising

it to a higher rank than it had hitherto held in the political

system of Greece. With a territory more extensive than any

other region of Peloponnesus, peopled by a hardy race, proud

of its ancient origin and immemorial possession of the land,

and of its peculiar religious traditions, Arcadia—the Greek

Switzerland—had never possessed any weight in the affairs of

the nation; the land only served as a thoroughfare for hostile

armies, and sent forth its sons to recruit the forces of

foreign powers. … The object was to unite the Arcadian

people in one body, yet so as not to destroy the independence

of the particular states; and with this view it was proposed

to found a metropolis, to institute a national council which

should be invested with supreme authority in foreign affairs,

particularly with regard to peace and war, and to establish a

military force for the protection of the public safety. …

Within a few months after the battle of Leuctra, a meeting of

Arcadians from all the principal towns was held to deliberate

on the measure; and under its decree a body of colonists,

collected from various quarters, proceeded to found a new

city, which was to be the seat of the general government, and

was called Megalepolis, or Megalopolis (the Great City). The

site chosen was on the banks of the Helisson, a small stream

tributary to the Alpheus. … The city was designed on a very

large scale, and the magnitude of the public buildings

corresponded to its extent; the theatre was the most spacious

in Greece. … The population was to be drawn … from a great

number of the most ancient Arcadian towns. Pausanias gives a

list of forty which were required to contribute to it. The

greater part of them appear to have been entirely deserted by

their inhabitants."

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 39 (volume 5).

"The patriotic enthusiasm, however, out of which Megalopolis

had first arisen, gradually became enfeebled. The city never

attained that preeminence or power which its founders

contemplated, and which had caused the city to be laid out on

a scale too large for the population actually inhabiting it."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 78.

GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

Popular fury in Argos.

Arcadian union and disunion.

Restoration of Mantinea.

Expeditions of Epaminondas into Peloponnesus.

His attempts against Sparta.

His victory and death at Mantinea.

"In many of the Peloponnesian cities, when the power of Sparta

seemed visibly on the wane, internal commotions had arisen, and

much blood had been shed on both sides. But now Argos

displayed the most fearful example of popular fury recorded in

Greek annals, red as they are with tales of civil bloodshed.

{1595}

The democratic populace detected a conspiracy among the

oligarchs, and thirty of the chief citizens were at once put

to death. The excitement of the people was inflamed by the

harangues of demagogues, and the mob, arming itself with

cudgels, commenced a general massacre. When 1,200 citizens had

fallen, the popular orators interfered to check the

atrocities, but met with the same fate; and, sated at length

with bloodshed, the multitude stayed the deadly work. But

where the pressure of Spartan interference had been heaviest

and most constant, there the reaction was naturally most

striking. The popular impulses which were at work in Arkadia

[see above] found their first outlet in the rebuilding of

Mantineia." But there was far from unanimity in the Arkadian

national movement. "In Tegea … public opinion was divided.

The city had been treated by Sparta with special

consideration, and had for centuries been her faithful ally;

hence the oligarchical government looked with disfavour upon

the project of union. But the democratical party was powerful

and unscrupulous; and, with the help of the Mantineians, they

effected a revolution, in which many were killed, and 800

exiles fled to Sparta." The Spartans, under Agesilaos, avenged

them by ravaging the plain in front of Mantineia. "This

invasion of Arkadia is chiefly important for the pretext which

it furnished for Theban intervention. The Mantineians applied

for help at first to Athens, and, meeting with a refusal, went

on to Thebes. For this request Epameinondas must have been

thoroughly prepared beforehand, and he was soon on the march

with a powerful army. … On his arrival in the Peloponnese

[B. C. 370], he found that Agesilaos had already retired; and

some of the Theban generals, considering the season of the

year, wished at once to return." But Epameinondas was

persuaded by the allies of Thebes to make an attempt upon

Sparta itself. "In four divisions the invading host streamed

into the land which, according to the proudest boast of its

inhabitants, had felt no hostile tread for 600 years. At

Sellasia, not ten miles distant from Sparta, the army

reunited; and, having plundered and burnt the town, swept down

into the valley of the Eurotas, and marched along the left

bank till it reached the bridge opposite the city. Within

Sparta itself, though a universal terror prevailed, one man

rose equal to the emergency. While the men fainted in spirit

as they thought how few they were, and how wide their unwalled

city, … Agesilaos accepted, not without mistrust, the

services of 6,000 helots, collected reinforcements, preserved

order, suppressed conspiracy, stamped out mutiny, posted

guards on every vantage-ground, and refused to be tempted to a

battle by the taunts of foes or the clamours of over-eager

friends. … After one unsuccessful cavalry skirmish, the

Theban general, who, in a campaign undertaken on his sole

responsibility, dared not risk the chance of defeat, decided

to leave the 'wasps'-nest' untaken. He completed his work of

devastation by ravaging the whole of southern Lakonia, … and

then turned back into Arkadia to devote himself to the more

permanent objects of his expedition." Messene was now rebuilt

(see MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD), and "the descendants of the

old Messenian stock were gathered to form a new nation from

Rhegion and Messene [Sicily], and from the parts of Lybia

round Kyrene. … By thus restoring the Messenians to their

ancient territory, Epameinondas deprived Sparta at one blow of

nearly half her possessions. … At last Epameinondas had done

his work; and, leaving Pammenes with a garrison in Tegea, he

hastened to lead his soldiers home. At the Isthmus he found a

hostile army from Athens," which had been persuaded to send

succor to Sparta; but the Athenians did not care to give

battle to the conquering Thebans, and the latter passed

unopposed. On the arrival of Epameinondas at Thebes, "the

leaders of a petty faction threatened to bring him and his

colleagues to trial for retaining their command for four

months beyond the legal term of office. But Epameinondas stood

up in the assembly, and told his simple tale of victorious

generalship and still more triumphant statesmanship; and the

invidious cavils of snarling intriguers were at once

forgotten." Sparta and Athens now formed an alliance, with the

senseless agreement that command of the common forces "should

be given alternately to each state for five days. … The

first aim of the confederates was to occupy the passes of the

isthmus," but Epameinondas forced a passage for his army,

captured Sikyon, ravaged the territory of Epidauros, and made

a bold but unsuccessful attempt to surprise Corinth. Then, on

the arrival of reinforcements to the Spartans from Syracuse,

he drew back to Thebes (B. C. 368). For a time the Thebans

were occupied with troubles in Thessaly, and their Arkadian

proteges in Peloponnese were carrying on war against Sparta

independently, with so much momentary success that they became

over-confident and rash. They paid for their foolhardiness by

a frightful defeat, which cost them 10,000 men, whilst no

Spartan is said to have fallen; hence the fight was known in

Sparta as the Tearless Battle. "This defeat probably caused

little grief at Thebes, for it would prove to the arrogant

Arkadians that they could not yet dispense with Theban aid;

and it decided Epameinondas to make a third expedition into

the Peloponnese." The result of his third expedition was the

enrolment of a number of Achaian cities as Theban allies,

which gave to Thebes "the control of the coast-line of the

Corinthian gulf." But the broad and statesmanlike terms on

which Epameinondas arranged these alliances were set aside by

his narrow-minded fellow citizens, and a policy adopted by

which Achaia was "converted from a lukewarm neutral into an

enthusiastic supporter of Sparta. In this unsettled state of

Greek politics the Thebans resolved to have recourse, like the

Spartans before them, to the authority of the Great King.

Existing treaties, for which they were not responsible,

acknowledged his right to interfere in the internal affairs of

Greece." Pelopidas and other envoys were accordingly sent to

Susa (E. C. 366), where they procured from Artaxerxes a

rescript "which recognised the independence of Messene and

ordered the Athenians to dismantle their fleet." But the

mandate of the Great King proved void of effect. "After this

the confusion in Greece grew infinitely worse. An accident

transferred the town of Oropos … from the hands of Athens to

those of Thebes; and as the Peloponnesian allies of the

Athenians refused to help them to regain it, they broke with

them, and, in spite of the efforts of Epameinondas, formed an

alliance with Arkadia. …

{1596}

The Athenians made soon after a vain attempt to seize the

friendly city of Corinth, and the disgusted Corinthians,

together with the citizens of Epidauros and Phlious, …

obtained the grudging consent of Sparta, and made a separate

peace with Thebes. As soon as tranquillity was restored in one

quarter, in another the flame of war would again burst forth."

Its next outbreak (B. C. 365) was between Elis and Arkadia,

the former being assisted by Sparta, and its principal event

was a desperate battle fought for the possession of Olympia.

The Arkadians held part of the city and acquired possession of

the sacred treasures in the Olympian temple, which they

determined to apply to the expenses of the war. "Raising the

cry of sacrilege, the Mantineians, who were jealous both of

Tegea and Megalopolis, at once broke loose and shut their

gates." Soon afterwards, Mantineia separated herself wholly

from the Arkadian confederacy and entered the Spartan

alliance. This was among the causes which drew Epameinondas

once more, and for the last time, into the Peloponnese (B. C.

362). "The armies of Greece were now gathering from all

quarters for the great struggle. On the one side stood Sparta,

Athens, Elis, Achaia, and a part of Arkadia, led by Mantineia;

on the other side were ranged Boiotia [Thebes], Argos,

Messenia, and the rest of Arkadia, while a few of the smaller

states—as Phokis, Phlious, and Corinth—remained neutral."

At the outset of his campaign, Epameinondas made a bold

attempt, by a rapid night march, to surprise Sparta; but a

traitorous warning had been given, the Spartans were

barricaded and prepared for defence, and the undertaking

failed. Then he marched quickly to Mantineia, and failed in

his design there, likewise. A pitched battle was necessary to

decide the issue, and it was fought on the plain between

Mantineia and Tegea, on the 3d day of July, B. C. 362. The

fine discipline of the Theban troops and the skilful tactics

of Epameinondas had given the victory into his hands, when,

"suddenly, the aspect of the battle changed. Except among the

light troops on the extreme right, the advance was everywhere

stayed. The Spartan hoplites were in full flight, but the

conquerors did not stir a step in the pursuit. … The fury of

the battle had instantly ceased. … Epameinondas had fallen

wounded to death, and this was the result. … Every heart was

broken, every arm paralysed. … Both sides claimed the

victory in the battle, and erected the usual trophies, but the

real advantage remained with the Thebans. … By the peace

that ensued, the independence of Messenia was secured, and

Megalopolis and the Pan-Arkadian constitution were preserved

from destruction. The work of Epameinondas, though cut short,

was thus not thrown away; and the power of Sparta was confined

within the limits which he had assigned."

C. Sankey,

The Spartan and Theban Supremacies,

chapter 12.

ALSO IN:

Xenophon,

Hellenica,

books 5-6.

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 6, chapter 2.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 80 (volume 10).

GREECE: B. C. 359-358.

First proceedings of Philip of Macedonia.

His acquisition of Amphipolis.

The famous Philip of Macedon succeeded to the Macedonian

throne in 359 B. C., at the age of 23. In his youth he had

been delivered to the Thebans as one of the hostages given

upon the conclusion of a treaty of peace in 368. "His

residence at Thebes gave him some tincture of Grecian

philosophy and literature; but the most important lesson which

he learned at that city was the art of war, with all the

improved tactics introduced by Epaminondas. Philip …

displayed at the beginning of his reign his extraordinary

energy and abilities. After defeating the Illyrians he

established a standing army, in which discipline was preserved

by the severest punishments. He introduced the far-famed

Macedonian phalanx, which was 16 men deep, armed with long

projecting spears. Philip's views were first turned towards

the eastern frontiers of his dominions, where his interests

clashed with those of the Athenians. A few years before the

Athenians had made various unavailing attempts to obtain

possession of Amphipolis, once the jewel of their empire, but

which they had never recovered since its capture by Brasidas

in the eighth year of the Peloponnesian war."

W. Smith,

Smaller History of Greece,

chapter 19.

The importance of Amphipolis to the Athenians arose chiefly

from its vicinity to "the vast forests which clothed the

mountains that enclose the basin of the Strymon, and afforded

an inexhaustible supply of ship-timber." For the same reason

that the Athenians desired ardently to regain possession of

Amphipolis their enemies were strong in the wish to keep it

out of their hands. Moreover, as the Macedonian kingdom became

well-knitted in the strong hands of the ambitious Philip, the

city of "the Nine Ways" assumed importance to that rising

power, and Philip resolved to possess it. It was at this point

that his ambitions first came into conflict with Athens. But

the Athenians were not aware of his aims until too late. He

deceived them completely, in fact, by a bargain to give help

in acquiring Amphipolis for them, and to receive help in

gaining Pydna for himself. But when his preparations were

complete, he suddenly laid siege to Amphipolis and made

himself master of the city (B. C. 358), besides taking Pydna

as well. At Athens, "Philip was henceforth viewed as an open

enemy, and this was the beginning—though without any formal

declaration—of a state of hostility between the two powers,

which was called, from its origin, the Amphipolitan War."

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 42 (volume 5).

GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

Advancement of Philip of Macedonia to supremacy.

The Sacred Wars and their consequences.

The fatal field of Chæronea.

Philip's preparations for the invasion of Asia.

His assassination.

A war between the Thebans and their neighbors, the Phocians,

which broke out in 357 or 356 B. C., assumed great importance

in Greek history and was called the Sacred War,—as two

earlier contests, in which Delphi was concerned, had been

likewise named. It is sometimes called the Ten Years Sacred

War. Thebes, controlling the shadowy Amphictyonic Council, had

brought a charge of sacrilege against the Phocians and

procured a decree imposing upon them a heavy fine. The

Phocians resisted the decree with unexpected energy, and, by a

bold and sudden movement, gained possession of Delphi, where

they destroyed the records of the Amphictyonic judgment

against them. Having the vast accumulation of the sacred

treasures of the Delphic temple in their hands, they did not

scruple to appropriate them, and were able to maintain a

powerful army of mercenaries, gathered from every part of

Greece, with which they ravaged the territories of Bœotia and

Locris, and acquired control of the pass of Thermopylæ.

{1597}

In the midst of their successes they were called upon for help

by the tyrant of Pheræ in Thessaly, then being attacked by

Philip of Macedon (B. C. 353). The Phocians opposed Philip

with such success, at first, that he retreated from Thessaly;

but it was only to recruit and reanimate his army. Returning

presently he overthrew the Phocian army, with great

slaughter—Onomarchus, its leader, being slain—and made

himself master of all Thessaly. Both Athens and Sparta were

now alarmed by this rapid advance into Central Greece of the

conquering arms of the ambitious Macedonian, and both sent

forces to the help of the Phocians. The former was so

energetic that an army of 5,000 Athenian foot-soldiers and 400

horse reached Thermopylæ (May 352 B. C.) before Philip had

been able to push forward from Thessaly. When he did advance,

proclaiming his purpose to rescue the Delphian temple from

sacrilegious robbers, he was repulsed at the pass and drew

back. It was the beginning of the struggle for Greek

independence against Macedonian energy and ambition. A few

months later Demosthenes delivered the first of his immortal

orations, called afterwards Philippics, in which he strove to

keep the already languishing energy of the Athenians alive, in

unfaltering resistance to the designs of Philip. For six years

there was a state of war between Philip and the Athenians with

their allies, but the conquests of the former in Thrace and

the Chalcidian peninsula were steadily pressed. At length (B.

C. 346) Athens was treacherously persuaded into a treaty of

peace with Philip (the Peace of Philocrates) which excluded

the Phocians from its terms. No sooner had he thus isolated

the latter than he marched quickly to Thermopylæ, secured

possession of the pass and declared himself the supporter of

Thebes. The Sacred War was ended, Delphi rescued, Phocis

punished without mercy, and Greece was under the feet of a

master. This being accomplished, the Peace of Philocrates was

doubtfully maintained for about six years. Then quarrels broke

out which led up to still another Sacred War, and which gave

Philip another opportunity to trample on the liberties of

Greece. Curiously, the provoking causes of this outbreak were

an inheritance from that more ancient Sacred War which brought

ruin upon the town of Cirrha and a lasting curse upon its

soil. The Locrians of Amphissa, dwelling near to the accursed

territory, had ventured in the course of years to encroach

upon it with brick-kilns, and to make use of its harbor. At a

meeting of the Amphictyonic Council, in the spring of B. C.

339, this violation of the Sacred Law was brought to notice,

by way of retaliation for some offence which the deputies of

Amphissa had given to those of Athens. Hostilities ensued

between the citizens of Delphi, pushed on by the Amphictyons,

on one side, and the Amphissians on the other. The influence

of Philip in the Amphictyonic Council was controlling, and his

partisans had no difficulty in summoning him to act for the

federation in settling this portentous affair. He marched into

Bœotia, took possession of the strong city of Elatea, and very

soon made it manifest that he contemplated something more than

mere dealing with the refractory trespassers of Amphissa.

Athens watched his movements with terror, and even Thebes, his

former ally, took alarm. Through the exertions of Demosthenes,

Thebes and Athens, once more, but too late, gave up their

ancient enmity and united their strength and resources in a

firm league. Megara, Corinth and other states were joined to

them and common cause was made with the Locrians of Amphissa.

These movements consumed a winter, and war opened in the

spring. Philip gained successes from the beginning. He took

Amphissa by surprise and carried Naupactus by storm. But it

was not until August—the first day of August, B. C. 338—that

the two combatants came together in force. This occurred in

the Bœotian valley of the Cephisus, near the town of Chæronea,

which gave its name to the battle. The Sacred Band of Thebes

and the hoplites of Athens, with their allies, fought

obstinately and well; but they were no match for the veterans

of the Macedonian phalanx and most of them perished on the

field. It was the last struggle for Grecian independence.

Henceforth, practically at least, Hellas was swallowed up in

Macedonia. We can see very plainly that Philip's "conduct

towards Athens after the victory, under the appearance of

generosity, was extremely prudent. His object was, to separate

the Thebans from the Athenians, and he at once advanced

against the former. The Athenian prisoners he sent home, free

and clothed, accompanied by Antipater; he ordered the dead

bodies to be burned, and their ashes to be conveyed to Athens,

while the Thebans had to purchase their dead from him. He then

entered Thebes, which he seems to have taken without any

resistance, placed a Macedonian garrison in the Cadmea, and,

with the same policy which Sparta had followed at Athens after

the Peloponnesian war, he established an oligarchy of 300 of

his partizans, who were for the most part returned exiles, and

who now, under the protection of the garrison in the Cadmea,

ruled like tyrants, and raged in a fearful manner. … Philip

accepted all the terms which were agreeable to the Athenians;

no investigations were to be instituted against his enemies,

and none of them was to be sent into exile. Athens was not

only to remain a perfectly sovereign city, but retain Lemnos,

Imbros, and Scyros, nay even Samos and Chersonnesus, though he

might have taken the latter without any difficulty, and though

the Athenians had most cleruchiae in Samos. Thus he bought

over the Athenians through this peace, against which

Demosthenes and others, who saw farther, could not venture to

protest, because Philip offered more than they could give him

in return. … The only thing which the Athenians conceded to

Philip, was, that they concluded a symmachia with him, and

conferred upon him the supreme command in the Persian war. For

with great cunning Philip summoned an assembly of the Greeks

whom he called his allies, to Corinth, to deliberate upon the

war against Persia. The war of revenge against the Persians

had already become a popular idea in Greece. … Philip now

entered Peloponnesus with his whole army, and went to the diet

at Corinth, where the Greek deputies received his orders. In

Peloponnesus he acted as mediator, for he was invited as such

by the Arcadians, Messenians, and Argives, to decide their

disputes with Lacedaemon, and they demanded that he should

restore to them their ancient territories.

{1598}

The Arcadians had formerly possessed many places on the

Eurotas, and the Messenians were still very far from having

recovered all their ancient territories. He accordingly fixed

the boundaries, and greatly diminished the extent of Laconia.

… The Spartans, on that occasion, behaved in a dignified

manner; they were the only ones who refused to acknowledge

Philip as generalissimo against Persia. … Even the ancients

regarded the day of Chaeronea as the death-day of Greece;

every principle of life was cut off; the Greeks, indeed,

continued to exist, but in spirit, and politically, they were

dead. … Philip was now at the height of his power.

Byzantium, and the other allied cities, had submitted to the

conqueror, when he sent his army against them, and he was

already trying to establish himself in Asia. 'A detachment of

troops, under Attalus, had been sent across, to keep open the

road for the great expedition, and had encamped on mount Ida.'

Philip was thus enabled to commence his passage across the

Hellespont whenever he pleased. But the close of his career

was already at hand." He was assassinated in August, B. C.

336, by a certain Pausanias, at the instigation, it is said,

of Olympias, one of Philip's several wives—and the mother of

his famous son Alexander—whom he had repudiated to please a

younger bride. "Philip was unquestionably an uncommon and

extraordinary man, and the opinion of several among the

ancients, that by the foundation of the Macedonian state he

did something far greater than Alexander by the application of

the powers he inherited, is quite correct. … When we regard

him as the creator of his state, by uniting the most different

nations, Macedonians and Greeks; … when we reflect what a

man he must have been, from whom proceeded the impulse to

train such great generals, … to whom Alexander, it must be

observed, did not add one, for all Alexander's generals

proceeded from the school of Philip, and there is not one whom

Alexander did not inherit from Philip;—when we perceive the

skill with which he gained over nations and states, … we

cannot but acknowledge that he was an extraordinary man."

B. G. Niebuhr,

Lectures on Ancient History,

lectures 69 and 66 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapters 43-46 (volumes 5-6).

T. Leland,

History of the Life and Reign of Philip of Macedon,

books 2-5.

GREECE: B. C. 351-348.

The Olynthian War.

Destruction of Olynthus by Philip of Macedonia.

After the overthrow of Spartan domination in Greece, Olynthus

recovered its independence and regained, during the second

quarter of the fourth century B. C., a considerable degree of

prosperity and power. It was even helped in its rise by the

cunning, dangerous hand of Philip of Macedon, who secured many

and great advantages in his treacherous diplomacy by playing

the mutual jealousies of Athens and Olynthus against one

another. The Olynthian Confederacy, formed anew, just served

its purpose as a counterpoise to the Athenian Confederacy,

until Philip had no more need of that service. He was the

friend and ally of the former until he had secured Amphipolis,

Methone, and other necessary positions in Macedonia and

Thrace. Then the mask began to slip and Olynthus (B. C. 351)

got glimpses of the true character of her subtle neighbor. Too

late, she made overtures to Athens, and Athens, too late, saw

the vital importance of a league of friendship between the two

Greek confederacies, against the half Hellenic, half barbaric

Macedonian kingdom. Three of the great speeches of

Demosthenes—the "Olynthiac orations"—were made upon this

theme, and the orator succeeded for the first time in

persuading his degenerated countrymen to act upon his clear

view of the situation. Athens and Olynthus were joined in a

defensive league and Athenian ships and men were sent to the

Chalcidian peninsula,—too late. Partly by the force of his

arms and partly by the power of his gold, buying traitors,

Philip took Olynthus (B. C. 348) and all the thirty-two lesser

towns that were federated with her. He took them and he

destroyed them most brutally. "The haughty city of Olynthus

vanished from the face of the earth, and together with it

thirty-two towns inhabited by Greeks and flourishing as

commercial communities. … The lot of those who saved life

and liberty was happy in comparison with the fate of those

who, like the majority of the Olynthians, fell into the hands

of the conqueror and were sold into slavery, while their

possessions were burnt to ashes or flung as booty to the

mercenaries. … The mines continued to be worked for the

royal treasury; with this exception the whole of Chalcidice

became a desert"

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 7, chapter 3 (volume 5).

ALSO IN:

A. M. Curteis,

Rise of the Macedonian Empire,

chapters 4-5.

B. G. Niebuhr,

Lectures on Ancient History,

lectures 66-68 (volume 2).

GREECE: B. C. 340.

Siege of Byzantium by Philip of Macedonia.

The enmity between Athens and Byzantium yielded in 340 B. C.

to their common fear of Philip of Macedon, and the exertions

of Demosthenes brought about an alliance of the two cities, in

which Perinthus, the near neighbor of Byzantium, was also

joined. Philip, in wrath, proceeded with a fleet and army

against both cities, laying siege, first to Perinthus and

afterwards to Byzantium, but without success in either case.

He was compelled to withdraw, after wasting several months in

the fruitless undertaking. It was one of the few failures of

the able Macedonian.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 90 (volume 11).

GREECE: B. C. 336-335.

Northern campaign of Alexander of Macedonia.

Revolt at Thebes.

Destruction of the city.

"Alexander … took up and continued the political and

military schemes which his father had begun. We first make

acquaintance with him and his army during his campaign against

the tribes on the northern frontier of Makedonia. This

campaign he carried out with energy equal to that of Philip,

and with more success (spring of 335 B. C.). The distinctive

feature of the war was that the Makedonian phalanx, the

organization and equipment of which were adapted from Grecian

models, everywhere won and maintained the upper hand. … Even

at this epoch Byzantium was rising into importance. That city

had, owing to its hostility with Persia, deserted the side of

the Greeks for that of the Makedonians. It was from Byzantium

that Alexander summoned triremes to help him against the

island in the Danube on which the king of the Triballi had

taken refuge. … The great successes of Alexander induced all

the neighboring nationalities to accept the proposals of

friendship which he made to them. … In Greece false reports

concerning the progress of events in the north had raised to

fever heat the general ferment which naturally existed.

{1599}

Alexander relied upon the resolutions of the League of the

Public Peace [formed by the Congress at Corinth], which had

recognized his father and afterwards himself as its head. But

he was now opposed by all those who were unable to forget

their former condition, and who preferred the alliance with

Persia which had left them independent, to the league with

Makedonia which robbed them of their autonomy. … Thebes took

the lead of the malcontents, and set about ridding herself of

the garrison which Philip had placed in the Cadmeia. She thus

became the centre of the whole Hellenic opposition. The

enemies of Makedon, who had been exiled from every city,

assembled in Thebes. … The same party was stirring in

Lakedæmon, in Arcadia, in Ætolia, and, above all, at Athens.

From Athens the Thebans were supplied, through the mediation

of Demosthenes, and doubtless by means of Persian gold, with

arms, of which they were likely to stand in need. …

Alexander had no sooner settled with his enemies in the north

than he turned to Hellas. So rapid was his movement that he

found the pass of Thermopylæ still open, and, long before he

was expected, appeared before the walls of Thebes." The fate

of the city was decided by a battle in which the Makedonians

were overwhelmingly victorious. "In the market-place, in the

streets, in the very houses, there ensued a hideous massacre.

… The victors were, however, not satisfied with the

slaughter. Alexander summoned a meeting of his League, by

which the complete destruction of Thebes was decreed, and this

destruction was actually carried out (October, 335 B. C.). [At

the same time Platæa, which Thebes had destroyed, was ordered

to be rebuilt.] In Grecian history it was no unheard-of event

that the members of the defeated nation should be sold into

slavery, and so it happened on this occasion. The sale of the

slaves supplied Alexander with a sum of money which was no

inconsiderable addition to his military chest. But his main

object was to strike terror, and this was spread through

Greece by the ruthless destruction of the city of Œdipus, of

Pindar, and of Epameinondas. … Deep and universal horror

fell upon the Greeks. … The close connection that existed at

this moment between Grecian and Persian affairs forbade him to

lose a moment in turning his arms towards Asia. … A war

between Alexander and Persia was inevitable, not only on

account of the relation of the Greeks to Makedon, whose yoke

they were very loth to bear, but on account of their relation

to Persia, on whose support they leaned. … The career which

Philip had begun, and in which Alexander was now proceeding,

led of necessity to a struggle with the power that held sway

in Asia Minor. Until that power were defeated, the Makedonian

kingdom could not be regarded as firmly established."

L. von Ranke,

Universal History:

The Oldest Historical Group of Nations and the Greeks,

chapter 10, part 2.

ALSO IN:

Arrian,

Anabasis of Alexander,

book 1, chapters 1-10.

T. A. Dodge,

Alexander,

chapters 14-17.

GREECE: B. C. 334-323.

Asiatic conquests of Alexander the Great.

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

GREECE: B. C. 323-322.

Attempt to break the Macedonian yoke.

The Lamian War.

Subjugation of Athens.

Suppression of democracy.

Expulsion of poor citizens.

Death of Demosthenes.

On the death of Alexander the Great, B. C. 323, a party at

Athens which still hoped for freedom in Greece set on foot a

vigorous movement designed to break the Macedonian yoke. A

league was formed in which many cities joined—a larger

assemblage of Hellenic states, says Mr. Grote, than that which

resisted Xerxes in 480 B. C. A powerful army of Greek citizens

and mercenaries was formed and placed under the command of a

capable Athenian, Leosthenes, who led it into Thessaly, to

meet the Macedonian general Antipater, who now ruled Greece.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

The latter was defeated in a battle which ensued, and was

driven into the fortified Thessalian town of Lamia, where he

was besieged. Unfortunately, Leosthenes was killed during the

progress of the siege, and a long interval occurred before a

new commander could be agreed on. This gave Antipater time to

obtain succor from Asia. A Macedonian army, under Leonnatus,

crossed the Hellespont, and the besiegers of Lamia were forced

to break up their camp in order to meet it. They did so with

success; Leonnatus was slain and his army driven back. But

meantime Antipater escaped from Lamia, joined the defeated

troops and retreated into Macedonia. The war thus begun, and

which took the name of the Lamian War, was continued, not

unfavorably to the confederates, on the whole, until the

following summer—August, 322 B. C.—when it was ended by a

battle fought on the plain of Krannon, in Thessaly. Antipater,

who had been joined by Kraterus, from Asia, was the victor,

and Athens with all her allies submitted to the terms which he

dictated. He established a Macedonian garrison in Munychia,

and not only suppressed the democratic constitution of Athens,

but ordered all the poorer citizens—all who possessed less

than 2,000 drachmæ's worth of property, being 12,000 out of

the 21,000 who then possessed the Athenian franchise—to be

driven from the city; thus leaving a selected citizenship of

9,000 of the richer and more manageable men. The banished or

deported 12,000 were scattered in Thrace, Illyria, Italy and

even in northern Africa. The leaders of the anti-Macedonian

rising were pursued with unrelenting animosity. Demosthenes,

the great orator, who had been conspicuous among them, was

dragged from a temple at Kalauria, to which he had fled, and

took poison to escape the worse death which probably awaited

him.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 95 (volume 12).

GREECE: B. C. 323-301.

Wars of the Diadochi or Successors of Alexander.

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

GREECE: B. C. 321-312.

The contest for Athens and Peloponnesus, between Cassander and

Polysperchon.

Execution of Phocion.

Restoration of Thebes.

"Antipater, after the termination of the Lamian war, passed

over to Asia and took part in the affairs there.

See MACEDONIA: A. D. 323-316.

Being appointed guardian to the Kings, as the children and

relatives of Alexander were called, he returned to Macedonia,

leading them with him. … Antipater died (Olympiad 115, 3)

shortly after his return to Macedonia. He directed that

Polysperchon, his ancient mate in arms, should succeed him in

his office, while to his son Cassander he left only the second

place. But Cassander, an ambitious youth, looked upon his

father's authority as his inheritance; and relying on the aid

of the aristocratic party in the Grecian states, of Ptolemæus,

who ruled in Egypt, and of Antigonus, the most powerful

general in Asia, he resolved to dispute it with Polysperchon.

{1600}

Under pretext of going a-hunting, he escaped out of Macedonia,

and passed over to Asia to concert matters with Antigonus.

Polysperchon, seeing war inevitable, resolved to detach

Greece, if possible, from Cassander. Knowing that the

oligarchies established in the different states by Antipater

would be likely to espouse the cause of his son, he issued a

pompous edict, in the name of the Kings, restoring the

democracies. … At Athens (Olympiad 115,4) [B. C. 317],

Nicanor, who commanded in the Munychia, finding that the

people were inclined toward Polysperchon, secretly collected

troops, and seized the Piræeus. The people sent to him

Phocion, Conon the son of Timotheüs, and Clearchus, men of

distinction, and his friends; but to no purpose. A letter also

came to him from Olympias, Alexander's mother, whom

Polysperchon had recalled from Epeirus, and given the charge

of her infant grandson, ordering him to surrender both the

Munychia and the Piræeus; but to as little effect. Finally,

Polysperchon's son Alexander entered Attica with an army, and

encamped before the Piræeus. Phocion and other chiefs of the

aristocracy went to Alexander, and advised him not to give

these places up to the people, but to hold them himself till

the contest with Cassander should be terminated. They feared,

it is evident, for their own safety, and not without reason;

for the people, ferocious with the recovery of power, soon

after held an assembly, in which they deposed all the former

magistrates, appointed the most furious democrats in their

room, and passed sentences of death, banishment, and

confiscation of goods on those who had governed under the

oligarchy. Phocion and his friends fled to Alexander, who

received them kindly, and sent them with letters in their

favor to his father, who was now in Phocis. The Athenians also

despatched an embassy, and, yielding to motives of interest,

Polysperchon sent his suppliants prisoners to Athens, to stand

a trial for their lives before the tribunal of an anarchic

mob. … The prisoners were condemned and led off to prison,

followed by the tears of their friends and the triumphant

execrations of their mean-spirited enemies. They drank the

fatal hemlock-juice, and their bodies were cast unburied

beyond the confines of Attica. Four days after the death of

Phocion, Cassander arrived at the Piræeus with 35 ships,

carrying 4,000 men, given him by Antigonus. Polysperchon

immediately entered Attica with 20,000 Macedonian foot and

4,000 of those of the allies, 1,000 horse, and 65 elephants,

which he had brought from Asia, and encamped near the Piræeus.

But as the siege was likely to be tedious, and sufficient

provisions for so large an army could not be had, he left a

force such as the country could support with his son

Alexander, and passed with the remainder into Peloponnesus, to

force the Megalopolitans to submit to the Kings; for they

alone sided with Cassander, all the rest having obeyed the

directions to put to death or banish his adherents. The whole

serviceable population of Megalopolis, slaves included,

amounted to 15,000 men; and under the directions of one Damis,

who had served in Asia under Alexander, they prepared for a

vigorous defence. Polysperchon sat down before the town, and

his miners in a short time succeeded in throwing down three

towers and a part of the wall. He attempted a storm, but was

obliged to draw off his men, after an obstinate conflict. …

The Athenians meantime saw themselves excluded from the sea,

and from all their sources of profit and enjoyment, while

little aid was to be expected from Polysperchon, who had been

forced to raise the siege of Megalopolis, and whose fleet had

just now been destroyed by Antigonus in the Hellespont. A

citizen of some consideration ventured at length to propose in

the assembly an arrangement with Cassander. The ordinary

tumult at first was raised, but the sense of interest finally

prevailed. Peace was procured, on the conditions of the

Munychia remaining in Cassander's hands till the end of the

present contest; political privileges being restricted to

those possessed of ten minas and upwards of property, and a

person appointed by Cassander being at the head of the

government. The person selected for this office was Demetrius

of Phaleron, a distinguished Athenian citizen; and under his

mild and equitable rule the people were far happier than they

could have been under a democracy, for which they had proved

themselves no longer fit. Cassander then passed over into

Peloponnesus, and laid siege to Tegea. While here, he heard

that Olympias had put to death several of his friends in

Macedonia; among the rest, Philip Aridæus and his wife

Eurydice, members of the royal family. He at once (Olympiad

116, 1) [B. C. 316] set out for Macedonia; and, as the pass of

Pylæ was occupied by the Ætolians, he embarked his troops in

Locris, and landed them in Thessaly. He besieged Olympias in

Pydna, forced her to surrender, and put her to death.

Macedonia submitted to him, and he then set forth for

Peloponnesus, where Polysperchon's son Alexander was at the

head of an army. He forced a passage through Pylæ, and coming

into Bœotia, announced his intention of restoring Thebes,

which had now lain desolate for twenty years. The scattered

Thebans were collected; the towns of Bœotia and other parts of

Greece (Athens in particular), and even of Italy and Sicily,

aided to raise the walls and to supply the wants of the

returning exiles, and Thebes was once more numbered among the

cities of Greece. As Alexander guarded the Isthmus, Cassander

passed to Megara, where he embarked his troops and elephants,

and crossed over to Epidaurus. He made Argos and Messene come

over to his side, and then returned to Macedonia. In the

conflict of interests which prevailed in this anarchic period,

Antigonus was ere long among the enemies of Cassander. He sent

one of his generals to Laconia, who, having obtained

permission from the Spartans to recruit in Peloponnesus,

raised 8,000 men. The command in Peloponnesus was given to

Polysperchon, whose son Alexander was summoned over to Asia to

accuse Cassander of treason before the assembly of the

Macedonian soldiers. Cassander was proclaimed a public enemy

unless he submitted to Antigonus; at the same time the Greeks

were declared independent, Antigonus hoping thus to gain them

over to his side. He then sent Alexander back with 500

talents; and when Ptolemæus of Egypt heard what Antigonus had

done, he also hastened to declare the independence of the

Greeks; for all the contending generals were anxious to stand

well with the people of Greece, from which country, exclusive

of other advantages, they drew their best soldiers.

{1601}

… Antigonus, to show the Greeks that he was in earnest in

his promise to restore them to independence, sent one of his

generals, named Telesphorus, with a fleet and army to

Peloponnesus, who expelled Cassander's garrisons from most of

the towns. The following year (Olympiad 117, 1) [B. C. 312] he

sent an officer, named Ptolemæus, with another fleet and army

to Greece. Ptolemæus landed in Bœotia, and being joined by

2,200 foot, and 1,300 horse of the Bœotians, he passed over to

Eubœa; where having expelled the Macedonian garrison from

Chalcis (the only town there which Cassander held), he left it

without any foreign garrison, as a proof that Antigonus meant

fairly. He then took Orôpus, and gave it to the Bœotians; he

entered Attica, and the people forced Demetrius Phalereus to

make a truce with him, and to send to Antigonus to treat of an

alliance. Ptolemæus returned to Bœotia, expelled the garrison

from the Cadmeia, and liberated Thebes."

T. Keightley,

History of Greece,

part 3, chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 58 (volume 7).

GREECE: B. C. 307-197.

Demetrius and the Antigonids.

In the spring of the year 307 B. C. Athens was surprised by an

expedition sent from Ephesus by Antigonus, under his

adventurous son Demetrius, surnamed Poliorcetes.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.

The city had then been for ten years subject to Cassander, the

ruling chief in Macedonia for the time, and appears to have

been mildly governed by Cassander's lieutenant, Demetrius the

Phalerian. The coming of the other Demetrius offered nothing

to the Athenians but a change of masters, but they welcomed

him with extravagant demonstrations. Their degeneracy was

shown in proceedings of Asiatic servility. They deified

Demetrius and his father Antigonus, erected altars to them and

appointed ministering priests. After some months spent at

Athens in the enjoyment of these adulations, Demetrius

returned to Asia, to take part in the war which Antigonus was

waging with Ptolemy of Egypt and Lysimachus of Thrace, two of

his former partners in the partition of the empire of

Alexander. He was absent three years, and then returned, at

the call of the Athenians, to save them from falling again

into the hands of Cassander. He now made Athens his capital,

as it were, for something more than a year, while he acquired

control of Corinth, Argos, Sicyon, Chalcis in Eubœa and other

important places, greatly reducing the dominion of the

Macedonian, Cassander. His treatment at Athens, during this

period, was marked by the same impious and disgraceful

servility as before. He was called the guest of the goddess

Athene and lodged in the Parthenon, which he polluted with

intolerable debaucheries. But in the summer of 301 B. C. this

clever adventurer was summoned again to Asia, to aid his

father in the last great struggle, which decided the partition

of the empire of Alexander between his self-constituted heirs.

At the battle of Ipsus (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301),

Antigonus perished and Demetrius was stripped of the kingdom

he expected to inherit. He turned to Athens for consolation,

and the fickle city refused to admit him within her walls. But

after some period of wanderings and adventures the

unconquerable prince got together a force with which he

compelled the Athenians to receive him, on more definite terms

of submission on their part and of mastery on his. Moreover,

he established his rule in the greater part of Peloponnesus,

and finally, on the death of Cassander (B. C. 297), he

acquired the crown of Macedonia. Not satisfied with what

fortune had thus given him, he attempted to recover the

Asiatic kingdom of his father, and died, B. C. 283, a captive

in the hands of the Syrian monarch, Seleucus. His Macedonian

kingdom had meantime been seized by Pyrrhus of Epirus; but it

was ultimately recovered by the eldest legitimate son of

Demetrius, called Antigonus Gonatus. From that time, for a

century, until the Romans came, not only Macedonia, but Greece

at large, Athens included, was ruled or dominated by this king

and his descendants, known as the Antigonid kings.

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapters 59-60 (volumes 7-8).

GREECE: B. C. 297-280.

Death of Cassander.

Intrigues and murders of Ptolemy Keraunos and his strange

acquisition of the Macedonian throne.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280.

GREECE: B. C. 280-279.

Invasion by the Gauls.

See GAULS: B. C. 280-279.

GREECE: B. C. 280-275.

Campaigns of Pyrrhus in Italy and Sicily.

See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

GREECE: B. C. 3d Century.

The Hellenistic world.

As the result of the conquests of Alexander and the wars of

his successors, there were, in the third century before

Christ, three great Hellenistic kingdoms, Macedonia, Egypt,

Syria, which lasted, each under its own dynasty, till Rome

swallowed them up. The first of these, which was the poorest,

and the smallest, but historically the most important,

included the ancestral possessions of Philip and Alexander—

Macedonia, most of Thrace, 'Thessaly, the mountainous centre

of the peninsula, as well as a protectorate more or less

definite and absolute over Greece proper, the Cyclades, and

certain tracts of Caria. … Next came Egypt, including Cyrene

and Cyprus, and a general protectorate over the sea-coast

cities of Asia Minor up to the Black Sea, together with claims

often asserted with success on Syria, and on the coast lands

of Southern Asia Minor. … Thirdly came what was now called

Syria, on account of the policy of the house of Seleucus, who

built there its capital, and determined to make the Greek or

Hellenistic end of its vast dominions its political centre of

gravity. The Kingdom of Syria owned the south and south-east

of Asia Minor, Syria, and generally Palestine, Mesopotamia,

and the mountain provinces adjoining it on the East, with

vague claims further east when there was no king like

Sandracottus to hold India and the Punjaub with a strong hand.

There was still a large element of Hellenism in these remote

parts. The kingdom of Bactria was ruled by a dynasty of kings

with Greek names—Euthydemus is the chief—who coined in Greek

style, and must therefore have regarded themselves as

successors to Alexander. There are many exceptions and

limitations to this general description, and many secondary

and semi-independent kingdoms, which make the picture of

Hellenism infinitely various and complicated. There was, in

fact, a chain of independent kingdoms reaching from Media to

Sparta, all of which asserted their complete freedom, and

generally attained it by balancing the great powers one

against the other.

{1602}

Here they are in their order. Atropatene was the kingdom in

the northern and western parts of the province of Media, by

Atropates, the satrap of Alexander, who claimed descent from

the seven Persian chiefs who put Darius I. on the throne. Next

came Armenia, hardly conquered by Alexander, and now

established under a dynasty of its own. Then Cappadocia, the

land in the heart of Asia Minor, where it narrows between

Cilicia and Pontus, ruled by sovereigns also claiming royal

Persian descent. … Fourthly, Pontus, under its equally

Persian dynast Mithridates—a kingdom which makes a great

figure in Eastern history under the later Roman Republic.

There was moreover a dynast of Bithynia, set up and supported

by the robber state of the Celtic Galatians, which had just

been founded, and was a source of strength and of danger to

all its neighbours. Then Pergamum, just being founded and

strengthened by the first Attalid, Philetærus, an officer of

Lysimachus, and presently to become one of the leading

exponents of Hellenism. … Almost all these second-rate

states (and with them the free Greek cities of Heracleia,

Cyzicus, Byzantium, &c.) were fragments of the shuttered

kingdom of Lysimachus. … We have taken no account of a very

peculiar feature extending all through even the Greek

kingdoms, especially that of the Selucids—the number of large

Hellenistic cities founded as special centres of culture, or

points of defence, and organized as such with a certain local

independence. These cities, most of which we only know by

name, were the real backbone of Hellenism in the world.

Alexander had founded seventy of them, all called by his name.

Many were upon great trade lines, like the Alexandria which

still exists. Many were intended as garrison towns in the

centre of remote provinces, like Candahar—a corruption of

Iskanderieh, Iskendar being the Oriental form for Alexander.

Some were mere outposts, where Macedonian soldiers were forced

to settle, and guard the frontiers against the barbarians,

like the Alexandria on the Iaxartes. … As regards Seleucus

… we have a remarkable statement from Appian that he founded

cities through the length and breadth of his kingdom, viz.,

sixteen Antiochs called after his father, five Laodiceas after

his mother, nine Seleucias after himself, three Apameias and

one Stratoniceia after his wives. … All through Syria and

Upper Asia there are many towns bearing Greek and Macedonian

names—Berea, Edessa, Perinthos, Aclæa, Pella, &c. The number

of these, which have been enumerated in a special catalogue by

Droysen, the learned historian of Hellenism, is enormous, and

the first question which arises in our mind is this: where

were Greek-speaking people found to fill them? It is indeed

true that Greece proper about this time became depopulated,

and that it never has recovered from this decay. … Yet …

the whole population of Greece would never have sufficed for

one tithe of the cities—the great cities—founded all over

Asia by the Diadochi. We are therefore driven to the

conclusion that but a small fraction, the soldiers and

officials of the new cities, were Greeks—Macedonians, when

founded by Alexander himself—generally broken down veterans,

mutinous and discontented troops, and camp followers. To these

were associated people from the surrounding country, it being

Alexander's fixed idea to discountenance sporadic country life

in villages and encourage town communities. The towns

accordingly received considerable privileges. … The Greek

language and political habits were thus the one bond of union

among them, and the extraordinary colonizing genius of the

Greek once more proved itself."

J. P. Mahaffy,

The Story of Alexander's Empire,

chapter 10.

See, also,

HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.

GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

The Achaian League.

Its rise and fall.

Destruction of Sparta.

Supremacy of Rome.

The Achaian League, which bore a leading part in the affairs

of Greece during the last half of the third and first half of

the second century before Christ, was in some sense the

revival of a more ancient confederacy among the cities of

Achaia in Peloponnesus. The older League, however, was

confined to twelve cities of Achaia and had little weight,

apparently, in general Hellenic politics. The revived League

grew beyond the territorial boundaries which were indicated by

its name, and embraced the larger part of Peloponnesus. It

began about 280 B. C. by the forming of a union between the

two Achaian cities of Patrai and Dyme. One by one their

neighbors joined them, until ten cities were confederated and

acting as one. "The first years of the growth of the Achaian

League are contemporary with the invasion of Macedonia and

Greece by the Gauls and with the wars between Pyrrhos and

Antigonos Gonatas.

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

Pyrrhos, for a moment, expelled Antigonos from the Macedonian

throne, which Antigonos recovered while' Pyrrhos was warring

in Peloponnesos. By the time that Pyrrhos was dead, and

Antigonos again firmly fixed in Macedonia, the League had

grown up to maturity as far as regarded the cities of the old

Achaia. … Thus far, then, circumstances had favoured the

quiet and peaceful growth of the League." It had had the

opportunity to grow firm enough and strong enough, on the

small scale, to offer some lessons to its disunited and

tyrannized neighbors and to exercise an attractive influence

upon them. One of the nearest of these neighbors was Sikyon,

which groaned under a tyranny that had been fastened upon it

by Macedonian influence. Among the exiles from Sikyon was a

remarkable young man named Aratos, or Aratus, to whom the

successful working of the small Achaian League suggested some

broader extension of the same political organism. In B. C.

251, Aratos succeeded in delivering his native city from its

tyrant and in bringing about the annexation of Sikyon to the

Achaian League. Eight years later, having meantime been

elected to the chief office of the League, Aratos accomplished

the expulsion of the Macedonians and their agents from

Corinth, Megara, Troizen and Epidauros, and persuaded those

four cities to unite themselves with the Achaians. During the

next ten years he made similar progress in Arkadia, winning

town after town to the federation, until the Arkadian federal

capital, Megalopolis, was enrolled in the list of members, and

gave to the League its greatest acquisition of energy and

brain. In 229 B. C. the skill of Aratos and the prestige of

the League, taking advantage of disturbances in Macedonia,

effected the withdrawal of the Macedonian garrisons from

Athens and the liberation of that city, which did not become

confederated with its liberators, but entered into alliance

with them. Argos was emancipated and annexed, B. C. 228, and

"the League was now the greatest power of Greece.

{1603}

A Federation of equal cities, democratically governed,

embraced the whole of old Achaia, the whole of the Argolic

peninsula, the greater part of Arkadia, together with Phlious,

Sikyon, Corinth, Megara, and the island of Aigina." The one

rival of the Achaian League in Peloponnesus was Sparta, which

looked with jealousy upon its growing power, and would not be

confederated with it. The consequences of that jealous rivalry

were fatal to the hopes for Greece which the Achaian union had

seemed to revive. Unfortunately, rather than otherwise, the

Lacedæmonian throne came to be occupied at this time by the

last of the hero-kings of the Herakleid race—Kleomenes. When

the inevitable collision of war between Sparta and the League

occurred (B. C. 227-221), the personal figure of Kleomenes

loomed so large in the conflict that it took the name of the

Kleomenic War. Aratos was the worst of generals, Kleomenes one

of the greatest, and the Achaians were steadily beaten in the

field. Driven to sore straits at last, they abandoned the

whole original purpose of their federation, by inviting the

king of Macedonia to help them crush the independence of

Sparta. To win his aid they gave up Corinth to him, and under

his leadership they achieved the shameful victory of Sellasia

(B. C. 221), where all that is worthy in Lacedæmonian history

came to an end. The League was now scarcely more than a

dependency of the Macedonian kingdom, and figured as such in

the so-called Social War with the Ætolian League, B. C.

219-217. The wars of Rome with Macedonia which followed

renewed its political importance considerably for a time.

Becoming the ally of Rome, it was able to maintain a certain

dignity and influence until the supremacy of the Roman arms

had been securely proved, and then it sank to the helpless

insignificance which all Roman alliances led to in the end. It

was in that state when, on some complaint from Rome (B. C.

167), a thousand of the chief citizens of Achaia were sent as

prisoners to Italy and detained there until less than 300

survived to return to their homes. Among them was the

historian Polybios. A little later (B. C. 146) there was a

wild revolt from the Roman yoke, in which Corinth took the

lead. A few months of war ensued, ending in a decisive battle

at Leukopetra. Then Corinth was sacked and destroyed by the

Roman army and the Achaian League disappeared from history.

E. A. Freeman,

History of Federal Government,

chapters 5-9.

ALSO IN:

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapters 61-66 (volume 8).

Polybius,

History.

GREECE: B. C. 214-146.

The Roman conquest.

The series of wars in which the Romans made themselves masters

of Greece were known in their annals as the Macedonian Wars.

At the beginning, they were innocent of aggression. A young

and ambitious but unprincipled king of Macedonia—Philip, who

succeeded the able Antigonos Doson—had put himself in

alliance with the Carthaginians and assailed the Romans in the

midst of their desperate conflict with Hannibal. For the time

they were unable to do more than trouble Philip so far as to

prevent his bringing effective reinforcements to the enemy at

their doors, and this they accomplished in part by a treaty

with the Ætolians, which enlisted that unscrupulous league

upon their side. The first Macedonian war, which began B. C.

214, was terminated by the Peace of Dyrrachium, B. C. 205. The

Peace was of five years duration, and Philip employed it in

reckless undertakings against Pergamus, against Rhodes,

against Athens, everyone of which carried complaints to Rome,

the rising arbiter of the Mediterranean world, whose hostility

Philip lost no opportunity to provoke. On the Ides of March,

B. C. 200, the Roman senate declared war. In the spring of B.

C. 197 this second Macedonian War was ended at the battle of

Cynoscephalæ—so called from the name of a range of hills

known as the Dog-heads—where the Macedonian army was

annihilated by the consul T. Quinctius Flamininus. At the next

assembly of the Greeks for the Isthmian Games, a crier made

proclamation in the arena that the Roman Senate and T.

Quinctius the General, having conquered King Philip and the

Macedonians, declared all the Greeks who had been subject to

the king free and independent. Henceforth, whatever freedom

and independence the states of Greece enjoyed were according

to the will of Rome. An interval of twenty-five years, broken

by the invasion of Antiochus and his defeat by the Romans at

Thermopylæ (see SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187), was followed by a

third Macedonian War. Philip was now dead and succeeded by his

son Perseus, known to be hostile to Rome and accused of

intrigues with her enemies. The Roman Senate forestalled his

intentions by declaring war. The war which opened B. C. 171

was closed by the battle of Pydna, fought June 22, B. C. 168,

where 20,000 Macedonians were slain and 11,000 taken

prisoners, while the Romans lost scarcely 100 men. Perseus

attempted flight, but was soon driven to give himself up and

was sent to Rome. The Macedonian kingdom was then extinguished

and its territory divided between four nominal republics,

tributary to Rome. Twenty years after, there was an attempt

made by a pretender to re-establish the Macedonian throne, and

a fourth Macedonian War occurred; but it was soon finished (B.

C. 146—see above, B. C. 280-146). The four republics then

gave way, to form a Roman province of Macedonia and Epirus,

while the remainder of Greece, in turn, became the Roman

province of Achaia.

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapters 64-66 (volume 8).

ALSO IN:

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

chapters 39, 43 and 45.

E. A. Freeman,

History of Federal Government,

chapters 8-9.

Polybius,

General History.

GREECE: B. C. 191.

War of Antiochus of Syria and the Romans.

See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

GREECE: B. C. 146-A. D. 180.

Under the Romans, to the reign of Marcus Aurelius.

Sufferings in the Mithridatic war and revolt,

and in the Roman civil wars.

Treatment by the emperors.

Munificence of Herodes Atticus.

"It was some time [after the Roman conquest] before the Greeks

had great reason to regret their fortune. A combination of

causes, which could hardly have entered into the calculations

of any politician, enabled them to preserve their national

institutions, and to exercise all their former social

influence, even after the annihilation of their political

existence. Their vanity was flattered by their admitted

superiority in arts and literature, and by the respect paid to

their usages and prejudices by the Romans. Their political

subjection was at first not very burdensome; and a

considerable portion of the nation was allowed to retain the

appearance of independence.

{1604}

Athens and Sparta were honoured with the title of allies of

Rome. [Athens retained this independent existence, partaking

something of the position of Hamburg in the Germanic body,

until the time of Caracalla, when its citizens were absorbed

into the Roman empire.—Footnote.] The nationality of the

Greeks was so interwoven with their municipal institutions,

that the Romans found it impossible to abolish the local

administration; and an imperfect attempt made at the time of

the conquest of Achaia was soon abandoned. … The Roman

senate was evidently not without great jealousy and some fear

of the Greeks; and great prudence was displayed in adopting a

number of measures by which they were gradually weakened, and

cautiously broken to the yoke of their conquerors. … It was

not until after the time of Augustus, when the conquest of

every portion of the Greek nation had been completed, that the

Romans began to view the Greeks in the contemptible light in

which they are represented by the writers of the capital.

Crete was not reduced into the form of a province until about

eight years after the subjection of Achaia, and its conquest

was not effected without difficulty, after a war of three

years, by the presence of a consular army. The resistance it

offered was so obstinate that it was almost depopulated ere

the Romans could complete its conquest. … The Roman

government … soon adopted measures tending to diminish the

resources of the Greek states when received as allies of the

republic. … If we could place implicit faith in the

testimony of so firm and partial an adherent of the Romans as

Polybius, we must believe that the Roman administration was at

first characterised by a love of justice, and that the Roman

magistrates were far less venal than the Greeks. … Less than

a century of irresponsible power effected a wonderful change

in the conduct of the Roman magistrates. Cicero declares that

the senate made a traffic of justice to the provincials. …

But as the government of Rome grew more oppressive, and the

amount of the taxes levied on the provinces was more severely

exacted, the increased power of the republic rendered any

rebellion of the Greeks utterly hopeless. … For sixty years

after the conquest of Achaia, the Greeks remained docile

subjects of Rome. … The number of Roman usurers increased,

and the exactions of Roman publicans in collecting the taxes

became more oppressive, so that when the army of Mithridates

invaded Greece, B. C. 86, while Rome appeared plunged in

anarchy by the civil broils of the partisans of Marius and

Sylla, the Greeks in office conceived the vain hope of

recovering their independence. …

See MITHRIDATIC WARS;

and ATHENS: B. C. 87-86.

Both parties, during the Mithridatic war, inflicted severe

injuries on Greece. … Many of the losses were never

repaired. The foundations of national prosperity were

undermined, and it henceforward became impossible to save from

the annual consumption of the inhabitants the sums necessary

to replace the accumulated capital of ages, which this short

war had annihilated."

G. Finlay,

Greece under the Romans,

chapter 1.

"Scarcely had the storm of Roman war passed by, when the

Cilician pirates, finding the coasts of Greece peculiarly

favorable for their marauding incursions, and tempted by the

wealth accumulated in the cities and temples, commenced their

depredations on so gigantic a scale that Rome felt obliged to

put forth all her military forces for their suppression. The

exploits of Pompey the Great, who was clothed with autocratic

power to destroy this gigantic evil, fill the brightest

chapter in the history of that celebrated but too unfortunate

commander. …

See CILICIA, PIRATES OF.

The civil wars in which the great Republic expired had the

fields of Greece for their theatre. Under the tramp of

contending armies, her fertile plains were desolated, and

Roman blood, in a cause not her own; again and again moistened

her soil.

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

But at length the civil wars have come to an end, and the

Empire introduces, for the first time in the melancholy

history of man, a state of universal peace. Greece still

maintains her pre-eminence in literature and art, and her

schools are frequented by the sons of the Roman aristocracy.

Her elder poets serve as models to the literary genius of the

Augustan age. … The historians form themselves on Attic

prototypes, and the philosophers of Rome divide themselves

among the Grecian sects, while in Athens the Platonists, the

Stoics, the Peripatetics, and the Epicureans still haunt the

scenes with which the names of their masters were inseparably

associated. … The establishment of the Empire made but

little change in the administration of Greece. Augustus,

indeed, showed no great solicitude, except to maintain the

country in subjection by his military colonies,—especially

those of Patræ and Nicopolis. He even deprived Athens of the

privileges she had enjoyed under the Republic, and broke down

the remaining power of Sparta, by declaring the independence

of her subject towns. Some of his successors treated the

country with favor, and endeavored, by a clement use of

authority, to mitigate the sufferings of its decline. Even

Nero, the amiable fiddler of Rome, was proud to display the

extent of his musical abilities in their theatres. … The

noble Trajan allowed the Greeks to retain their former local

privileges, and did much to improve their condition by his

wise and just administration. Hadrian was a passionate lover

of Greek art and literature. Athens especially received the

amplest benefits from his taste and wealth. He finished the

temple of Olympian Zeus; established a public library; built a

pantheon and a gymnasium; rebuilt the temple of Apollo at

Megara; improved the old roads of Greece and made new ones.

… Antoninus and Marcus Aurelius showed good will to Greece.

The latter rebuilt the temple at Eleusis, and improved the

Athenian schools, raising the salaries of the teachers, and in

various ways contributing to make Athens, as it had been

before, the most illustrious seat of learning in the world. It

was in the reign of this Emperor, in the second century of our

era, that one of the greatest benefactors of Athens and all

Greece lived,--Herodes Atticus, distinguished alike for

wealth, learning, and eloquence. Born at Marathon, …

educated at Athens by the best teachers his father's wealth

could procure, he became on going to Rome, in early life, the

rhetorical teacher of Marcus Aurelius himself. Antoninus Pius

bestowed on him the honor of the consulship; but he preferred

the career of a teacher at Athens to the highest political

dignities … , and he was followed thither by young men of

the most eminent Roman families, from the Emperor's down. …

{1605}

At Athens, south of the Ilissus, he built the stadium … and

the theatre of Regilla. … At Corinth he built a theatre; at

Olympia, an aqueduct; at Delphi, a race-course; and at

Thermopylæ, a hospital. Peloponnesus, Eubœa, Bœotia, and

Epeirus experienced his bounty, and even Italy was not

forgotten in the lavish distribution of his wealth. He died in

A. D. 180."

C. C. Felton,

Greece, Ancient and Modern, 4th course,

lecture 3 (volume 2).

On the influence which Greek genius and culture exercised upon

the Romans,

See HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.

ALSO IN:

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome: The Provinces,

chapter 7 (volume 1).

J. P. Mahaffy,

The Greek World under Roman Sway.

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

GREECE: B. C. 48.

Cæsar's campaign against Pompeius.

Pharsalia.

See ROME: B. C. 48.

GREECE: A. D. 258-395.

Gothic invasions.

See GOTHS.

GREECE: A. D. 330.

Transference of the capital of the Roman Empire to Byzantium

(Constantinople).

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 330.

GREECE: A. D. 394-395.

Final division of the Roman Empire between the sons of

Theodosius.

Definite organization of the Eastern Empire under Arcadius.

See ROME: A. D. 394-395.

GREECE: A. D. 425.

Legal separation of the Eastern and Western Empires.

See Rome: A. D. 423-450.

GREECE: A. D. 446.

Devastating invasion of the Huns.

See HUNS: A. D. 441-446.

GREECE: A. D. 527-567.

The reign of Justinian at Constantinople.

His recovery of Italy and Africa.

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

GREECE: 7th Century.

Slavonic occupation of the Peninsula.

See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6TH AND 7TH CENTURIES.

GREECE: A. D. 717-1205.

The Byzantine Empire to its fall.

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

GREECE: A. D. 1205-1261.

Overthrow of the Byzantine Empire by the Crusaders.

The Latin Empire of Romania.

The Greek Empire of Nicæa.

The dukedoms of Athens and Naxos;

The principality of Achaia.

See ROMANIA; GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA;

ATHENS: A. D.1205;

ACHAIA: A. D. 1205-1387;

and NAXOS.

GREECE: A. D. 1261-1453.

The restored Byzantine or Greek Empire.

See CONSTANTINOPLE; A. D. 1261-1453;

and BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1261-1453.

GREECE: A. D. 1453-1479.

The Turkish Conquest.

See TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481;

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1453, and 1453-1481;

and ATHENS: A. D. 1456.

GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

War of Turks and Venetians in the Peninsula.

Siege of Corinth.

Sack of Athens.

Massacres at Negropont and Croia.

"The taking of Constantinople by the Turks, and the captivity

of the Venetians settled in Pera, threatened [the power of

Venice] … in the East; and she felt no repugnance to enter

into a treaty with the enemies of her religion. After a year's

negotiation, terms were concluded [1454] between the Sultan

and Venice; by which her possessions were secured to her, and

her trade guaranteed throughout the empire. In virtue of this

treaty she continued to occupy Modon, Coron, Napoli di

Romania, Argos, and other cities on the borders of the

Peninsula, together with Eubœa (Negropont) and some of the

smaller islands. But this good understanding was interrupted

in 1463, when the Turks contrived an excuse for attacking the

Venetian territory. Under pretence of resenting the asylum

afforded to a Turkish refugee, the Pasha of the Morea besieged

and captured Argos; and the Republic felt itself compelled

immediately to resent the aggression. A re-inforcement was

sent from Venice to Napoli, and Argos was quickly recaptured.

Corinth was next besieged, and the project of fortifying the

isthmus was once more renewed. … The labour of 30,000

workmen accomplished the work in 15 days; a stone wall of more

than 12 feet high, defended by a ditch and flanked by 136

towers, was drawn across the isthmus. … But the approach

of the Turks, whose numbers were probably exaggerated by

report, threw the Venetians into distrust and consternation;

and, unwilling to confide in the strength of their rampart,

they abandoned the siege of Corinth, and retreated to Napoli,

from which the infidels were repulsed with the loss of 5,000

men. The Peloponnesus was now exposed to the predatory

retaliations of the Turks and Venetians; and the Christians

appeared anxious to rival or surpass the Mahomedans in the

refinement of their barbarous inflictions. … In the year

1465, Sigismondo Malatesta landed in the Morea with a

re-inforcement of 1,000 men; and, without effecting the

reduction of the citadel, captured and burned Misitra [near

the ruins of ancient Sparta]. In the following year, Vittore

Cappello, with the Venetian fleet, arrived in the straits of

Euripus; and landing at Aulis marched into Attica. After

making himself master of the Piræus, he laid siege to Athens;

her walls were overthrown; her inhabitants plundered; and the

Venetians retreated with the spoil to the opposite shores of

Eubœa. The victorious career of Matthias Corvinus, King of

Hungary, for a time diverted the Sultan from the war in the

Morea; but … in the beginning of the year 1470 a fleet of

108 gallies, besides a number of smaller vessels, manned by a

force 70,000 strong, issued from the harbour of

Constantinople, and sailed for the straits of Euripus. … The

army landed without molestation on the island, which they

united to the mainland by a bridge of boats, and immediately

proceeded to lay siege to the city of Negropont. … The hopes

of the besieged were now centred in the Venetian fleet, which,

under the command of Nicolo Canale, lay at anchor in the

Saronic Gulf. But that admiral, whilst he awaited a

re-inforcement, let slip the favourable opportunity of

preventing the debarcation of the enemy, or of shutting up the

Turks in the island by the destruction of their half-deserted

fleet and bridge of boats. By an unaccountable inactivity, he

suffered the city to be attacked, which, after a vigorous

resistance of nearly a month, was carried by assault [July 12,

1470]; and all the inhabitants, who did not escape into the

citadel, were put to the sword. At length that fortress was

also taken; and the barbarous conqueror, who had promised to

respect the head of the intrepid governor, deemed it no

violation of his word to saw his victim in halves. After this

decisive blow, which reduced the whole island, Mahomed led

back his conquering army to Constantinople. … This success

encouraged the Turks to attack the Venetians in their Italian

territory; and the Pasha of Bosnia invaded Istria and Friuli,

and carried fire and sword almost to the gates of Udine.

{1606}

In the following year [1474], however, the Turks were baffled

in their attempt to reduce Scutari in Albania, which had been

delivered by the gallant Scanderbeg to the guardian care of

Venice. Some abortive negotiations for peace suspended

hostilities until 1477, when the troops of Mahomed laid siege

to Croia in Albania, which they reduced to the severest

distress. But a new incursion into Friuli struck a panic into

the inhabitants of Venice, who beheld, from the tops of their

churches and towers, the raging flames which devoured the

neighbouring villages." The Turks, however, withdrew into

Albania, where the siege of Croia was terminated by its

surrender and the massacre of its inhabitants, and the Sultan,

in person, renewed the attack on Scutari. The stubborn

garrison of that stronghold, however, resisted, with fearful

slaughter, a continuous assault made upon their walls during

two days and a night. Mahomed was forced to convert the siege

into a blockade, and his troops reappeared in Friuli. "These

repeated aggressions on her territories made Venice every day

more anxious to conclude a peace with the Sultan," and a

treaty was signed in April, 1479. "It was agreed that the

islands of Negropont and Mitylene, with the cities of Croia

and Scutari in Albania, and of Tenaro in the Morea, should be

consigned to the Turk; whilst other conquests were to be

reciprocally restored to their former owners. A tribute of

10,000 ducats was imposed upon Venice, and the inhabitants of

Scutari [now reduced to 500 men and 150 women] were to be

permitted to evacuate the city."

Sir R. Comyn,

History of the Western Empire,

chapter 31 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

Sir E. S. Creasy,

History of the Ottoman Turks,

chapter 5.

GREECE: A. D. 1645-1669.

The war of Candia.

Surrender of Crete to the Turks by the Venetians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1645-1669.

GREECE: A. D. 1684-1696.

Conquests by the Venetians from the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

GREECE: A. D. 1699.

Cession of part of the Morea to Venice by the Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

GREECE: A. D. 1714-1718.

The Venetians expelled again from the Morea by the Turks.

Corfu defended.

See TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.

GREECE: A. D. 1770-1772.

Revolt against the Turkish rule.

Russian encouragement and desertion.

See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

Overthrow of Turkish rule.

Intervention of Russia, England and France.

Battle of Navarino.

Establishment of national independence.

"The Spanish revolution of 1820 [see SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827],

which was speedily followed by the revolutions of Naples,

Sicily, and Piedmont, caused a great excitement throughout

Europe, and paved the way for the Greek revolution of 1821.

Since the beginning of the century the Greeks had been

preparing for the struggle; in fact, for more than fifty years

there had been a general movement in the direction of

independence. … There had been many insurrections against

the Turkish authority, but they were generally suppressed

without difficulty, though with the shedding of much Greek

blood. Nearly every village in Greece suffered from pillage by

the Turks, and the families were comparatively few that did

not mourn a father, son, or brother, killed by the Turks or

carried into slavery, or a daughter or sister transported to a

Turkish harem. … Notwithstanding their subjugation, many of

the Greeks were commercially prosperous, and a large part of

the traffic of the East was in their hands. They conducted

nearly all the coasting trade of the Levant, and a few years

before the revolution they had 600 vessels mounting 6,000 guns

(for defence against pirates) and manned by 18,000 seamen. …

In laying their plans for independence the Greeks resorted to

the formation of secret societies, and so well was the scheme

conducted that everything was ripe for insurrection before the

Turkish rulers had any suspicion of the state of affairs. A

great association was formed which included Greeks everywhere,

not only in Greece and its islands, but in Constantinople,

Austria, Germany, England, and other countries, wherever a

Greek could be found. Men of other nationalities were

occasionally admitted, but only when their loyalty to the

Greek cause was beyond question, and their official positions

gave them a chance to aid in the work. Several distinguished

Russians were members, among them Count Capo D'Istria, a Greek

by birth, who held the office of private secretary to the

Emperor Alexander I. of Russia. The society was known as the

Hetaira, or Hetairist, and consisted of several degrees or

grades. The highest contained only sixteen persons, whose

names were not all known, and it was impossible for any member

of the lower classes to ascertain them. … All the Hetairists

looked hopefully towards Russia, partly in consequence of

their community of religion, and partly because of the

fellow-feeling of the two countries in cordially detesting the

Turk. … The immediate cause of the revolution, or rather the

excuse for it, was the death of the Hospodar of Wallachia,

January 30, 1821, followed by the appointment of his

successor. During the interregnum, which naturally left the

government in a weakened condition, the Hetairists determined

to strike their blow for liberty. A band of 150 Greeks and

Arnauts, under the command of Theodore Vladimiruko, formerly a

lieutenant-colonel in the Russian service, marched out of

Bucharest and seized the small town of Czernitz, near Trajan's

Bridge, on the Danube. There Theodore issued a proclamation,

and such was the feeling of discontent among the people, that

in a few days he had a force of 12,000 men under his command.

Soon afterwards there was an insurrection in Jassy, the

capital of Moldavia, headed by Prince Alexander Ipsilanti, an

officer in the Russian service. He issued a proclamation in

which the aid of Russia was distinctly promised, and as the

news of this proclamation was carried to Greece, there was a

general movement in favor of insurrection. The Russian

minister assured the Porte that his government had nothing to

do with the insurrection, and the Patriarch and Synod of

Constantinople issued a proclamation emphatically denouncing

the movement, but in spite of this assurance and proclamation

the insurrection went on. Count Nesselrode declared officially

that Ipsilanti's name would be stricken from the Russian army

list, and that his act was one for which he alone was

responsible. This announcement was the death-blow of the

insurrection in Moldavia and Wallachia, as the forces of

Theodore and Ipsilanti were suppressed, after some sharp

fighting, by the hordes of Moslems that were brought against

them. … Nearly the whole of Greece was in full insurrection

in a few months, and with far better prospects than had the

insurrection on the Danube.

{1607}

Turks and Greeks were embittered against each other; the

war-cry of the Turk was, 'Death to the Christian!' while that

of the Christian was, 'Death to the Turk!' The example was set

by the Turks, and, to the eternal disgrace of the Turkish

government, slaughter in cold blood was made official. It was

by the order and authority of the Porte that Gregory,

Patriarch of Constantinople, a revered prelate, eighty years

of age, was seized on Easter Sunday, as he was descending from

the altar where he had been celebrating divine service, and

hanged at the gate of his archiepiscopal palace, amid the

shouts and howls of a Moslem mob. After hanging three hours,

the body was cut down and delivered to some Jews, who dragged

it about the streets and threw it into the sea, whence it was

recovered the same night by some Christian fishermen. Some

weeks later it was taken to Odessa and buried with great

ceremony. This act of murder was the more atrocious on the

part of the Turks, since the Patriarch had denounced the

insurrection in a public proclamation, and his life and

character were most blameless and exemplary. It is safe to say

that this barbarity had more to do with fanning the fires of

revolt than any other act of the Turkish government. But it

was by no means the only act of the kind of which the Turks

were guilty. The Patriarch of Adrianople with eight of his

ecclesiastics was beheaded, and so were the dragoman of the

Porte and several other eminent residents of Constantinople,

descended from Greek settlers of two or three centuries ago.

Churches were everywhere broken open and plundered; Greek

citizens of the highest rank were murdered, their property

stolen, and their wives and daughters sold as slaves; on the

15th of June five archbishops and a great number of laymen

were hanged in the streets, and 450 mechanics were sold and

transported into slavery; at Salonica the battlements of the

town were lined with Christian heads, from which the blood ran

down and discolored the water in the ditch. In all the great

towns of the empire there were similar atrocities; some were

the work of mobs, which the authorities did not seek to

restrain, but the greater part of them were ordered by the

governors or other officials, and met the approval of the

Porte. At Smyrna, the Christian population was massacred by

thousands without regard to age or sex, and in the island of

Cyprus a body of 10,000 troops sent by the Porte ravaged the

island, executed the metropolitan, five bishops, and

thirty-six other ecclesiastics, and converted the whole island

into a scene of rapine, bloodshed, and robbery. Several

thousand Christians were killed before the atrocities ceased,

and hundreds of their wives and daughters were carried into

Turkish harems. These and similar outrages plainly told the

Greeks that no hope remained except in complete independence

of the Turks, and from one end of Greece to the other the

fires of insurrection were everywhere lighted. The islands, as

well as the mainland, were in full revolt, and the fleet of

coasting vessels, nearly all of them armed for resisting

pirates, gave the Turks a great deal of trouble. … On the

land, battle followed battle in different parts of the

country, and the narration of the events of the insurrection

would fill a bulky volume. … During the latter part of 1821,

the advantages to the Greeks were sufficient to encourage them

to proclaim their independence, which was done in January,

1822. In the same month the Turks besieged Corinth, and in the

following April they besieged and captured Chios (Scio),

ending the capture with the slaughter of 40,000 inhabitants,

the most horrible massacre of modern times. In July, the

Greeks were victorious at Thermopylæ; in the same month

Corinth fell, with great slaughter of the defenders. In April,

1823, the Greeks held a national congress at Argos; the

victories of Marco Bozzaris occurred in the following June,

and in August he was killed in a night attack upon the Turkish

camp; in August, too, Lord Byron landed at Athens to take part

in the cause of Greece, which was attracting the attention of

the whole civilized world. The first Greek loan was issued in

England in February, 1824; Lord Byron died at Missolonghi in

the following April; in August the Capitan Pasha was defeated

at Samos with heavy loss; in October, the provisional

government of Greece was set up; and the fighting became

almost continuous in the mountain districts of Greece. In

February, 1825, Ibrahim Pasha arrived with a powerful army

from Egypt, which captured Navarino in May, and Tripolitza in

June of the same year. In July, the provisional government

invoked the aid of England; in the following April (1826),

Ibrahim Pasha took Missolonghi after a long and heroic defence

[for twelve months]; and nearly a year later Reschid Pasha

captured Athens. Down to the beginning of 1826, the Greeks had

felt seriously the deprivation of Russian sympathy and aid for

which they had been led to look before the revolution. The

death of Alexander I., and the accession of Nicholas in

December, 1825, caused a change in the situation. The British

government sent the Duke of Wellington to St. Petersburg

ostensibly to congratulate Nicholas on his elevation to the

throne, but really to secure concert of action in regard to

Greece. On the 4th of April a protocol was signed by the Duke

of Wellington, Prince Lieven, and Count Nesselrode, which may

be considered the foundation of Greek independence. Out of

this protocol grew the treaty of July 6, 1827, between

England, Russia, and France, by which it was stipulated that

those nations should mediate between the contending Greeks and

Turks. They proposed to the Sultan that he should retain a

nominal authority over the Greeks, but receive from them a

fixed annual tribute. … The Sultan … refused to listen to

the scheme of mediation, and immediately made preparations for

a fresh campaign, and also for the defence of Turkey in case

of an attack. Ships and reinforcements were sent from

Constantinople, and the Egyptian fleet, consisting of two

84-gun ships, twelve frigates, and forty-one transports, was

despatched from Alexandria with 5,000 troops, and reached

Navarino towards the end of August, 1827. The allied powers

had foreseen the possibility of the Porte's refusal of

mediation, and taken measures accordingly; an English fleet

under Admiral Sir Edward Codrington, and a French fleet under

Admiral De Rigny, were in the Mediterranean, and were shortly

afterwards joined by the Russian fleet under Admiral Heiden.

… The allied admirals held a conference, and decided to

notify Ibrahim Pasha that he must stop the barbarities of

plundering and burning villages and slaughtering their

inhabitants.

{1608}

But Ibrahim would not listen to their remonstrances, and to

show his utter disregard for the powers, he commanded four of

his ships to sail to the Gulf of Patras to occupy Missolonghi

and relieve some Turkish forts, in effect to clear those

waters of every Greek man-of-war which was stationed there.

This he did easily, the allied squadrons being temporarily

absent. Admiral Codrington pursued him and, without

difficulty, drove him back to Navarino. … A general muster

of all the ships was ordered by Admiral Codrington,

Commander-in-Chief of the squadron. … The allied fleet

mounted 1,324 guns, while the combined Turkish and Egyptian

fleet mounted 2,240 guns. To this superiority in the number of

guns on board must be added the batteries on shore, which were

all in the hands of the Turks. But the Christians had a point

in their favor in their superiority in ships of the line, of

which they possessed ten, while the Turks had but three. …

The allied fleet entered the Bay of Navarino about two o'clock

on the afternoon of October 20, 1827. … In less than four

hours from the beginning of the contest the Ottoman fleet had

ceased to be. Every armed ship was burnt, sunk, or destroyed;

the only remaining vessels belonging to the Turks and

Egyptians were twenty-five of the smallest transports, which

were spared by order of Admiral Codrington. It was estimated

that the loss in men on the Turkish and Egyptian vessels was

fully 7,000. On the side of the allies, no vessels were

destroyed, but the Asia, Albion, and Genoa of the English

fleet were so much injured, that Admiral Codrington sent them

to Malta for repairs which would enable them to stand the

voyage home to England. Seventy-five men were killed and 197

wounded on the British fleet, and the loss of the French was

43 killed and 117 wounded. The Russian loss was not reported.

… It was feared that when the news of the event at Navarino

reached Constantinople, the lives of all Europeans in that

city, including the foreign ambassadors, would be in great

danger, but happily there was no violence on the part of the

Turks. The ambassadors pressed for an answer to their note of

August 16th, and at length the Sultan replied: 'My positive,

absolute, definitive, unchangeable, eternal answer is, that

the Sublime Porte does not accept any proposition regarding

the Greeks, and will persist in its own will regarding them

even to the last day of judgment.' The Porte even demanded

compensation for the destruction of the fleet, and

satisfaction for the insult, and that the allies should

abstain from all interference in the affairs of Greece. The

reply of the ambassadors was to the effect that the treaty of

July obliged them to defend Greece, and that the Turks had no

claim whatever for reparation for the affair of Navarino. The

ambassadors left Constantinople on the 8th December, and soon

afterwards Count Capo D'Istria, who had been elected President

of Greece, took his seat, and issued a proclamation, declaring

that the Ottoman rule over the country was at an end after

three centuries of oppression. Thus was the independence of

Greece established. There was little fighting after the events

of Navarino, and early in 1828 Admiral Codrington and Ibrahim

Pasha held a convention and agreed upon measures for

evacuating the land of the Hellenes. During the summer and

autumn Patras, Navarino, and Modon were successively

surrendered to the French, and the Morea was evacuated by the

Turks. Missolonghi was surrendered to Greece early in 1829,

and by the Treaty of Adrianople in September of the same year

the Porte acknowledged the independence of Greece, which was

henceforth to be one in the family of nations."

T. W. Knox,

Decisive Battles since Waterloo,

chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

C. A. Fyffe,

History of Modern Europe,

volume 2, chapter 4.

S. G. Howe,

Historical Sketch of the Greek Revolution.

T. Gordon,

History of the Greek Revolution.

Lord Byron,

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

E. J. Trelawny,

Records of Shelley, Byron, etc.,

chapters 19-20 (volume 2).

S. Walpole,

History of England,

chapters 9 and 11 (volume 2).

GREECE: A. D. 1822-1823.

The Congress of Verona.

See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

GREECE: A. D. 1830-1862.

The independent kingdom constituted under Otho of Bavaria.

Its unsatisfactoriness.

Dethronement of King Otho.

Election of Prince George of Denmark.

"On February 3d, 1830, a protocol was signed which constituted

Greece an independent State; and on the 11th of the same month

Prince Leopold of Belgium accepted the crown which was offered

to him by the Powers: He, however, soon resigned the honour;

giving for his main reason the hopelessness of establishing a

Greek kingdom from which Krete, Epeiros, and Thessaly were to

be excluded. The northern boundary, as drawn in 1830,

stretched from the Gulf of Zeitoun to the mouth of the

Aspropotamos, thus depriving Greece of the greater part of

Akarnania and Aitolia. After the assassination [by the family

of an insurgent chief] of Count Capodistna (who was the

popularly elected President of Greece from April 14th, 1827,

to October 9th, 1831), and after the Powers had selected

Prince Otho of Bavaria for the position declined by Prince

Leopold, an arrangement was concluded between England, France,

Russia, and Turkey, whereby the boundary was drawn from the

Gulf of Arta to the same termination in the Gulf of Zeitoun.

But a few months later the district of Zeitoun, north of the

Spercheios, was added to Greece; and the new kingdom paid to

the Porte an indemnity of 40,000,000 piastres, or about

£460,000. The Powers guaranteed a loan to Greece of 60,000,000

francs, out of which the payment of the indemnity was made;

and thus, at last, in the autumn of 1832, the fatherland of

the Greeks was redeemed. Under Otho of Bavaria the country was

governed at first by a Council of Regency, consisting of Count

Armansperg, Professor Maurer, and General Heideck. Maurer was

removed in 1834, and Armansperg in 1837; and at the close of

the latter year, after the trial of another Bavarian as

president of the Council, a Greek was for the first time

appointed to the principal post in the Ministry. The greatest

benefit conferred upon the country by its German rulers was

the reinforcement of the legal system, and the elevation of

the authority of the law. But, on the other hand, an

unfortunate attempt was made to centralize the whole

administration of Greece, her ancient municipal rights and

customs were overlooked, taxation was almost as indiscriminate

and burdensome as under the Turks, whilst large sums of money

were spent upon the army, and on other objects of an

unremunerative or insufficiently remunerative character, so

that the young State was laden with pecuniary liabilities

before anything had been done to develope her resources. …

{1609}

No national assembly was convened, no anxiety was shown to

conciliate the people, liberty of expression was curtailed,

personal offence was given by the foreigners, and by

Armansperg in particular; brigandage and piracy flourished,

and Greece began to suffer all the evils which might have been

expected to arise from the government of unsympathetic aliens.

… In addition to the rapid and alarming increase of

brigandage by land and piracy by sea, there were popular

insurrections in Messenia, Maina, Akarnania, and elsewhere.

One of the most capable Englishmen who have ever espoused the

cause of the Greeks, General Gordon, was commissioned in 1835

to clear northern Greece of the marauders by whom it was

overrun. He executed his mission in an admirable manner,

sweeping the whole of Phokis, Aitolia, and Akarnania, and

securing the cooperation of the Turkish Pasha at Larissa.

Hundreds of brigands were put to flight,—but only to return

again next year, and to enjoy as great immunity as ever. …

In the absence of a strong and active organization of the

national forces, brigandage in Greece was an ineradicable

institution; and, as a matter of fact, it was not suppressed

until the year 1870. Gradually the discontent of the people,

and the feebleness and infatuation of the Government, were

breeding a revolution. … The three Guaranteeing Powers urged

on Otho and his advisers the necessity of granting a

Constitution, which had been promised on the establishment of

the kingdom; and moral support was thus given to two very

strong parties, known by the titles of Philorthodox and

Constitutional, whose leaders looked to Russia and England

respectively. The King and the Government neglected symptoms

which were conspicuous to all besides, and the revolution of

1843 found them practically unprepared and helpless. On the

15th of September, after a well-contrived demonstration of the

troops, which was acquiesced in and virtually sanctioned by

the representatives of the three Powers, King Otho gave way,

and signed the decrees which had been submitted to him. The

Bavarian Ministers were dismissed, Mavrokordatos was made

Premier, a National Assembly was convoked, and a Constitution

was granted. For the first time since the Roman conquest,

Greece resumed the dignity of self-government. The

Constitution of 1844 was by no means an adequate one. It did

not fully restore the privileges of local self-rule, and it

only partially modified the system of centralization, from

which so many evils had sprung. But it was nevertheless a

great advance towards popular liberty. … The difficulties

which arose between Russia and Turkey in 1853, and which led

up to the Crimean War, inspired the Greeks with a hope that

their 'grand idea'—the inheritance of the dominion of Turkey

in Europe, so far as the Greek-speaking provinces are

concerned—might be on the eve of accomplishment. … The

Russian army crossed the Pruth in July, 1853, and preparations

were at once made by the Greeks to invade Turkey. … The

temper of the whole country was such that England and France

deemed it necessary to take urgent measures for preventing an

alliance between Russia and Greece. In May, 1854, an

Anglo-French force was landed at the Peiraios, where it

remained until February, 1857. Pressure was thus brought to

bear upon King Otho, who was not in a position to resist it.

… The humiliation of the Greeks under the foreign occupation

weakened the authority of the King and his Ministers, and the

unhappy country was once more a prey to rapine and disorder.

… From the year 1859 a new portent began to make itself

apparent in Greece. As the insurrection of 1821 may be said to

have derived some of its energy from the upheaval of France

and Europe in the preceding decades, so the Greek revolution

of 1862 was doubtless hastened, if not suggested, by the

Italian regeneration of 1848-1861. … On February 13th, 1862,

the garrison of Nauplia revolted; other outbreaks followed;

and at last, in October, during an ill-advised absence of the

Monarch from his capital, the garrison of Athens broke out

into open insurrection. A Provisional Government was

nominated; the deposition of King Otho was proclaimed; and

when the royal couple hurried back to the city they were

refused an entrance. The representatives of the Powers were

appealed to in vain; and the unfortunate Bavarian, after

wearing the crown for thirty years, sailed from the Peiraios

never to return. The hopes of the Greeks at once centred in

Prince Alfred of England for their future king. … But the

agreement of the three Powers on the establishment of the

kingdom expressly excluded from the throne all members of the

reigning families of England, France, and Russia; and thus,

although Prince Alfred was elected king with practical

unanimity, the English Government would not sanction his

acceptance of the crown. The choice eventually and happily

fell upon Prince George of Denmark, the present King of the

Hellenes; and neither Greece nor Europe has had reason to

regret the selection. … From this time forward the history

of modern Greece enters upon a brighter phase."

L. Sergeant,

Greece,

chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

L. Sergeant,

New Greece,

part 2, chapter 8-10.

GREECE: A. D. 1846-1850.

Rude enforcement of English claims.

The Don Pacifico Affair.

"Greek independence had been established under the joint

guardianship of Russia, France, and England. Constitutional

government had been guaranteed. It had however been constantly

delayed. Otho, the Bavarian Prince, who had been placed upon

the throne, was absolute in his own tendencies, and supported

by the absolute Powers; and France, eager to establish her own

influence in the East, … had sided with the Absolutists,

leaving England the sole supporter of constitutional rule. The

Government and administration were deplorably bad. … Any

demands raised by the English against the Government—and the

bad administration afforded abundant opportunity for

dispute—were certain to encounter the opposition of the King,

supported by the advice of all the diplomatic body. Such

questions had arisen. Ionians, claiming to be British

subjects, had been maltreated, the boat's crew of a Queen's

ship roughly handled, and in two cases the money claims of

English subjects against the Government disregarded. They were

trivial enough in themselves; a piece of land belonging to a

Mr. Finlay [the historian of mediæval and modern Greece], a

Scotchman, had been incorporated into the royal garden, and

the price—no doubt somewhat exorbitant—which he set upon it

refused. The house of Don Pacifico, a Jew, a native of

Gibraltar, had been sacked by a mob, without due interference

on the part of the police. He demanded compensation for

ill-usage, for property destroyed, and for the loss of certain

papers, the only proof as he declared of a somewhat doubtful

claim against the Portuguese Government.

{1610}

Such claims in the ordinary course of things should have been

made in the Greek Law Court. But Lord Palmerston, placing no

trust in the justice to be there obtained, made them a direct

national claim upon the Government. For several years, on

various pretences, the settlement of the question had been

postponed, and Palmerston had even warned Russia that he

should some day have to put strong pressure upon the Greek

Court to obtain the discharge of their debts. At length, at

the close of 1849, his patience became exhausted. Admiral

Parker, with the British fleet, was ordered to the Piræus. Mr.

Wyse, the English Ambassador, embarked in it. The claims were

again formally laid before the King, and upon their being

declined the Piræus was blockaded, ships of the Greek navy

captured and merchant vessels secured by way of material

guarantee for payment. The French and the Russians were

indignant at this unexpected act of vigour." The Russians

threatened; the French offered mediation, which was accepted.

The French negotiations at Athens had no success; but at

London there was promise of a friendly settlement of the

matter, when Mr. Wyse, the English Minister at the Greek

Court, being left in ignorance of the situation, brought fresh

pressure to bear upon King Otho and extorted payment of his

claims. The French were enraged and withdrew their Minister

from London. "For the time, this trumpery little affair caused

the greatest excitement, and, being regarded as a typical

instance of Lord Palmerston's management of the Foreign

Office, it formed the ground of a very serious attack upon the

Government."

J. F. Bright,

History of England,

period 4, pages 200-203.

ALSO IN:

S. Walpole,

History of England, from 1815,

chapter 22 (volume 4).

J. McCarthy,

History of Our Own Times,

chapter 19 (volume 2).

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

GREECE: A. D. 1862.

Annexation of the Ionian Islands.

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

GREECE: A. D. 1862-1881.

The Cretan struggle and defeat.

The Greek question in the Berlin Congress.

Small cession of territory by Turkey.

"The annexation of the Heptannesos [the seven (Ionian)

islands] was a great benefit to Hellas. It was not only a

piece of good fortune for the present but an earnest of the

future. … There still remained the delusion of the Integrity

of the Turkish Empire; but the Christians of the East really

cannot believe in the sincerity of all the Powers who proclaim

and sustain this extraordinary figment, any more than they are

able to fall a prey to the hallucination itself. The reunion

of the Heptannesos with the rest of Hellas was therefore

regarded as marking the beginning of another and better era—a

sanction to the hopes of other re-unions in the future. The

first of the Hellenes who endeavoured to gain for themselves

the same good fortune which had fallen upon the Ionians were

again the Cretans. They defied Turkey for three years,

1866-7-8. With the exception of certain fortresses, the whole

island was free. Acts of heroism and sacrifice such as those

which had rendered glorious the first War of Independence,

again challenged the attention of the world. Volunteers from

the West recalled the Philhellenic enthusiasm of old days. The

Hellenes of the mainland did not leave their brethren alone in

the hour of danger; they hastened to fight at their side,

while they opened in their own homes a place of refuge for the

women and children of the island. Nearly 60,000 fugitives

found protection there. For a while there was room for

believing that the deliverance of Crete was at last

accomplished. Russia and France were favourably disposed.

Unhappily the good-will of these two Powers could not overcome

the opposition of England, strongly supported by Austria.

Diplomacy fought for the enslavement of the Cretans with as

much persistence and more success than those with which it had

opposed the deliverance of Greece. Freedom has not yet come

for Crete. The islanders obtained by their struggle nothing

but a doubtful amelioration of their condition by means of a

sort of charter which was extracted from the unwillingness of

the Porte in 1868, under the name of the 'Organic Regulation.'

This edict has never been honestly put in force. However, even

if it had been carried out, it would not have been a

settlement of the Cretan question. The Cretans have never

concealed what they want, or ceased to proclaim their

intention of demanding it until they obtain it. At the time of

the Congress of Berlin they thought once more that they would

succeed. They got nothing but another promise from the Porte

'to enforce scrupulously the Organic Regulation of 1868, with

such modifications as might be judged equitable.' … The

history of the Greek Question at the Congress of Berlin and

the conferences which followed it, is not to be treated in

detail here. The time is not come for knowing all that took

place. … We do not know why Hellas herself remained so long

with her sword undrawn during the Russo-Turkish War—what

promises or what threats held her back from moving when the

armies of Russia, checked before Plevna, would have welcomed a

diversion in the West, and when the Hellenic people both

within and without the Kingdom were chafing at the do-nothing

attitude of the Government of Athens. Everyone in Greece felt

that the moment was come. The measures taken by hordes of

Bashi-Bazooks were hardly sufficient to repress the

insurrection which was ready in all quarters, and which at

length broke out in the mountains of Thessaly. … It was only

at the last moment, when the war was on the point of being

closed by the treaty which victorious Russia compelled Turkey

to grant at San Stefano, that the Greek Government, under the

Presidency of Koumoundouros, yielded tardily to the pressure

of the nation, and allowed the army to cross the frontier. It

was too late for the diversion to be of any use to Russia, and

it could look for no support from any other Government in

Europe. This fact was realized at Athens, but men felt, at the

same time, that it was needful to remind the world at any

price that there is a Greek Question connected with the

Eastern Question. The step was taken, but it was taken with a

hesitation which betrayed itself in act as well as in word.

… Diplomacy saw the danger of the fresh conflagration which

the armed intervention of Greece was capable of kindling.

{1611}

The utmost possible amount of pressure was therefore brought

to bear upon the Government of Athens in order to induce it to

retrace the step, and in the result an order was obtained to the

Greek Commander-in-Chief to recross the frontier, upon the

solemn assurance of the great Powers 'that the national

aspirations and interests of the Greek populations should be

the subject of the deliberations of the approaching Congress.'

… On July 5, 1878, the Congress accepted the resolution

proposed by the French plenipotentiary, 'inviting the Porte to

come to an understanding with Greece for a rectification of

the frontiers in Thessaly and Epiros, a rectification which

may follow the valley of the Peneus upon the Eastern side, and

that of the Thyamis (or Kalamas) upon the Western.' In other

words, they assign to Hellas the whole of Thessaly and a large

part of Epiros. Notwithstanding the abandonment of the island

of Crete, this was some satisfaction for the wrongs which she

had suffered at the delimitation of the Kingdom. … But the

scheme suggested by the Congress and sanctioned by the

Conference of Berlin on July 1, 1880, was not carried out.

When Turkey found that she was not confronted by an Europe

determined to be obeyed, she refused to submit. And then the

Powers, whose main anxiety was peace at any price, instead of

insisting upon her compliance, put upon Hellas all the

pressure which they were able to exercise, to induce her to

submit the question of the frontiers to a fresh arbitration.

… Hellas had to yield, and on July 2, 1881, three years

after the signing of the famous Protocol of Berlin, she signed

the convention by which Turkey ceded to her the flat part of

Thessaly and a small scrap of Epiros."

D. Bikelas,

Seven Essays on Christian Greece,

essay 6.

GREECE: A. D. 1864-1893.

Government under the later constitution.

A new constitution, framed by the National Assembly, "was

ratified by the King on November 21, 1864. Abolishing the old

Senate, it established a Representative Chamber of 150

deputies, since increased to 190, and again to 307, elected by

ballot by all males over the age of twenty-one, from equal

electoral districts (they were afterwards elected by

nomarchies; the system now is by eparchies). Mr. Sergeant

gives the number of electors (in 1879) at 311 per 1,000, but I

do not know what he does with the women and minors, who must

be about 75 per cent of the population. The present [1893]

number of electors is 450,000, or 205 per 1,000. The King has

considerable power: he is irresponsible; he appoints and

dismisses his ministers and all officers and officials; and he

can prorogue or suspend Parliament. Nor is his power merely

nominal. In 1866 the Chamber behaved illegally, and the King

promptly dissolved it; in 1875 again the King successfully

steered his country out of a whirlpool of corruption; and,

lastly, in 1892, his Majesty, finding M. Deleyannes obstinate

in his financial dilatoriness, dismissed him. … Before King

Otho there were 4 administrations; under his rule 24 (13

before the Constitution was granted and 11 after), 10 in the

interregnum, and 42 under King George. This gives 70

administrations in 62 years, or about one every 10½ months,

or, deducting the two kingless periods, 56 administrations in

60 years—that is, with an average duration of nearly 13

months. This compares for stability very well with the

duration of French Ministries, 28 of which have lasted 22

years, or about 9½ months each. It should also be stated that

there has been a distinct tendency to greater Ministerial

longevity of late years in Greece. Under King Otho there were

seven Parliaments in 18 years, which allows 2 years and 7

months for each Parliamentary period. Under King George there

have been 13 in 28 years, or with a life of 2 years and 2

months each. However, we know that Parliament had not the same

free play under the first King that it has had under the

second; and, besides, the present Parliament, considering the

Prime Minister's enormous majority, is likely to continue some

time, and bring up the Georgian average. … There have been

no notable changes of the Greek Constitution since its first

promulgation, though there has been a natural expansion,

especially in the judicial section. This very fact is of

itself a vindication of Hellenic national stability."

R. A. H. Bickford-Smith,

Greece under King George,

chapter 18.

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

GREEK, Origin of the name.

See HELLAS.

GREEK CHURCH, The.

See CHRISTIANLY: A. D. 330-1054.

GREEK EDUCATION.

See EDUCATION, ANCIENT.

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

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

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

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261-1453.

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

The conquest of Constantinople by the Venetians and the

Crusaders, in 1204, broke the Byzantine Empire into many

fragments, some of which were secured by the conquerors and

loosely bound together in the feudal empire of Romania, while

others were snatched from the ruin and preserved by the

Greeks, themselves. For the sovereignty of these latter

numerous claimants made haste to contend. Three fugitive

emperors were wandering in the outer territories of the

shattered realm. One was that Alexius III., whose deposition

of Isaac Angelos had afforded a pretext for the crusading

conquest, and who had fled when Isaac was restored. A second

was Alexius V. (Murtzuphlos), who pushed Isaac Angelos and his

son Alexius IV. from the shaking throne when Constantinople

resolved to defend itself against the Christians of the West,

but who abandoned the city in the last hours of the siege. The

third was Theodore Lascaris, son-in-law of Alexius III., who

was elected to the imperial office as soon as the flight of

Alexius V. became known—even after the besiegers had entered

the city—and who, then, could do nothing but follow his

fugitive predecessors. This last was the only one of the three

who found a piece of defensible territory on which to set up

his throne. He established himself in Bithynia, associating

his claims with those of his worthless father-in-law, and

contenting himself with the title of Despot, at first. But the

convenient though objectionable father-in-law was not

permitted to enjoy any share of the sovereignty which he

acquired. Theodore, in fact, managed his affairs with great

vigor and skill. The district in which his authority was

recognized widened rapidly and the city of Nicæa became his

capital. There, in 1206, he received the imperial crown, more

formally and solemnly, anew, and rallied the Greek resistance

which was destined to triumph, a little more than half a

century later, over the insolent aggression of the Latin West.

{1612}

The small empire of Nicæa had to contend, not merely with the

Latins in Constantinople and Greece, and with the Turkish

Sultan of Iconium, but also with another ambitious fragment of

Greek empire at Trebizond, which showed itself persistently

hostile. His successors, moreover, were in conflict with a

third such fragment in Europe, at Thessalonica. But, ten years

after the flight of Theodore from Constantinople, his empire

of Nicæa "extended from Heracleia on the Black Sea to the head

of the Gulf of Nicomedia; from thence it embraced the coast of

the Opsikian theme as far as Cyzicus; and then descending to

the south, included Pergamus, and joined the coast of the

Ægean. Theodore had already extended his power over the

valleys of the Hermus, the Caister, and the Mæander." Theodore

Lascaris died in 1222, leaving no son, and John Dukas

Vatatzes, or Vataces as his name is written by some

historians, a man of eminent abilities and high qualities, who

had married Theodore's daughter, was elected to the vacant

throne. He was saluted as John III.—assuming a continuity

from the Byzantine to the Nicæan series of emperors. In a

reign of thirty-three years, this prudent and capable emperor,

as Gibbon expresses the fact, "rescued the provinces from

national and foreign usurpers, till he pressed on all sides

the imperial city [Constantinople], a leafless and sapless

trunk, which must fall at the first stroke of the axe." He did

not live to apply that blow nor to witness the fall of the

coveted capital of the East. But the event occurred only six

years after his death, and owed nothing to the energy or the

capability of his successors. His son, Theodore II., reigned

but four years, and left at his death, in 1258, a son, John

IV., only eight years old. The appointed regent and tutor of

this youth was soon assassinated, and Michael Paleologos, an

able officer, who had some of the blood of the imperial

Angelos family in his veins, was made in the first instance

tutor to the young emperor, and soon afterwards raised to the

throne with him as a colleague. In 1260 the new emperor made

an attack on Constantinople and was repulsed. But on the 25th

of July in the next year the city was taken by a sudden

surprise, while 6,000 soldiers of its garrison were absent on

an expedition against Daphnusia in the Black Sea. It was

acquired almost without resistance, the Latin emperor, Baldwin

II., taking promptly to flight. The destruction of life was

slight; but the surprising party fired a considerable part of

the city, to cover the smallness of its numbers, and

Constantinople suffered once more from a disastrous

conflagration. On the recovery of its ancient capital, the

Greek empire ceased to bear the name of Nicæa, and its history

is continued under the more imposing appellation of the Greek

empire of Constantinople.

G. Finlay,

History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,

from 716 to 1453,

book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 62.

GREEK EMPIRE OF TREBIZOND.

See TREBIZOND: A. D. 1204-1461.

GREEK FIRE.

"The important secret of compounding and directing this

artificial flame was imparted [in the later part of the

seventh century to the Greeks, or Byzantines, at

Constantinople] by Callinicus, a native of Heliopolis, in

Syria, who deserted from the service of the caliph to that of

the emperor. The skill of a chemist and engineer was

equivalent to the succour of fleets and armies; and this

discovery or improvement of the military art was fortunately

reserved for the distressful period when the degenerate Romans

of the East were incapable of contending with the warlike

enthusiasm and youthful vigour of the Saracens. The historian

who presumes to analyze this extraordinary composition should

suspect his own ignorance and that of his Byzantine guides, so

prone to the marvellous, so careless, and, in this instance,

so jealous of the truth. From their obscure, and perhaps

fallacious hints, it should seem that the principal ingredient

of the Greek fire was the naphtha, or liquid bitumen, a light,

tenacious, and inflammable oil, which springs from the earth.

… The naphtha was mingled, I know not by what methods or in

what proportions, with sulphur and with the pitch that is

extracted from evergreen firs. From this mixture, which

produced a thick smoke and a loud explosion, proceeded a

fierce and obstinate flame … ; instead of being extinguished

it was nourished and quickened by the element of water; and

sand, urine, or vinegar were the only remedies that could damp

the fury of this powerful agent. … It was either poured from

the ramparts [of a besieged town] in large boilers, or

launched in red-hot balls of stone and iron, or darted in

arrows and javelins, twisted round with flax and tow, which

had deeply imbibed the inflammable oil; sometimes it was

deposited in fire-ships … and was most commonly blown

through long tubes of copper, which were planted on the prow

of a galley, and fancifully shaped into the mouths of savage

monsters, that seemed to vomit a stream of liquid and

consuming fire. This important art was preserved at

Constantinople, as the palladium of the state. … The secret

was confined, above 400 years, to the Romans of the East. …

It was at length either discovered or stolen by the

Mahometans; and, in the holy wars of Syria and Egypt, they

retorted an invention, contrived against themselves, on the

heads of the Christians. … The use of the Greek, or, as it

might now be called, the Saracen fire, was continued to the

middle of the fourteenth century."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 52.

GREEK GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.

See HELLENIC GENIUS, &c.

GREELEY, Horace,

The Peace Conference at Niagara.

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

Presidential candidacy and defeat.

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

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

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

GREEN MOUNTAIN BOYS.

See VERMONT: A. D. 1749-1774.

GREENBACK PARTY, The.

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

GREENE, General Nathaniel, and the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST); 1780-1781;

and 1781 (JANUARY-MAY).

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

GREENLAND: A D.876-984.

Discovery and settlement by the Northmen.

See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: A. D. 876-984.

GREENLAND: A. D. 1450-1585.

The lost Icelandic colony, absorbed by Eskimo. Rediscovery of

the country.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

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

{1613}

GREENS, Roman Faction of the.

See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

GREENVILLE TREATY WITH THE INDIAN TRIBES.

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

GREGORIAN CALENDAR.—GREGORIAN ERA.

See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.

GREGORY I. (called The Great), Pope, A. D. 590-604.

Gregory II., Pope, 715-731.

Gregory III., Pope, 731-741.

Gregory IV., Pope, 827-844.

Gregory V., Pope, 996-999.

Gregory VI., Pope, 1044-1046.

Gregory VII., Pope, 1075-1085.

Gregory VIII., Pope, 1187, October to December.

Gregory IX., Pope, 1227-1241.

Gregory X., Pope, 1271-1276.

Gregory XI., Pope, 1371-1378.

Gregory XII., Pope, 1406-1415.

Gregory XIII., Pope, 1572-1585.

Gregory XIV., Pope, 1590-1591.

Gregory XV., Pope, 1621-162.

Gregory XVI., Pope, 1831-1846.

GRENVILLE MINISTRY, The.

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

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

See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

GREY, Earl, The Ministry of.

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

GREY FRIARS.

See MENDICANT ORDERS.

GREY LEAGUES, The.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

GREYS, OR BIGI, of Florence, The.

See BIGI.

GRIERSON'S RAID.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (APRIL-MAY: MISSISSIPPI).

GRIQUAS.—GRIQUALAND.

"The Griquas or Baastards, a mixed race sprung from the

intercourse of the 'Boers' [of South Africa] with their

Hottentot slaves," migrated from Cape Colony after the

Emancipation Act of 1833, "and, under the chiefs Waterboer and

Adam Kok, settled in the country north of the confluence of

the Orange and Vaal, the present Griqualand West.

Subsequently, in 1852, Adam Kok's section of the Griquas again

migrated to the territory then called No Man's Land, between

Kafraria and southern Natal, now known as Griqualand East, or

New Griqualand. … In consequence of the discovery of

diamonds in the Griqua country in 1867, and the rush thither

of thousands of Europeans from all the surrounding states, as

well as from Europe, America, and Australia, the chief

Waterboer ceded his rights to the British Government, and this

region was annexed to the Cape Colony as the

Lieutenant-Governorship of Griqualand West in 1871."

Hellwald-Johnston,

Africa (Stanford's Compendium),

chapter 23, section 5.

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

GRISONS, The.

Achievement of democratic independence.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

GRISONS: The Valtelline revolt and war.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

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

GROCHOW, Battles of (1831).

See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

GROL, Capture of (1627).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

GRONENBURG: A. D. 1593.

Capture by Prince Maurice.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.

GROS VENTRE INDIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HIDATSA,

and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

GROSS BEEREN, Battle of.

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

GROSS GÖRSCHEN, OR LUTZEN, Battle of.

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

GROSSE RATH, The.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

GROSSWARDEIN, Treaty of.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

GROTIUS, HUGO, Imprisonment and escape of.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

GROVETON, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

GRUTHUNGI, The.

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

GRÜTLI, OR RÜTLI, The Meadow of.

See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

GRYNEUM, The Oracle of.

See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

GUADACELITO OR SALADO, Battle of (1340).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.

GUADALETE, Battle of the.

See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

GUADALOUPE HIDALGO, Treaty of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

GUADALUPES.

See GACHUPINES.

GUAICARUS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

GUAJIRA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: COAJIRO.

GUANAJUATO, Battles of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.

GUANAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

GUANCHES, The.

See LIBYANS.

GUARANI, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.

GUASTALLA, Battle of (1734).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

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

GUATEMALA:

The name.

"According to Fuentes y Guzman, derived from 'Coctecmalan'

—that is to say 'Palo de leche,' milk-tree, commonly called

'Yerba mala,' found in the neighborhood of Antigua Guatemala.

… In the Mexican tongue, if we may believe Vasquez, it was

called 'Quauhtimali,' rotten-tree. … Others derive it from

'Uhatezmalha,' signifying 'the hill which discharges water';

and Juarros suggests that it may be from Juitemal, the first

king of Guatemala."

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 1, page 620, foot-note.

GUATEMALA:

Aboriginal inhabitants, and ruins of Ancient Civilization.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS, and QUICHES;

also, MEXICO, ANCIENT.

GUATEMALA: A. D. 1524.

Conquest by Alvarado, the lieutenant of Cortes.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1521-1524.

GUATEMALA: A. D. 1821-1871.

Separation from Spain.

Brief annexation to Mexico.

Resistance to Central American Federation.

The wars of the states.

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

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

GUAYANAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

{1614}

GUCK OR COCO TRIBES.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

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

GUELDERLAND: A. D. 1079-1473.

Under the House of Nassau.

Acquisition by the Duke of Burgundy.

"The arable extent of Guelderland, its central position, and

the number of its ancient towns, rendered it at all times of

great importance. The men of Zutphen and Arnheim were foremost

among the claimants of civic freedom; and at Tiel and Bommel

industry struck early root, and struggled bravely to maturity

through countless storms of feudal violence and rapine.

Guelderland was constituted a county, or earldom, by Henry

III. [Emperor, A. D. 1079], and bestowed on Otho, count of

Nassau; and thus originated the influence of that celebrated

family in the affairs of the Netherlands. Three centuries

later the province was created a duchy of the empire. Vigour

and ability continued to distinguish the house of Nassau, and

they were destined to become eventually the most popular and

powerful family in the nation. Apart from their influence,

however, Guelderland hardly occupies as important a place in

the general history of the country as Utrecht or Holland." In

1473, when the House of Burgundy had acquired sovereignty over

most of the Netherland states, Charles the Bold availed

himself of a domestic quarrel between the reigning prince of

Guelderland and his heir "to purchase the duchy from the

former for 92,000 crowns of gold. The old duke died before the

pecuniary portion of the bargain was actually completed; and,

the rightful heir being detained in prison, the grasping lord

of Burgundy entered into possession of his purchase, for which

no part of the price was ever paid."

W. T. McCullagh,

Industrial History of Free Nations,

chapters 8 and 10 (volume 2).

GUELDERLAND: A. D. 1713.

The Spanish province ceded to Prussia.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

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

GUELF PARTY, Captains of the.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1358.

GUELF PARTY:

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

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1714;

also, GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES;

and ESTE, HOUSE OF.

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

GUELFS, OR GUELPHS, AND GHIBELLINES:

German origin of these Factions and their feuds.

On the death (A. D. 1125) of Henry V., the last of the

Franconian dynasty of Germanic emperors, Lothaire, Duke of

Saxony, was elected emperor, in rather a tumultuous and

irregular manner. Lothaire, and the Saxons generally, were

embittered in enmity against the house of Franconia, and

against the new family—the Suabiau or Hohenstauffen—which

succeeded by inheritance, through the female line, to the

Franconian claims. It was the object of his reign, moreover,

to pass the imperial crown from his own head to that of his

son-in-law, Henry the Proud. Hence arose a persecution of the

Suabian family, under Lothaire, which stirred deep passions.

Henry the Proud, for whose succession Lothaire labored, but

vainly, united in himself several ancient streams of noble

blood. He "was fourth in descent from Welf [or Guelf], son of

Azon marquis of Este, by Cunegonda, heiress of a distinguished

family, the Welfs of Altorf in Suabia." His ancestor, Welf,

had been invested with the duchy of Bavaria. He himself

represented, by right of his mother, the ancient ducal house

of Saxony; and, by favor of his imperial father-in-law, the

two powerful duchies, Bavaria and Saxony, were both conferred

on him. He also received Hanover and Brunswick as the dowry of

his wife. "On the death of Lothaire in 1138 the partisans of

the house of Suabia made a hasty and irregular election of

Conrad [one of the Hohenstauffen princes], in which the Saxon

faction found itself obliged to acquiesce. The new emperor

availed himself of the jealousy which Henry the Proud's

aggrandizement had excited. Under pretence that two duchies

could not legally be held by the same person, Henry was

summoned to resign one of them, and on his refusal, the diet

pronounced that he had incurred a forfeiture of both. Henry

made but little resistance, and before his death, which

happened soon afterwards, saw himself stripped of all his

hereditary as well as acquired possessions. Upon this occasion

the famous names of Guelf [or Guelph] and Ghibelin were first

heard, which were destined to keep alive the flame of civil

dissension in far distant countries, and after their meaning

had been forgotten. The Guelfs, or Welfs, were, as I have

said, the ancestors of Henry, and the name has become a sort

of patronymic in his family. The word Ghibelin is derived from

Wibelung, a town in Franconia, whence the emperors of that

line are said to have sprung. The house of Suabia were

considered in Germany as representing that of Franconia; as

the Guelfs may, without much impropriety, be deemed to

represent the Saxon line."

H. Hallam,

The Middle Ages,

chapter 5 (volume 2).

Sir Andrew Halliday, in his "Annals of the House of Hanover,"

traces the genealogy of the Guelfs with great minuteness and

precision—with more minuteness, perhaps, in some remote

particulars, and more precision, than seems consistent with

entire credibility. He carries the line back to Edico, king or

prince of the Heruli, or Rugii, or Scyrii,—the stock from

which came Odoacer, who overturned the Western Roman Empire

and made himself the first king of Italy. Edico, who was

subject to Attila, and the favorite adviser of the king of the

Huns, is thought to have had a son or brother named Guelf or

Welf, who fell in battle with the Ostrogoths. It is to him

that Sir Andrew is disposed to assign the honor of being the

historical chief of the great family of the Guelfs. If not

from this shadowy Guelf, it is from another of like name in

the next generation—a brother of Odoacer—that he sees the

family spring, and the story of its wide-branching and

many-rooted growth, in Friuli, Altdorf, Bavaria, old Saxony,

Brunswick, Hanover,—and thence, more royally than ever, in

England,—is as interesting as a narrative of highly

complicated genealogy can be.

Sir A. Halliday,

Annals of the House of Hanover.

From the Guelf uncertainly indicated above were descended two

Marquesses of Este, "successively known in German and Italian

story as the first and second of that name. … Azo, the

second Marquess of Este in Italy (born A. D. 995, died 1097),

the head of the Italian (junior) branch of Guelphs [see ESTE],

married Cunigunda, the sole heiress of the German Guelphs of

Altdorf, thus uniting in his family the blood, wealth, and

power of both branches of the old Guelphs, and becoming the

common father of the later German and Italian princes of the

name of Guelph.

{1615}

No wonder, then, that he was elected by the Emperor, Henry

III., as his representative in Italy. … Cunigunda, the first

wife of Azo II., bore him one son, Guelph, who was known in

German history as Guelph VI. He succeeded to his mother's

titles and vast estates on her death, A. D. 1055, and to those

of his father, A. D. 1097. … Henry IV. invested him with the

Duchy of Bavaria, A. D. 1071—a title first assumed 170 years

before (A. D. 900) by his almost mythological ancestor, Henry

of the Golden Chariot." This Guelph VI. was the grandfather of

Henry the Proud, Duke of Saxony and Bavaria, referred to

above.

P. M. Thornton,

The Brunswick Accession,

chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

O. Browning,

Guelfs and Ghibellines.

See, also,

SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183;

and GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268;

and, also, ESTE, HOUSE OF.

GUELFS:

The outcrop of the contention in Italy.

Its beginnings, causes, course and meaning.

See ITALY: A. D. 1215;

and FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

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

GUÉLFS. White and Black (Bianchi and Neri).

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300;

and 1301-1313.

GUELPHS OF HANOVER, The Order of the.

"The Hanoverian troops having much distinguished themselves at

the battle of Waterloo, George IV. (then prince regent)

determined to found an order of merit which might, with

especial propriety, be conferred upon such of them as deserved

the distinction, and the 12th of August, 1815, was fixed upon

as the date of its foundation. By the second statute, the

Order is inseparably annexed to the possession of the

Hanoverian crown, by vesting the grand-mastership in the

sovereign of that country for the time being."

C. R. Dodd,

Manual of Dignities,

part 3.

GUERANDE. Treaty of.

See BRITTANY: A. D. 1341-1365.

GUERNSEY, The Isle of.

See JERSEY AND GUERNSEY.

GUERRA DOS CABANOS.

See BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865.

GUERRILLAS.

A term of Spanish origin, derived from 'guerilla', signifying

little or petty warfare, and applied to small, irregular bands

of troops, carrying on war against an enemy by harassing,

destructive raids.

GUEUX OF THE NETHERLAND REVOLT.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.

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

GUIANA: The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS.

GUIANA: 16th Century.

The search for El Dorado.

See EL DORADO.

GUIANA: A. D. 1580-1814.

Dutch, French and English settlements and conquests.

"There was one European nation which was not likely to hunt

for a golden city, when gold was to be earned by plain and

matter of fact commerce. The Dutch had as early as 1542

established a systematic if contraband trade with the Spanish

Main; and in 1580 they began to settle in Guiana by planting a

depot on the river Pomeroon, in what is now the county of

Essequibo. In 1599 they built two forts at the mouth of the

Amazon, but were driven out by the Portuguese; and about 1613

they established a colony on the Essequibo, building the fort

of 'Kyk over al', 'Look over all,' on an island where the

Massaruni flows into the Essequibo. The colony was founded by

Zeeland merchants, was known as Nova Zeelandia, and came under

the control of the Netherlands West India Company, which was

incorporated in 1621. Shortly afterwards colonisation began

further to the east on the Berbice river. The founder was a

Flushing merchant, Van Peere by name; he founded his

settlement about 1624, and he held his rights under contract

with the Chamber of Zeeland. … Thus was the present province

of British Guiana colonised by Dutchmen. … While English

discovery was attracted to the west and Orinoco, the first

attempts at English settlement were far to the east on the

Wyapoco or Oyapok river. Here, in 1604, while Ralegh was in

prison, Captain Charles Leigh founded a colony at the mouth of

the river. … In 1609 Robert Harcourt of Stanton Harcourt in

Oxfordshire took up the work in which Leigh had failed. … In

1613 he obtained from King James a grant of 'all that part of

Guiana or continent of America lying between the river of

Amazones and the river of Dessequebe,' which was not actually

possessed or inhabited by any Christian power in friendship

with England. … In 1619 a scheme was started for an Amazon

Company, the leading spirit in which was Captain Roger North.

… The company was fortunate enough to secure the powerful

patronage of the Duke of Buckingham. Harcourt threw in his lot

with them, and on the 19th of May 1627 a royal grant was made

to the Duke of Buckingham and 55 other adventurers, including

the Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, who were incorporated

under the title of 'the governor and company of noblemen and

gentlemen of England for the plantation of Guiana.' The Duke

of Buckingham was Governor, North was Deputy-Governor, and the

grant included the 'royal' river of the Amazon. For about two

years the company did some solid work, sending out four ships

and 200 colonists; an attempt was then made in 1629 to bring

the territory covered by their grant immediately under royal

protection, and upon its failure their efforts at colonisation

appear to have gradually died away. The English were not the

only Europeans who tried their hand at settlement in the east

of Guiana. … In 1613, 160 French families settled in

Cayenne. The first colony failed, but in 1624 and 1626 fresh

attempts were made a little to the west on the rivers Sinamari

and Cananama; and in 1643 a Rouen Company, incorporated under

the name of the Cape North Company, sent out three or four

hundred men to Cayenne under the Sieur de Bretigny. Bretigny

ruined the scheme by savage ill-treatment of Indians and

colonists alike, and the remains of the settlement were

absorbed by a new and more powerful Normandy Company." This

failed in its turn, and gave way to a "French Equinoctial

Company," organized under the auspices of Colbert, which sent

out 1,200 colonists and fairly established them at Cayenne.

Colbert, in 1665, placed the colony, "with all the other

French possessions in the West Indies, under one strong West

India Company. Such were the beginnings of colonisation in the

west and east of Guiana. Between them lies the district now

known as Dutch Guiana or Surinam." The first settlement in

this was made in 1630 by 60 English colonists, under a Captain

Marshall.

{1616}

The colony failed, and was revived in 1650 by Lord Willoughby,

then representing the fugitive King Charles II., as Governor

of Barbadoes. In 1663, after the Restoration, Lord Willoughby,

in conjunction with Lawrence Hyde, second son of the Earl of

Clarendon, received Letters Patent "constituting them lords

and proprietors of the district between the Copenam and the

Maroni (which included the Surinam river) under the name of

Willoughby Land." Soon afterwards "war broke out with the

Dutch, and in March 1667 the colony capitulated to the Dutch

admiral Crynsenn. The peace of Breda between Great Britain and

the Netherlands, which was signed in the following July,

provided that either nation should retain the conquests which

it had made by the preceding 10th of May, and under this

arrangement Surinam was ceded to the Netherlands, while New

York became a British possession. … Thus ended for many long

years all British connexion with Guiana. … When at length

the English returned [in 1796 and 1803, during the subjection

of the Dutch to Napoleon, and while they were forced to take

part in his wars], they came as conquerors rather than as

settlers, and by a strange perversity of history, the original

Dutch colonies on the Berbice and Essequibo became a British

dependency, while the Netherlanders retain to this day the

part of Guiana which Lord Willoughby marked out for his own."

These arrangements were settled in the convention between

Great Britain and the Netherlands signed at London in 1814.

C. P. Lucas,

History Geography of the British Colonies,

volume 2, section 2, chapter 8.

ALSO IN:

H. G. Dalton,

History of British Guiana.

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

GUIENNE, OR GUYENNE.

A corruption of the name of Aquitaine, which came into use,

apparently, about the 13th century.

See AQUITAINE: A. D. 884-1151.

GUILDS, OR GILDS, Mediæval.

"The history of the Gild Merchant begins with the Norman

Conquest. The latter widened the horizon of the English

merchant even more than that of the English annalist. The

close union between England and Normandy led to an increase in

foreign commerce, which in turn must have greatly stimulated

internal trade and industry. Moreover, the greatly enhanced

power of the English crown tempered feudal turbulence,

affording a measure of security to traders in England that was

as yet unknown on the continent. … With this expansion of

trade the mercantile element would become a more potent factor

in town life, and would soon feel the need of joint action to

guard its nascent prosperity against encroachments. Not until

there was something of importance to protect, not until trade

and industry began to predominate over agriculture within the

borough, would a protective union like the Gild Merchant come

into being. Its existence, in short, presupposes a greater

mercantile and industrial development than that which

prevailed in England in the tenth century. This circumstance

and the absence of all mention of the Gild Merchant in the

records of the Anglo-Saxon period render it probable that this

fraternity first appeared in England soon after the Conqueror

had established his sway and restored order in the land.

Whether it was merely a reorganization of older gilds, a

spontaneous adaptation of the gild idea to the newly-begotten

trade interests, or a new institution directly transplanted

from Normandy, we have no means of determining with certainty.

The last-mentioned view is strongly favoured by the

circumstance that, at the time of the Conquest, the Gild

Merchant doubtless existed in Northern France and Flanders.

From the Frenchmen who became burgesses of English towns, and

from the Norman merchants who thronged the marts of England

after the Conquest, the English would soon ascertain the

advantages of formal trade organization. The earliest distinct

references to the Gild Merchant occur in a charter granted by

Robert Fitz-Hamon to the burgesses of Burford (1087-1107), and

in a document drawn up while Anselm was Archbishop of

Canterbury (1093-1109). … Whether we place the inception of

the fraternity immediately before or after the Norman

Conquest, whether we make it a continuation of older

Anglo-Saxon gilds, or a derivative from Normandy, or a wholly

new and spontaneous growth, it was doubtless at first merely a

private society, unconnected with the town government, having

for its object the protection of its members, the tradesmen of

the borough, and the maintenance of the newly invigorated

trade interests. During the twelfth century it gradually

became a recognised part of the town constitution, thus

entering upon its second stage of development. How this came

to pass can be easily realised from the later history of

English gilds in general. For in the fourteenth and fifteenth

centuries … a simple social-religious gild at times

attained such power in a community that it came to be regarded

as an important constituent element of the civic

administration. Quite similar must have been the growth of the

Gild Merchant, which from the outset was doubtless composed of

the most influential burgesses, and which, as the exponent of

the mercantile interests, must always have been greatly

concerned in the increase of the privileges and prosperity of

the borough in general. It was very natural that the town

authorities should use such a society for public purposes,

entrusting to it the surveillance of the trade monopoly, in

which its members were particularly interested,—allowing it

to gradually become an important part of the civic

administrative machinery. … The beginning of this third and

final stage of development cannot be definitely fixed; for in

some places it was of an earlier date than in others. The

fourteenth century may in general be called the period of

gradual transition. In the fifteenth century the

transformation was completed. In this and the following

centuries the term 'Gilda Mercatoria' became less and less

frequent. In many places it soon wholly disappeared. Where it

continued to subsist, the Gild no longer had an individuality

of its own. Its alderman and other peculiar officers, its

whole organization as a distinctive entity, had vanished. It

had merged its identity in that of the general municipal

organism. The head of the fraternity was now the head of the

town; borough and Gild, burgesses and gildsmen were now

identical. What had once been a distinct integral part of the

civic body politic became vaguely blended with the whole of it.

{1617}

The old Gild Merchant was now rarely mentioned in connection

with the municipal trade restrictions and regulations, the

latter being commonly applied to burgesses, craftsmen,

freemen, or 'foreigners.' The exegesis of this transformation

… was due mainly to three causes: (1) the expansion of trade

and the multiplication of the craft and mercantile

fraternities, which absorbed the ancient functions of the Gild

Merchant and rendered it superfluous; (2) the growth of the

select governing body, which usurped most of the privileges of

the old burghers at large, and hence tended to obliterate the

distinction between them, or their less privileged successors,

and the ancient gildsmen, leaving both only certain trade

immunities; (3) the decay of the leet—the rallying point of

the old burghers as distinguished from that of the

gildsmen—the functions of which passed, in part, to the crafts,

but mainly to the select body and to the justices of the

peace. But even after the Gild Merchant and the borough had

thus become identical, the old dual idea did not completely

disappear, the Gild being often regarded as a particular phase

or function of the town, namely, the municipality in its

character of a trade monopoly. Hence the modern survivals of

the Gild Merchant help to elucidate its actual functions in

ancient times. In a few boroughs the select governing body of

the town—the narrow civic corporation, in distinction from

the burgesses or freemen at large—succeeded to the name and

traditions of the Gild Merchant. In some of these cases the

signification of the latter gradually dwindled down to a

periodical civic feast of the privileged few. … In the

eighteenth century we meet the word much less frequently than

in the seventeenth; and toward the beginning of the present

century it became very rare. The Municipal Corporations

Commission, in 1835, found it still used in only a few

boroughs. The remnants of the Gild Merchant and of the craft

fraternities were rapidly vanishing before the new ideas of a

more liberal age,—the age of laissez faire. The onerous,

self-destructive restrictions of gilds were now being

superseded by the stimulating measures of Chambers of

Commerce. More than six centuries elapsed before the enactment

of Magna Carta that all merchants 'may go through England, by

land and water, to buy and sell, free from all unjust

imposts,' became a realised fact throughout the realm. The

Municipal Corporations Act of 1835 provided that 'every person

in any borough may keep any shop for the sale of all lawful

wares and merchandizes by wholesale or retail, and use every

lawful trade, occupation, mystery, and handicraft, for hire,

gain, sale, or otherwise, within any borough.' In a single

town of England the Gild Merchant still subsists, but only as

the shadow of its former self—a spectre from the distant

past. At Preston the Gild Merchant has been 'celebrated'

regularly once every twenty years for more than three

centuries, on which occasions the burgesses renew their

freedom and indulge in all the festivities of a civic

carnival. The last Gild Merchant was held in 1882. There was

then much feasting and dancing, there were gay processions of

townsmen, and much talk of the glories of the past. And yet

how few even of the scholars and noblemen there assembled from

various parts of Great Britain knew what an important role the

Gild Merchant had played in the annals of English municipal

history, what strange vicissitudes it had undergone, what a

remarkable transformation the centuries had wrought in it."

C. Gross,

The Gild Merchant,

chapters 1 and 9 (volume 1).

"The rise of the craft gilds is, roughly speaking, a century

later [than the rise of the merchant gilds]; isolated examples

occur early in the twelfth century, they become more numerous

as the century advances, and in the thirteenth century they

appear in all branches of manufacture and in every industrial

centre. Craft gilds were associations of all the artisans

engaged in a particular industry in a particular town, for

certain common purposes. … Their appearance marks the second

stage in the history of industry, the transition from the

family system to the artisan (or gild) system. In the former

there was no class of artisans properly so called; no class,

that is to say, of men whose time was entirely or chiefly

devoted to a particular manufacture; and this because all the

needs of a family or other domestic group, whether of

monastery or manor-house, were satisfied by the labours of the

members of the group itself. The latter, on the contrary, is

marked by the presence of a body of men each of whom was

occupied more or less completely in one particular

manufacture. The very growth from the one to the other system,

therefore, is an example of 'division of labour,' or, to use a

better phrase, of 'division of employments.' … When the

place of the young manufactures of the twelfth century in the

development of mediæval society is thus conceived, the

discussion as to a possible Roman 'origin' of the gilds loses

much of its interest. No doubt modern historians have

exaggerated the breach in continuity between the Roman and the

barbarian world; no doubt the artisans in the later Roman

Empire had an organization somewhat like that of the later

gilds. Moreover, it is possible that in one or two places in

Gaul certain artisan corporations may have had a continuous

existence from the fifth to the twelfth century. It is even

possible that Roman regulations may have served as models for

the organization of servile artisans on the lands of

monasteries and great nobles,—from which, on the continent,

some of the later craft gilds doubtless sprang. But when we

see that the growth of an artisan class, as distinguished from

isolated artisans here and there, was impossible till the

twelfth century, because society had not yet reached the stage

in which it was profitable or safe for a considerable number

of men to confine themselves to any occupation except

agriculture; and that the ideas which governed the craft gilds

were not peculiar to themselves but common to the whole

society of the time; then the elements of organization which

may conceivably have been derived from or suggested by the

Roman artisan corporations become of quite secondary

importance. There is, as we have said, little doubt that some

of the craft gilds of France and Germany were originally

organizations of artisan serfs on the manors of great lay or

ecclesiastical lords. This may also have been the case in some

places in England, but no evidence has yet been adduced to

show that it was so. … The relation of the craft gilds to

the merchant gild is a still more difficult question. In many

of the towns of Germany and the Netherlands a desperate

struggle took place during the thirteenth and fourteenth

centuries between a burgher oligarchy, who monopolized the

municipal government, and were still further strengthened in

many cases by union in a merchant gild, and the artisans

organized in their craft gilds; the craftsmen fighting first

for the right of having gilds of their own, and then for a

share in the government of the town.

{1618}

These facts have been easily fitted into a symmetrical theory

of industrial development; the merchant gilds, it is said,

were first formed for protection against feudal lords, but

became exclusive, and so rendered necessary the formation of

craft gilds; and in the same way the craft gilds became

exclusive afterwards, and the journeymen were compelled to

form societies of their own for protection against the

masters. … The very neatness of such a theory, the readiness

with which it has been accepted by popular writers in spite of

the paucity of English evidence, have perhaps led some

historians to treat it with scant consideration. … At the

end of the reign of Edward III. there were in London

forty-eight companies or crafts, each with a separate

organization and officers of its own, a number which had

increased to at least sixty before the close of the century."

W. J. Ashley,

An Introduction to English Economic History and Theory,

book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

"The unions known by the names of mystery, faculty, trade,

fellowship, or (from the fact of possessing particular

costumes) livery company, existed in large numbers throughout

the realm, and were frequently divided into two or three

categories. Thus in London the principal crafts were the

twelve 'substantial companies' or 'livery companies' [Mercers,

Grocers, Drapers, Fishmongers, Goldsmiths, Skinners, Merchant

Tailors, Haberdashers, Salters, Ironmongers, Vintners,

Cloth-workers]. … A perfect acquaintance with the details of

the trade and the desire as well as the ability to produce

good work were in all cases preliminary requisites [of

membership]. In fact the main provisions of the craft, the

very soul of its constitution, were the regulations intended

to ensure the excellence of the products and the capacity of

the workman. … The whole character of the craft guild is

explained by these regulations, designed to prevent fraud and

deception of the public."

E. R. A. Seligman,

Mediæval Guilds of England

(American Economics Association,

volume 2, number 5), part 2, section 2.

ALSO IN:

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 11.

W. Herbert,

History of Twelve Great Livery Companies.

See, also, COMMUNE.

GUILDS OF FLANDERS.

"In the course of the tenth century Bruges had waxed great and

wealthy through its trade with England, while the Ghent people

constructed a port at the junction of their two rivers. The

Flemings, nevertheless, were still noted for the boorishness

of their demeanour, their addiction to intemperance, and their

excessive turbulence. Their pagan ancestors had been

accustomed to form associations for their mutual protection

against accidents by fire or water, and similar misadventures.

These unions were called 'Minne,' or Friendships—an idea

reproduced in the 'Amicitiæ,' to which allusion is so

frequently made in the deeds of ancient corporations. …

After a time the name of 'Minne' came to be supplanted by that

of 'Ghilde,' meaning a feast at the common expense. Each

ghilde was placed under the tutelage of a departed hero, or

demigod, and was managed by officers elected by the members—

social equality being the foundation of each fraternity.

Subsequent to the introduction of Christianity the demigod was

replaced by a saint, while the members were enjoined to

practise works of piety. … The Ghildes were the base of the

municipal administration, and gradually assumed the government

of the town, but took another form and appellation. The word

was thenceforward applied, in its restricted sense of Guild,

as referring to trade corporations, while the previous

organisation came to be described in French and Latin

documents as Commune or Communia, and embraced all who were

entitled to gather together in the cauter, or public place,

when the bell rang out the summons from the town belfry. In

Flanders the Communes grew out of popular institutions of

ancient date, and, though, no doubt, their influence was

sensibly increased by their confirmation at the hands of King

or Count, they did not owe their origin to royal or

seigniorial charters."

J. Hutton,

James and Philip Van Arteveld,

part 1, chapter 1.

GUILDS OF FLORENCE.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.

GUILFORD COURT HOUSE, Battle of (1781).

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

GUILLOTINE, The origin of the.

"It was during these winter months [of the session of the

French National Assembly, 1790] that Dr. Guillotin read his

long discourse upon the reformation of the penal code; of

which the 'Moniteur' has not preserved a single word. This

discourse attracts our attention on two accounts:—First, it

proposed a decree that there should be but one kind of

punishment for capital crimes; secondly, that the arm of the

executioner should be replaced by the action of a machine,

which Dr. Guillotin had invented. 'With the aid of my

machine,' said the glib doctor, 'I will make your head spring

off in the twinkling of an eye, and you will suffer nothing.'

Bursts of laughter met this declaration; nevertheless, the

Assembly listened with attention, and adopted the proposal."

G. H. Lewes,

Life of Robespierre,

chapter 10.

ALSO IN:

G. Everitt,

Guillotine the Great and her Successors.

J. W. Croker,

History of the Guillotine.

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

GUINEGATE, Battle of (1478).

A bloody but indecisive battle, fought between the French, on

one side, and Flemish and Burgundian troops on the other, in

the war produced by the attempt of Louis XI. to rob Mary of

Burgundy of her heritage. It was followed by a long truce, and

a final treaty.

E. Smedley,

History of France,

part 1, chapter 17.

GUINEGATE: Battle of (1513).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.

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

GUINES, Treaty of (1547).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

GUISCARD, Robert, and Roger and the Norman conquest of Southern

Italy and Sicily.

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

GUISE, Duke of, Assassination.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

GUISES, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

GUIZOT'S MINISTRY.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.

GUJERAT, Battle of (1849).

See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

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

{1619}

GUNPOWDER PLOT, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1605.

GURKHAS, OR GOORKAS, The.

See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

GURU, OR GOOROO.

See SIKHS.

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

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

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

Campaigns and death in Germany.

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

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

Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, 1792-1809.

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

GUTENBERG, and the invention of Printing.

See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.

GUTSTADT, Battle of.

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

GUTHRIE, The founding of the city of.

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

GUTTONES, The.

See PRUSSIAN LANGUAGE, THE OLD.

GUUCHIES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

GUY FAWKES' DAY.

November 5, the anniversary of the day on which the

conspirators of the "Gunpowder Plot" intended to blow up King

and Parliament, in England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1605.

GWENT.

See BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.

GWLEDIG.

A Welsh title, signifying ruler, or prince, which was taken by

the native leader in Britain after the Romans left. He was the

successor of the Roman Duke of Britain.

J. Rhys,

Celtic Britain,

chapter 3.

See, also, ARTHUR, KING.

GWYNEDD.

See BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.

GYLIPPUS, and the defense of Syracuse.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

GYMNASIA, German.

See EDUCATION, MODERN:

EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—PRUSSIA: A. D. 1874.

GYMNASIA, Greek.

"Amongst public buildings [of the ancient Greeks] we mentioned

first the gymnasia, which, originating in the requirements of

single persons, soon became centre-points of Greek life.

Corporeal exercise was of great importance amongst the Greeks,

and the games and competitions in the various kinds of bodily

skill … formed a chief feature of their religious feasts.

This circumstance reacted on both sculpture and architecture,

in supplying the former with models of ideal beauty, and in

setting the task to the latter of providing suitable places

for these games to be celebrated. For purposes of this kind

(as far as public exhibition was not concerned) the palæstrai

and gymnasia served. In earlier times these two must be

distinguished. In the palæstra … young men practised

wrestling and boxing. As these arts were gradually developed,

larger establishments with separate compartments became

necessary. Originally such places were, like the schools of

the grammarians, kept by private persons; sometimes they

consisted only of open spaces, if possible near a brook and

surrounded by trees. Soon, however, regular

buildings—gymnasia—became necessary. At first they

consisted of an uncovered, court surrounded by colonnades,

adjoining which lay covered spaces, the former being used for

running and jumping, the latter for wrestling. In the same

degree as these exercises became more developed, and as

grown-up men began to take an interest in these youthful

sports, and spent a great part of their day at the gymnasia,

these grew in size and splendour. They soon became a necessary

of life, and no town could be without them, larger cities

often containing several."

E. Guhl and W. Koner,

Life of the Greeks and Romans,

section 25.

Of gymnasia "there were many at Athens; though three only,

those of the Academy, Lyceum, and Cynosarges, have acquired

celebrity: The site of the first of these gymnasia being low

and marshy was in ancient times infested with malaria, but

having been drained by Cimon and planted with trees it became

a favourite promenade and place of exercise. Here, in walks

shaded by the sacred olive, might be seen young men with

crowns of rushes in flower upon their heads, enjoying the

sweet odour of the smilax and the white poplar, while the

platanos and the elm mingled their murmurs in the breeze of

spring. The meadows of the Academy, according to Aristophanes

the grammarian, were planted with the Apragmosune, a sort of

flower so called as though it smelt of all kind of fragrance

and safety, like our heart's-ease or flower of the Trinity.

This place is supposed to have derived its name from Ecadamos,

a public-spirited man who bequeathed his property for the

purpose of keeping it in order. … The name of the Lyceum,

sometimes derived from Lycus, son of Pandion, probably owed

its origin to the temenos of Lycian Apollo there situated. It

lay near the banks of the Ilissos, and was adorned with

stately edifices, fountains and groves. … In this place

anciently the Polemarch held his court and the forces of the

republic were exercised before they went forth to war.

Appended to the name of the Cynosarges, or third gymnasium

surrounded with groves, was a legend which related that when

Diomos was sacrificing to Hestia, a white dog snatched away a

part of the victim from the altar, and running straightway out

of the city deposited it on the spot where this gymnasium was

afterwards erected."

J. A. St. John,

The Hellenes,

book 2, chapter 5.

"The name of that most illustrious of the Athenian gymnasia,

the Academy, has been preserved through the dark ages, and

exactly in the situation indicated by ancient testimony. We

are informed that the Academy was six or eight stades distant

from a gate in the wall of the asty named Dipylum, and that

the road from thence to the Academy led through that part of

the outer Cerameicus, in which it was a custom to bury the

Athenian citizens who had fallen in battle on important

occasions. Dipylum was the gate from whence began the Sacred

Way from Athens to Eleusis. … It appears also that the

Academy lay between the Sacred Way and the Colonus Hippius, a

height near the Cephissus, sacred to Neptune, and the scene of

the Œdipus Coloneus of Sophocles; for the Academy was not far

from Colonus, and the latter was ten stades distant from the

city. That part of the plain which is near the olive-groves,

on the northeastern side of Athens, and is now called

Akadhimia, is entirely in conformity with these data. It is on

the lowest level, where some water-courses from the ridges of

Lycabettus are consumed in gardens and olive plantations."

W. M. Leake,

Topography of Athens,

section 2.

See, also,

EDUCATION, ANCIENT: GREECE.

{1620}

GYMNASIARCH.

See LITURGIES.

GYPSIES, The.

"Having in various and distant countries lived in habits of

intimacy with these people, I have come to the following

conclusions respecting them: that wherever they are found,

their manners and customs are virtually the same, though

somewhat modified by circumstances, and that the language they

speak amongst themselves, and of which they are particularly

anxious to keep others in ignorance, is in all countries one

and the same, but has been subjected more or less to

modification; and lastly, that their countenances exhibit a

decided family resemblance, but are darker or fairer according

to the temperature of the climate, but invariably darker, at

least in Europe, than the natives of the countries in which

they dwell, for example, England and Russia, Germany and

Spain. The names by which they are known differ with the

country, though, with one or two exceptions, not materially;

for example, they are styled in Russia, Zigani; in Turkey and

Persia, Zingarri; and in Germany, Zigeuner; all which words

apparently spring from the same etymon, which there is no

improbability in supposing to be 'Zincali,' a term by which

these people, especially those of Spain, sometimes designate

themselves, and the meaning of which is believed to be, 'The

black men of Zend or Ind.' In England and Spain they are

commonly known as Gypsies and Gitanos, from a general belief

that they were originally Egyptians, to which the two words

are tantamount; and in France as Bohemians, from the

circumstance that Bohemia was the first country in civilized

Europe where they made their appearance; though there is

reason for supposing that they had been wandering in the

remote regions of Sclavonia for a considerable time previous,

as their language abounds with words of Sclavonic origin,

which could not have been adopted in a hasty passage through a

wild and half populated country. But they generally style

themselves and the language which they speak, Rommany. This

word … is of Sanscrit origin, and signifies, 'The Husbands,'

or that which pertaineth unto them. From whatever motive this

appellation may have originated, it is perhaps more applicable

than any other to a sect or caste like them, who have no love

and no affection beyond their own race; who are capable of

making great sacrifices for each other, and who gladly prey

upon all the rest of the human species, whom they detest, and

by whom they are hated and despised. It will perhaps not be

out of place to observe here, that there is no reason for

supposing that the word Roma or Rommany is derived from the

Arabic word which signifies Greece or Grecians, as some people

not much acquainted with the language of the race in question

have imagined. … Scholars have asserted that the language

which they speak proves them to be of Indian stock, and

undoubtedly a great number of their words are Sanscrit. …

There is scarcely a part of the habitable world where they are

not to be found; their tents are alike pitched on the heaths

of Brazil and the ridges of the Himalayan hills, and their

language is heard at Moscow and Madrid, in the streets of

London and Stamboul."

G. Borrow,

The Zincali,

volume 1, pages 2-5.

"One day, 450 years ago, or thereabouts, there knocked at the

gates of the city of Lüneburg, on the Elbe, as strange a

rabble rout as had ever been seen by German burgher. There

were 300 of them, men and women, accompanied by an

extraordinary number of children. They were dusky of skin,

with jet-black hair and eyes; they wore strange garments; they

were unwashed and dirty even beyond the liberal limits

tolerated by the cold-water-fearing citizens of Lüneburg; they

had with them horses, donkeys, and carts; they were led by two

men whom they described as Duke and Count. … All the

Lüneburgers turned out to gaze open-mouthed at these pilgrims,

while the Duke and the Count told the authorities their tale,

which was wild and romantic. … Many years before, they

explained, while the tears of penitence stood in the eyes of

all but the youngest children, they had been a Christian

community, living in orthodoxy, and therefore happiness, in a

far-off country known as Egypt. … They were then a happy

Christian flock. To their valley came the Saracens, an

execrable race, worshipping Mahound. Yielding, in an evil

hour, to the threats and persecutions of their conquerors,

they—here they turned their faces and wept aloud—they

abjured Christ. But thereafter they had no rest or peace, and

a remorse so deep fell upon their souls that they were fain to

arise, leave their homes, and journey to Rome in hope of

getting reconciliation with the Church, They were graciously

received by the Pope, who promised to admit them back into the

fold after seven years of penitential wandering. They had

letters of credit from King Sigismund—would the Lüneburgers

kindly look at them?—granting safe conduct and recommending

them to the protection of all honest people. The Lüneburg folk

were touched at the recital of so much suffering in a cause so

good; they granted the request of the strangers. They allowed

them to encamp, … The next day the strangers visited the

town. In the evening a good many things were missed,

especially those unconsidered trifles which a housewife may

leave about her doorway. Poultry became suddenly scarce; eggs

doubled in price; it was rumoured that purses had been lost

while their owners gazed at the strangers; cherished cups of

silver were not to be found. … While the Lüneburgers took

counsel, in their leisurely way, how to meet a case so

uncommon, the pilgrims suddenly decamped, leaving nothing

behind them but the ashes of their fires and the picked bones

of the purloined poultry. … This was the first historical

appearance of Gipsies. It was a curious place to appear in.

The mouth of the Elbe is a long way from Egypt, even if you

travel by sea, which does not appear to have been the case;

and a journey on laud not only would have been infinitely more

fatiguing, but would, one would think, have led to some notice

on the road before reaching Lüneburg. There, however, the

Gipsies certainly are first heard of, and henceforth history

has plenty to say about their doings. From Lüneburg they went

to Hamburg, Lübeck, Rostock, Griefswald, travelling in an

easterly direction. They are mentioned as having appeared in

Saxony, where they were driven away, as at Lüneburg, for their

thievish propensities. They travelled through Switzerland,

headed by their great Duke Michael, and pretending to have

been expelled from Egypt by the Turks, Their story in these

early years, though it varied in particulars, remained the

same in essentials.

{1621}

In Provence they called themselves Saracens; in Swabia they

were Egyptians doomed to everlasting wanderings for having

refused hospitality to the Virgin and Joseph; at Bâle, where

they exhibited letters of safe conduct from the Pope, they

were also Egyptians. Always the Land of the Nile; always the

same pretence, or it may be reminiscence, of sojourn in Egypt;

always, to soothe the suspicions of priests, faithful and

submissive sons of the Church. From the very first their real

character was apparent. They lie, cheat, and steal at

Lüneburg; they lie and steal everywhere; they tell fortunes

and cut purses, they buy and sell horses, they poison pigs,

they rob and plunder, they wander and they will not work. They

first came to Paris in the year 1427, when more people went to

see them, we are told, than ever crowded to the Fair of

Laudet. … They remained at St. Denis for a month, when they

received peremptory orders to quit for the usual reason. …

In the 16th century trouble began for the Roman folk. By this

time their character was perfectly well known. They were

called Bohemians, Heathen, Gitanos, Pharaohites, Robbers,

Tartars, and Zigeuner. They had abandoned the old lying story

of the penitential wanderings; they were outcasts; their hand

was against every man's hand; their customs were the same then

as they are described now by Leland or Borrow."

Gipsies and their Friends

(Temple Bar, volume 47), pages 65-67.

"Since the publication of Pott's book upon the gypsies [Die

Zigeuner in Europa und Asien]—about 30 years ago—we have

come to regard the origin of this singular people with

considerable unanimity of opinion. Almost nobody doubts now

that they are Indians; and the assumption that all the gypsies

scattered throughout Europe are descended from one parent

stock meets with little contradiction. Both of these beliefs

are the outcome of the investigation of their language. …

Pott, in the introduction to his book, and quoting from the

'Shah-Name' of Firdousi, informs us that, during the 5th

century of our era, the Persian monarch, Behram Gour, received

from an Indian king 12,000 musicians of both sexes, who were

known as Luris. Now, as this is the name by which the gypsies

of Persia are known even at the present day, and as, moreover,

the author of the Persian work 'Modjmal at-tawarikh'

emphatically says that the Luris or Lulis of modern Persia are

the descendants of these same 12,000 musicians, there is no

hazard in the assumption that we have here the first recorded

gypsy migration. Confirmation of this is afforded by the

Arabian historian, Hamza of Ispahan, who wrote half a century

before Firdousi, and who was well versed in the history of the

Sassasinides. It is related by this author that Behram Gour

caused 12,000 musicians, called Zott, to be sent from India

for the benefit of his subjects. And 'Zott' is the name by

which the gypsies were known to the Arabs, and which they even

bear in Damascus at the present day. In the Arabic dictionary

'al-Kamus' this entry occurs: 'Zott, arabicized from Jatt, a

people of Indian origin. The word might be pronounced Zatt

with equal correctness.' … For the fatherland of these Zott,

or Jatt, we have not long to seek. Istakhri and Ibn-Haukal,

the celebrated 10th-century geographers, recount as follows:—

'Between al-Mansura and Mokran the waters of the Indus have

formed marshes, the borders of which are inhabited by certain

Indian tribes, called Zott; those of them who dwell near the

river live in huts, like the huts of the Berbers, and subsist

chiefly on fish and water-fowl; while those occupying the

level country further inland live like the Kurds, supporting

themselves on milk, cheese, and maize.' In these same regions

there are yet two more tribes placed by these geographers,

namely, the Bodha and the Meid. The former are properly,

according to Ibn-Haukal, a subdivision of the Zott. … In

course of time the Meds (to adopt the spelling favoured by Sir

Henry Elliott) overcame the Zotts, whom they treated with such

severity that they had to leave the country. The Zotts then

established themselves on the river Pehen, where they soon

became skilful sailors"; while those living farther to the

north, known as Kikan, became famed as breeders of horses and

herders of buffalos. When the Arabs, in their career of

conquest, came in contact with the Zotts, the latter joined

them, and large colonies of them were removed, for some

reason, to western Asia, and settled with their herds on the

lower Euphrates and Tigris, and in Syria. The Zotts on the

Tigris became strong and troublesome in time, and in 834 the

khalif Motacem, after subjugating them by force, removed them

from the country, to the number of 27,000, sending them to

Ainzarba, on the northern frontier of Syria. In 855, Ainzarba

was captured by the Byzantines, who carried off the Zotts,

with all their buffalo herds. "Here, then, we have the first

band of gypsies brought into the Greek Empire. … As regards

the destinies of the Zotts after they had been brought to Asia

Minor from Ainzarba, in the year 855, I have been unable—in

the course of a hurried search—to discover anything. But, now

that we know the year in which they entered Byzantine

territory, others may be more successful. Whether the name

Zott, or rather its Indian form Jatt (or Jaut), has also been

brought with them into Europe, I am, of course, as little able

to say."

M. J. de Goeje,

A Contribution to the History of the Gypsies

(In "Accounts of the Gypsies of India,"

edited by D. MacRitchie).

"Students of the gipsies, and especially those who have

interested themselves in the history of the race, will have

read with regret the announcement of the death, at Paris, on

March 1st, of the veteran 'tsiganologue,' M. Paul Bataillard.

For the last half century he had devoted his leisure time to

the study of the early notices of the presence of gipsies in

Europe. … It was his opinion that there have been gipsies in

Eastern Europe since prehistoric times, and that it is to them

Europe owes its knowledge of metallurgy. Heterodox although

this opinion may be, it has recently been observed by Mr. F.

H. Groome that 'Bataillard's theory is gaining favour with

foreign archæologists, among whom MM. Mortillet, Chantre, and

Burnouf had arrived independently at similar conclusions.'"

The Athenæum,

March 31, 1894.

ALSO IN:

C. G. Leland,

English Gipsies,

chapters 8-10.

W. Simson.

History of the Gipsies.

GYRWAS.

"Fen-folk"—the name taken by a body of Engle freebooters who

occupied the islands in the Fen district of England for a long

time before they were able to possess the Roman-British towns

and country on its border.

J. R. Green,

The Making of England,

chapter 2.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

{1622}

H

HAARLEM: A. D. 1572-1573.

Siege and capture by Alva's Spaniards.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.

HABEAS CORPUS, Act and Writ of.

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

HABSBURG, or HAPSBURG, Origin of the House of.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.

HABSBURG-LORRAINE, The House of.

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

HACKINSACKS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

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

HADRIAN,

Roman Emperor, A. D. 117-138.

Hadrian I., Pope, 772-795.

Hadrian II., Pope, 867-872.

Hadrian III., Pope, 884-885.

Hadrian IV., Pope, 1154-1159.

Hadrian V., Pope, 1276, July to August.

HADRIANOPLE.

See ADRIANOPLE.

HADRIAN'S MAUSOLEUM.

See CASTLE ST. ANGELO.

HADRIAN'S WALL.

See ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.

HADRUMETUM, OR ADRUMETUM.

See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

HÆDUI, The.

See ÆDUI.

HÆMUS, Mount.

The ancient name of the Balkan chain of mountains.

HÆRRED, The.

See HUNDRED, THE.

HAGENAU, Treaty of (1330).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.

HAGUE, The:

Origin and Name.

"Unlike other Dutch cities, the Hague owed its importance, not

to commerce or manufactures, but to having early been made the

seat of government of the United Provinces, and to the

constant presence of the officers of state and the foreign

ministers accredited to the republic. For four centuries the

abode of the counts of Holland, it derives its name from the

'Haeg 'or hedge encircling the magnificent park which formed

their ancient hunting ground, and the majestic trees in which,

at this day, attract the admiration of Europe."

J. R. Brodhead,

History of the State of New York,

volume 1, page 61.

HAGUENAU: Cession to France.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

HAIDAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SKITTAGETAN FAMILY.

HAIDERABAD, OR HYDERABAD, The Nizam of.

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

HAINAULT.

Hainault, the region of the Netherlands occupied anciently by

the Nervii, became a county under hereditary lords in the 9th

century. In the 11th century it was joined by marriage to the

territories of the counts of Flanders, and so remained, until

the beginning of the 14th century. In 1300 Hainault and

Holland became joined under the same family of counts.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 922-1345.

HAITI.

See HAYTI.

HAKO, OR HAKON I. (called the Good),

King of Norway, A. D. 940-963.

Hako II. (Jarl), King of Norway, 977-995.

Hako III., King of Norway, 1202-1204.

Hako IV., King of Norway, 1207-1263.

Hako V., King of Norway, 1299-1319.

Hako VI., King of Norway, 1343-1380.

HALF-BREEDS.

See STALWARTS.

HALFWAY COVENANT, The.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.

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

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

HALICARNASSUS.

See CARIANS;

and ASIA MINOR;

THE GREEK COLONIES;

also, MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.

HALIDON HILL, Battle of (1333).

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

and SCOTLAND: A. D. 1332-1333.

HALIFAX: A. D. 1749.

The founding of the city.

"In the year [1749] after the peace [of Aix-la-Chapelle] the

land forces in Great Britain were reduced to little more than

18,000 men; those in Minorca, Gibraltar, and the American

plantations, to 10,000; while the sailors retained in the

Royal Navy were under 17,000. From the large number both of

soldiers and seamen suddenly discharged, it was feared that

they might be either driven to distress or tempted to

depredation. Thus, both for their own comfort and for the

quiet of the remaining community, emigration seemed to afford

a safe and excellent resource. The province of Nova Scotia was

pitched upon for this experiment, and the freehold of fifty

acres was offered to each settler, with ten acres more for

every child brought with him, besides a free passage, and an

exemption from all taxes during a term of ten years. Allured

by such advantages, above 4,000 persons, with their families,

embarked under the command of Colonel Cornwallis, and landed

at the harbour of Chebuetow. The new town which soon arose

from their labours received its name from the Earl of Halifax,

who presided at the Board of Trade, and who had the principal

share in the foundation of this colony. In the first winter

there were but 300 huts of wood, surrounded by a palisade."

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),

History of England, 1713-1783,

chapter 31 (volume 4).

See, also,

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755.

HALIFAX CURRENCY.

"For many years Canada used what was called 'Halifax

currency,' in which the nomenclature of sterling money was

that employed, but having a pound of this currency valued at

four dollars."

G. Bryce,

Short History of the Canadian People,

page 433.

HALIFAX FISHERY AWARD.

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

HALLECK, General Henry W. Command in Missouri.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

Command in the Valley of the Mississippi.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE);

(APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI);

(JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

Command of all the armies.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: MISSISSIPPI).

HAMADAN.

The capital city of ancient Media.

HAMATH, Kingdom of.

"It is impossible to doubt that the Hamathites are identical

with the Canaanitish tribe that was settled in the town of

Hamath, afterwards called Epiphania, on the Orontes, between

the Hittites and the Amorites of Kadesh. After the time of

David they were succeeded in that town by the Arimæans."

F. Lenormant,

Manual of Ancient History of the East,

book 6, chapter 1 (volume 2).

{1623}

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

HAMBURG:

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

See HANSA TOWNS.

HAMBURG: A. D. 1801-1803.

One of six Free Cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

HAMBURG: A. D. 1806.

Occupied and oppressed by the French.

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

HAMBURG: A. D. 1810.

Annexation to France.

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

HAMBURG: A. D. 1810-1815.

Loss and recovery of the autonomy of a Free City.

See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY.

HAMBURG: A. D. 1813.

Expulsion of the French.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.

HAMBURG: A. D. 1813.

Defense by Marshal Davoust.

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

HAMBURG: A. D. 1815.

Once more a Free City and a member of the Germanic

Confederation.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

HAMBURG: A. D. 1888.

Surrender of free privileges.

Absorption in the Zollverein and Empire.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1888.

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

HAMILCAR BARCA, and the First Punic War.

See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

HAMILTON, Alexander,

The framing and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1787, and 1787-1789.

HAMILTON, Alexander:

Financial organization of the United States Government.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792;

also, TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES):

A. D. 1789-1791.

HAMILTON, Alexander:

The Federal Party.

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

and 1797-1799.

HAMILTON, Alexander:

Fatal duel with Aaron Burr.

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

HAMITES.—HAMITIC LANGUAGES.

The name Hamites, as now used among ethnologists, is

restricted more closely than it once was to certain African

races, whose languages are found to be related. The languages

classed as Hamitic are those of the ancient Egyptians and the

modern Copts, most of the Abyssinian tribes, the Gallas and

the Berbers. Some of the older writers, Lenormant, for

example, embraced the Phœnicians and all their Canaanite

neighbors among the Hamites; but this is not now an accepted

view. It was undoubtedly formed under the influence of the

theory from which the name Hamites came, namely that the

people so designated were descendants of Ham; and it sought to

adjust a division of the Hamitic family to four lines of

descent, indicated by the Biblical account of the four sons of

Ham,—Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan. This hypothesis

identified the Cushites with the Ethiopians (modern

Abyssinians and Nubians), the descendants of Mizraim with the

Egyptians, those of Phut with the Libyans, and those of Canaan

with the Canaanites, including the Phœnicians. Some held that

the Hamites occupied originally a great part of western and

southern Asia; that they were the primitive inhabitants of

southern Mesopotamia, or Chaldea, southern Persia, and

southern Arabia, and were displaced by the Semites; also that

they once inhabited the most of Asia Minor, and that the

Carians were a surviving remnant of them. But the more

conservative sense in which the term Hamite is now used

restricts it, as stated above, to certain races which are

grouped together by a relationship in their languages. Whether

or not the Hamitic tongues have an affinity to the Semitic

seems still an open question; and, in fact, the whole subject

is in an undetermined state, as may be inferred from the

following extract: "The so-called Hamitic or sub-Semitic

languages of Northern Africa … exhibit resemblances to the

language of ancient Egypt as well as to those of the Semitic

family. In the Libyan dialects we find the same double verbal

form employed with the same double function as in Assyrian,

and throughout the 'Hamitic' languages the causative is

denoted by a prefixed sibilant as it was in the parent Semitic

speech. We cannot argue, however, from language to race, …

and the Libyans have ethnologically no connection with the

Semites or the Egyptians. Moreover, in several instances the

Hamitic' dialects are spoken by tribes of negro or Nubian

origin, while the physiological characteristics of the

Egyptians are very different from those of the Semite."

A. H. Sayce,

The Races of the Old Testament,

chapter 4.

HAMPDEN, John.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637; 1640-1641;

1642 (JANUARY), (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);

and 1643 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

HAMPDEN CLUBS.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

HAMPTON COURT CONFERENCE.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1604.

HAMPTON ROADS PEACE CONFERENCE.

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

HANAU, Battle of.

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

HANCOCK, John, and the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST); and 1776 (JULY).

HANDVESTS.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1559-1562.

HANES.

An ancient Egyptian city, once mentioned in the Bible by that

name (Isaiah xxx. 4). Its ruins have been identified, about 70

miles above Cairo, on the western bank of the Nile. The

Egyptian name of the city was Chenensu; the Greek name

Heracleopolis.

R. S. Poole,

Cities of Egypt,

chapter 3.

HANNIBAL, The war of, with Rome.

See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

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

HANOVER, OR BRUNSWICK-LÜNEBURG:

Origin of the Kingdom and House.

See SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY,

and A. D. 1178-1183.

HANOVER:

The Guelf connection.

See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES;

and ESTE, HOUSE OF.

HANOVER: A. D. 1529.

The Duke joins in the Protest which gave origin to the name

Protestants.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

HANOVER: A. D. 1546.

Final separation from the Wolfenbüttel branch of the House.

The two principalities of Brunswick and Lüneburg, which had

been divided, were reunited by Ernest, called the Confessor.

On his death, in 1546, they were again divided, the heir of

his elder son taking Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, or Brunswick, and

the younger receiving Brunswick-Lüneburg, or Hanover. From the

latter branch sprang the Electoral House of Hanover, and the

present royal family of England; from the former descended the

Ducal Brunswick family.

Sir A. Halliday,

Annals of the House of Hanover,

book 9 (volume 2).

{1624}

HANOVER: A. D. 1648.

Losses and acquisitions in the Peace of Westphalia.

The alternating Bishopric.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

HANOVER: A. D. 1692.

Rise to Electoral rank.

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

HANOVER: A. D. 1694-1696.

The war of the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV.

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

HANOVER: A. D. 1701.

Settlement of the Succession of the Brunswick-Lüneberg line to

the English Crown.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1701.

HANOVER: A. D. 1714.

Succession of the Elector to the British Crown.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1714.

HANOVER: A. D. 1720.

Acquisition of the duchies of Bremen and Verden by the

Elector.

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

HANOVER: A. D. 1741.

The War of the Austrian Succession: Neutrality declared.

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

HANOVER: A. D. 1745.

The English-Hanoverian defeat at Fontenoy.

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

HANOVER: A. D. 1757-1762.

French attack and British defense of the electorate in the

Seven Years War.

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

HANOVER: A. D. 1763.

The Peace of Paris, ending the Seven Years War.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

HANOVER: A. D. 1776.

Troops hired to Great Britain for service in the American War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE).

HANOVER: A. D. 1801-1803.

Annexation of Osnabruck.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

HANOVER: A. D. 1803-1806.

Seizure by the French.

Cession to Prussia.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1802-1803;

and GERMANY: 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

HANOVER: A. D. 1807.

Absorbed in the kingdom of Westphalia.

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

HANOVER: A. D. 1810.

Northern part annexed to France.

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

HANOVER: A. D. 1813.

Deliverance from Napoleon.

Restoration to the King of England.

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

HANOVER: A. D. 1815.

Raised to the rank of a kingdom, with territorial enlargement.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

HANOVER: A. D. 1837,

Separation of the Crown from that of Great Britain.

"From the hour that the Crown of these kingdoms [Great Britain

and Ireland] devolved upon Queen Victoria, dates a change

which was a real blessing in the relations of the Sovereign to

the Continent of Europe. Hanover was at that instant wholly

separated from Great Britain. By the law of that country a

female could not reign except in default of heirs male in the

Royal family. But in addition to the great advantage of

separating the policy of England wholly from the intrigues and

complications of a petty German State, it was an immediate

happiness that the most hated and in some respects the most

dangerous man in these islands was removed to a sphere where

his political system might be worked out with less danger to

the good of society than amongst a people where his influence

was associated with the grossest follies of Toryism and the

darkest designs of Orangeism. On the 24th of June the duke of

Cumberland, now become Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover, left

London. On the 28th he made a solemn entrance into the capital

of his states, and at once exhibited to his new subjects his

character and disposition by refusing to receive a deputation

of the Chambers, who came to offer him their homage and their

congratulations. By a proclamation of the 5th of July he

announced his intention to abolish the representative

constitution, which he had previously refused to recognize by

the customary oath. We shall have little further occasion to

notice the course of this worst disciple of the old school of

intolerance and irresponsible government, and we may therefore

at once state that he succeeded in depriving Hanover of the

forms of freedom under which she had begun to live; ejected

from their offices and banished some of the ablest professors

of the University of Gottingen, who had ventured to think that

letters would flourish best in a free soil; and reached the

height of his ambition in becoming the representative of

whatever in sovereign power was most repugnant to the spirit

of the age."

C. Knight,

Popular History of England,

volume 8, chapter 23.

HANOVER: A. D. 1866.

Extinction of the kingdom.

Absorption by Prussia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

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

HANOVER, The Alliance of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

HANOVER JUNCTION, Engagement at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 18112 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

HANSA TOWNS, The.

"In consequence of the liberty and security enjoyed by the

inhabitants of the free towns [of Germany—see CITIES:

IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY], while the rest of the country

was a prey to all the evils of feudal anarchy and oppression,

they made a comparatively rapid progress in wealth and

population. Nuremberg, Augsburg, Worms, Spires, Frankfort, and

other cities, became at an early period celebrated alike for

the extent of their commerce, the magnificence of their

buildings, and the opulence of their citizens. … The

commercial spirit awakened in the north about the same time as

in the south of Germany. Hamburgh was founded by Charlemagne

in the beginning of the ninth century, in the intention of

serving as a fort to bridle the Saxons, who had been

subjugated by the emperor. Its favourable situation on the

Elbe necessarily rendered it a commercial emporium. Towards

the close of the twelfth century, the inhabitants, who had

already been extensively engaged in naval enterprizes, began

to form the design of emancipating themselves from the

authority of their counts, and of becoming a sovereign and

independent state; and in 1189 they obtained an Imperial

charter which gave them various privileges, including among

others the power of electing councillors, or aldermen, to

whom, in conjunction with the deputy of the count, the

government of the town was to be entrusted. Not long after

Hamburgh became entirely free. In 1224 the citizens purchased

from Count Albert the renunciation of all his rights, whether

real or pretended, to any property in or sovereignty over the

town, and its immediate vicinity. And the government was thus

early placed on that liberal footing on which it has ever

since remained. Lubeck, situated on the Trave, was founded

about the middle of the twelfth century. It rapidly grew to be

a place of great trade.

{1625}

It became the principal emporium for the commerce of the

Baltic, and its merchants extended their dealings to Italy and

the Levant. At a period when navigation was still imperfect,

and when the seas were infested with pirates, it was of great

importance to be able to maintain a safe intercourse by land

between Lubeck and Hamburgh, as by that means the difficult

and dangerous navigation of the Sound was avoided. And it is

said by some, that the first political union between these

cities had the protection of merchandize carried between them

by land for its sole object. But this is contradicted by

Lambec in his 'Origines Hamburgenses' (lib. xi., pa. 26). …

But whatever may have been the motives which led to the

alliance between these two cities, it was the origin of the

famous Hanseatic League, so called from the German word

'hansa,' signifying a corporation. There is no very distinct

evidence as to the time when the alliance in question was

established; but the more general opinion seems to be that it

dates from the year 1241. … From the beginning of the

twelfth century, the progress of commerce and navigation in

the north was exceedingly rapid. The countries which stretch

along the bottom of the Baltic from Holstein to Russia, and

which had been occupied by barbarous tribes of Sclavonic

origin, were then subjugated by the Kings of Denmark, the

Dukes of Saxony, and other princes. The greater part of the

inhabitants being exterminated, their place was filled by

German colonists, who founded the towns of Stralsund, Rostock,

Wismar, etc. Prussia and Poland were afterwards subjugated by

the Christian princes, and the Knights of the Teutonic order.

So that in a comparatively short period, the foundations of

civilization and the arts were laid in countries whose

barbarism had ever remained impervious to the Roman power. The

cities that were established along the coasts of the Baltic,

and even in the interior of the countries bordering upon it,

eagerly joined the Hanseatic confederation. They were indebted

to the merchants of Lubeck for supplies of the commodities

produced in more civilized countries, and they looked up to

them for protection against the barbarians by whom they were

surrounded. The progress of the league was in consequence

singularly rapid. Previously to the end of the thirteenth

century it embraced every considerable city in all those vast

countries extending from Livonia to Holland; and was a match

for the most powerful monarchs. The Hanseatic confederacy was

at its highest degree of power and splendour during the

fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It then comprised from

sixty to eighty cities, which were distributed into four

classes or circles. Lubeck was at the head of the first

circle, and had under it Hamburgh, Bremen, Rostock, Wismar,

etc. Cologne was at the head of the second circle, with

twenty-nine towns under it. Brunswick was at the head of the

third circle, consisting of thirteen towns. Dantzic was at the

head of the fourth circle, having under it eight towns in its

vicinity, besides several that were more remote. The supreme

authority of the League was vested in the deputies of the

different towns assembled in Congress. In it they discussed

all their measures; decided upon the sum that each city should

contribute to the common fund; and upon the questions that

arose between the confederacy and other powers, as well as

those that frequently arose between the different members of

the confederacy. The place for the meeting of Congress was not

fixed, but it was most frequently held at Lubeck, which was

considered as the capital of the League, and there its

archives were kept. … Besides the towns already mentioned,

there were others that were denominated confederated cities,

or allies. … The Golden Bull proscribed all sorts of leagues

and associations, as contrary to the fundamental laws of the

empire, and to the subordination due to the emperor and the

different princes. But Charles IV., the author of this famous

edict, judged it expedient to conciliate the Hanseatic League;

and his successors seem generally to have followed his

example. As the power of the confederated cities was increased

and consolidated, they became more ambitious. Instead of

limiting their efforts to the mere advancement of commerce and

their own protection, they endeavoured to acquire the monopoly

of the trade of the North, and to exercise the same sort of

dominion over the Baltic that the Venetians exercised over the

Adriatic. For this purpose they succeeded in obtaining, partly

in return for loans of money, and partly by force, various

privileges and immunities from the Northern sovereigns which

secured to them almost the whole foreign commerce of

Scandinavia, Denmark, Prussia, Poland, Russia, etc. They

exclusively carried on the herring-fishery of the Sound, at

the same time that they endeavoured to obstruct and hinder the

navigation of foreign vessels in the Baltic. … The Kings of

Denmark, Sweden and Norway were frequently engaged in

hostilities with the Hanse towns. They regarded, and it must

be admitted not without pretty good reason, the privileges

acquired by the League in their kingdoms as so many

usurpations. But their efforts to abolish these privileges

served, for more than two centuries, only to augment and

extend them. … Waldemar III., who ascended the Danish throne

in 1340, engaged in a furious contest with the League. Success

seemed at first rather to incline to his arms. Ultimately,

however, he was completely defeated by the forces of the

League and its allies, and was even obliged to fly from his

kingdom. In his exile he prevailed on the Emperor and the Pope

to interpose in his favour. But neither the imperial rescripts

nor the thunders of the Vatican were able to divert the

confederated cities from their purposes. At length, in 1370,

the regents, to whom the government of Denmark had been

intrusted during the absence of the monarch, concluded a peace

with the League on the conditions dictated by the latter; one

of which was that most of the strong places in the kingdom

should be given up to the League for fifteen years, in

security for the faithful performance of the treaty. Waldemar

having assented to these humiliating terms, returned soon

after to Denmark. In the early part of the fifteenth century

the Hanse towns having espoused the side of the Count of

Holstein, who was at war with Eric X., King of Denmark, sent

an armament of upwards of 200 ships, having more than 12,000

troops on board, to the assistance of their ally. This

powerful aid decided the contest in his favour. Nearly at the

same time the League raised their ally, Albert of

Mecklenburgh, to the throne of Norway, who confirmed to them

several important commercial privileges.

{1626}

In their contests with Sweden, during the fourteenth and

fifteenth centuries, the League were equally successful. Such,

indeed, was their ascendancy in that kingdom, that they were

authorized to nominate some of the principal magistrates in

most of the Swedish maritime towns of any importance! … The

town of Wisby, situated on the west coast of the island of

Gothland, became, during the ascendancy of the League, one of

its principal depots, and also one of the best frequented

emporiums of the North. But Wisby is chiefly famous from its

name having become identified with the code of maritime laws

that was long of paramount authority in the Baltic. … The

principal Northern jurists and historians regard the Wisby

code, or compilation, as anterior to the code, or compilation,

denominated the Rules or Judgments of Oleron, and as being in

fact the most ancient monument of the maritime laws of the

middle ages. But no learning or ingenuity can give

plausibility to so improbable a theory. … In order to

facilitate and extend their commercial transactions, the

League established various factories in foreign countries, the

principal of which were at Novogorod in Russia, London in

England, Bruges in the Netherlands, and Bergen in Norway.

Novogorod, situated at the confluence of the Volkof with the

Imler Lake, was, for a lengthened period, the most renowned

emporium in the north-eastern parts of Europe. … The

merchants of the Hanse towns, or Hansards, as they were then

commonly termed, were established in London at a very early

period, and their factory here was of considerable magnitude

and importance. They enjoyed various privileges and

immunities; they were permitted to govern themselves by their

own laws and regulations; the custody of one of the gates of

the city (Bishopsgate) was committed to their care; and the

duties on various sorts of imported commodities were

considerably reduced in their favour. These privileges

necessarily excited the ill-will and animosity of the English

merchants. … The League exerted themselves vigorously in

defence of their privileges; and having declared war against

England, they succeeded in excluding our vessels from the

Baltic, and acted with such energy, that Edward IV. was glad

to come to an accommodation with them, on terms which were

anything but honourable to the English. In the treaty for this

purpose, negotiated in 1474, the privileges of the merchants

of the Hanse towns were renewed, and the king assigned to

them, in absolute property, a large space of ground, with the

buildings upon it, in Thames Street, denominated the Steel

Yard, whence the Hanse merchants have been commonly

denominated the Association of the Steel Yard. … In 1498,

all direct commerce with the Netherlands being suspended, the

trade fell into the hands of the Hanse merchants, whose

commerce was in consequence very greatly extended. But,

according as the spirit of commercial enterprise awakened in

the nation, and as the benefits resulting from the prosecution

of foreign trade came to be better known, the privileges of

the Hanse merchants became more and more obnoxious. They were

in consequence considerably modified in the reigns of Henry

VII. and Henry VIII., and were at length wholly abolished in

1597. The different individuals belonging to the factory in

London, as well as those belonging to the other factories of

the League, lived together at a common table, and were

enjoined to observe the strictest celibacy. … By means of

their factory at Bergen, and of the privileges which had been

either granted to or usurped by them, the League enjoyed for a

lengthened period the monopoly of the commerce of Norway. But

the principal factory of the League was at Bruges in the

Netherlands. Bruges became, at a very early period, one of the

first commercial cities of Europe, and the centre of the most

extensive trade carried on to the north of Italy. The art of

navigation in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was so

imperfect, that a voyage from Italy to the Baltic and back

again could not be performed in a single season, and hence,

for the sake of their mutual convenience, the Italian and

Hanseatic merchants determined on establishing a magazine or

store-house of their respective products in some intermediate

situation. Bruges was fixed upon for this purpose, a

distinction which it seems to have owed as much to the freedom

enjoyed by the inhabitants, and the liberality of the

government of the Low Countries, as to the conveniency of its

situation. In consequence of this preference, Bruges speedily

rose to the very highest rank among commercial cities, and

became a place of vast wealth. … From the middle of the

fifteenth century the power of the confederacy, though still

very formidable, began to decline. This was not owing to any

misconduct on the part of its leaders, but to the progress of

that improvement it had done so much to promote. … Lubeck,

Hamburgh, Bremen, and the towns in their vicinity, were

latterly the only ones that had any interest in its

maintenance. The cities in Zealand and Holland joined it,

chiefly because they would otherwise have been excluded from

the commerce of the Baltic; and those of Prussia, Poland and

Russia did the same, because, had they not belonged to it,

they would have been shut out from all intercourse with

strangers. When, however, the Zealanders and Hollanders became

sufficiently powerful at sea to be able to vindicate their

right to the free navigation of the Baltic by force of arms,

they immediately seceded from the League; and no sooner had

the ships of the Dutch, the English, etc., begun to trade

directly with the Polish and Prussian Hanse Towns, than these

nations also embraced the first opportunity of withdrawing

from it. … At the middle of the seventeenth century the

cities of Lubeck, Hamburgh, and Bremen were all that continued

to acknowledge the authority of the League."

History of the Hanseatic League

(Foreign Quarterly Review, January, 1831).

ALSO IN:

S. A. Dunham,

History of the Germanic Empire,

book 1, chapter 4 (volume 2).

C. Walford,

Outline History of the Hanseatic League

(Royal Historical Society Transactions, volume 9).

H. Zimmern,

The Hansa Towns

(Stories of the Nations).

J. Yeats,

The Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce.

See, also,

CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;

and SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.

HANSE OF LONDON, The Flemish.

See FLANDERS: 13TH CENTURY.

HANSEATIC LEAGUE.

See HANSA TOWNS.

HAOMA.

See SOMA.

HAPSBURG, OR HABSBURG,

Origin and rise of the House of.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.

{1627}

HAPSBURG-LORRAINE, The House of.

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

HARALD IV.,

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

Harald Blaatand, King of Denmark, 941-991.

Harald Graafield, King of Norway, 963-977.

Harald Hardrade, King of Norway, 1047-1066.

Harald Harfager, King of Norway, 863-934.

Harald Sweynson, King of Denmark, 1076-1080.

HARAN.

"From Ur, Abraham's father had migrated to Haran, in the

northern part of Mesopotamia, on the high road which led from

Babylonia and Assyria into Syria and Palestine. Why he should

have migrated to so distant a city has been a great puzzle,

and has tempted scholars to place both Ur and Haran in wrong

localities; but here, again, the cuneiform inscriptions have

at last furnished us with the key. As far back as the Accadian

epoch, the district in which Haran was built belonged to the

rulers of Babylonia; Haran was, in fact, the frontier town of

the empire, commanding at once the highway into the west and

the fords of the Euphrates; the name itself was an Accadian

one, signifying 'the road.'"

A. H. Sayce,

Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,

chapter 2.

The site of Haran is generally identified with that of the

later city of Carrhæ.

HARD-SHELL DEMOCRATS.

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

HARDENBURG'S REFORM MEASURES IN PRUSSIA.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1807-1808.

HARDICANUTE, OR HARTHACNUT,

King of Denmark, A. D. 1035-1042;

King of England, A. D. 1040-1042.

HARDINGE, Lord, The Indian administration of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

HARFLEUR.

Capture by Henry V.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1415.

HARGREAVE'S SPINNING-JENNY, Invention of.

See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

HARII, OR ARII, The.

See LYGIANS.

HARLAW, Battle of (1411).

A very memorable battle in Scottish history, fought July 24,

1411, between the Highlanders and Lowlanders of the country.

Donald, Lord of the Isles, was then practically an independent

sovereign of the western Highlands of Scotland, as well as the

islands opposite their shore. He claimed still larger domains

and invaded the lowland districts to make his claim good. The

defeat inflicted upon him, at heavy cost to the victors, was

felt, says Mr. Benton in his "History of Scotland," as a more

memorable deliverance even than that of Bannockburn. The

independence of the Lord of the Isle was not extinguished

until sixty years later. "The battle of Harlaw and its

consequences were of the highest importance, since they might

be said to decide the superiority of the more civilized

regions of Scotland over those inhabited by the Celtic tribes,

who remained almost as savage as their forefathers the

Dalriads."

Sir W. Scott,

History of Scotland,

chapter 17.

HARLEM.

See HAARLEM.

HARMAR'S EXPEDITION AGAINST THE INDIANS.

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

HARMOSTS.

See SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.

HAROLD (the Dane),

King of England, A. D. 1037-1040.

Harold (the Saxon), King of England, 1066.

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

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

HARPER'S FERRY: A. D. 1859.

John Brown's invasion.

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

HARPER'S FERRY: A. D. 1861 (April).

Arsenal destroyed and abandoned by the Federal garrison.

Occupied by the Rebels.

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

HARPER'S FERRY: A. D. 1862.

Capture by the Confederates.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862

(SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).

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

HARRISON, General Benjamin,

Presidential election and administration.

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

HARRISON, General William Henry:

Indian campaign and battle of Tippecanoe.

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

In the War of 1812.

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

Presidency for one month.

Death.

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

HARRISON'S LANDING,

The Army of the Potomac at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA),

and (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

HARROW SCHOOL.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.-ENGLAND.

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

HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.

The beginnings of the city.

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

HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1650.

The Treaty with the Dutch of New Netherland.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.

HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1687.

The hiding of the Charter.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.

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

HARTFORD CONVENTION, The.

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

HARTHACNUT.

See HARDICANUTE.

HARUSPICES, The.

"The haruspices, nearly related to the augures, were of

Etruscan origin. Under the [Roman] Republic they were

consulted only in a few individual cases: under the emperors

they gained more importance, remaining, however, inferior to

the other priestly colleges. They also expounded and procured

lightnings and 'prodigies,' and moreover examined the

intestines of sacrificed animals. … Heart, liver and lungs

were carefully examined, every anomaly being explained in a

favourable or unfavourable sense."

E. Guhl and W. Koner,

Life of the Greeks and Romans,

section 103.

HARVARD ANNEX.

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

HARVARD COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY.

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

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

HASMONEANS, OR ASMONEANS.

See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

HASSAN, Caliph: A. D. 661.

HASSIDIN, The.

A sect of Jewish mystics which rose during the 17th century in

Podolia, Wallachia, Moldavia, Hungary and neighboring regions.

H. H. Milman,

History of the Jews,

volume 3, book 28.

HASTATI.

See LEGION, ROMAN.

HASTENBACK, Battle of.

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

{1628}

HASTING, The Northman.

See Normans: A. D. 849-860.

HASTINGS, Marquis of (Lord Moira).

The Indian administration of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

HASTINGS, Warren:

His administration in India.

His impeachment and Trial.

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

HASTINGS, OR SENLAC, Battle of.

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

HATFIELD CHASE.

A vast swamp in the West Riding of Yorkshire, England, 180,000

acres in extent, which was sold by the crown in the reign of

Charles I. to a Hollander who drained and reclaimed it. It had

been a forest in early times and was the scene of a great

battle between Penda, King of Mercia, and Edwin of

Northumberland.

J. C. Brown,

Forests of England,

part 1, chapter. 2, section 2.

HATRA.

"Hatra [in central Mesopotamia] became known as a place of

importance in the early part of the second century after

Christ. It successfully resisted Trajan in A. D. 116, and

Severus in A. D. 198. It is then described as a large and

populous city, defended by strong and extensive walls, and

containing within it a temple of the Sun, celebrated for the

great value of its offerings. It enjoyed its own kings at this

time, who were regarded as of Arabian stock, and were among

the more important of the Parthian tributary monarchs. By the

year A. D. 363 Hatra had gone to ruin, and is then described

as 'long since deserted.' Its flourishing period thus belongs

to the space between A. D. 100 and A. D. 300." The ruins of

Hatra, now called El-Hadhr, were "visited by Mr. Layard in

1846, and described at length by Mr. Ross in the ninth volume

of the 'Journal of the Royal Geographical Society,' as well as

by Mr. Fergusson, in his 'History of Architecture.'"

G. Rawlinson,

Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 22.

HATS AND CAPS, Parties of the.

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

HATTERAS EXPEDITION, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (AUGUST: NORTH CAROLINA).

HATUNTAQUI, Battle of.

See ECUADOR: THE ABORIGINAL KINGDOM.

HAVANA.

See CUBA: A. D.1514-1851.

HAVELOCK'S CAMPAIGN IN INDIA.

See INDIA: A. D. 1857-1858.

HAVRE: A. D. 1563-1564.

Occupation by the English.

Siege and recovery by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1564.

HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, The.

The Hawaiian or Sandwich Archipelago, in the North Pacific

ocean, "consists of the seven large and inhabited volcanic

islands of Oahu, Kauai, Niihau, Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and

Hawaii, and the four bare and rocky islets of Kaula, Lehua,

Kahoolawe, and Molokini, with a total area of 8,000 square

miles, and a population of scarcely more than 50,000 souls.

… The Kanakas, as the natives are called, are amongst the

finest and most intelligent races of the Pacific, and have

become thoroughly 'Europeanised,' or, perhaps rather,

'Americanised.' … The Hawaiians, like all other Polynesians,

are visibly decreasing in a constantly increasing ratio."

Stanford's Compendium of Geography: Australasia,

chapter 24.

"Gaetano discovered one of the Sandwich [Hawaiian] Islands in

1542; and, following him, Quiros found Tahiti and the New

Hebrides. Sea voyages in the Pacific multiplied, but that sea

long continued the exclusive theatre of the enterprises of the

Spaniards and Portuguese. … Native traditions refer to the

arrival of strangers a long time before Cook's appearance. In

the seventeenth century Spanish merchantmen were crossing the

Pacific, and might have refreshed at these islands. The

buccaneers, too, may have found the small harbour a convenient

place of concealment."

M. Hopkins,

Hawaii: The Past, Present and Future of the Island Kingdom,

pages 83, 87.

"It is about a century since His Majesty's ships 'Resolution'

and 'Adventure,' Captains Cook and Clerke, turned back from

Behring Strait after an unsuccessful attempt to discover the

North-West Passage. But the adventurers were destined to light

upon fairer lands than those which they had failed to find. On

the 18th of January, 1778, whilst sailing through the Pacific,

the look-out man reported land ahead, and in the evening they

anchored on the shores of that lovely group of twelve islands,

which they named in honour of the then First Lord of the

Admiralty—Lord Sandwich—better known to the satirists of his

day as 'Jemmy Tickler,' one of the greatest of statesmen and

most abandoned of men. The natives received the strangers

gladly; but on the 14th of February, 1779, in an altercation

consequent on the theft of a boat, Captain Cook was killed in

Kealakcakua or Karakakoa Bay, in the Island of Hawaii, or

Owhyhee, from which the official name of the country—the

kingdom of Hawaii—takes its name."

R. Brown,

The Countries of the World,

volume 4, page 22.

The several islands of the Hawaiian group were politically

independent of each other and ruled by different chiefs at the

time of Captain Cook's visit; but a few years later a chief

named Kaméhaméha, of remarkable qualities and capabilities,

succeeded to the sovereignty in the Island of Hawaii, and made

himself master in time of the whole group. Dying in 1819, he

left a consolidated kingdom to his son Liholiho, or Kaméhaméha

II., in whose reign "tabu" and idolatry were abolished and

Christian missionaries began their labors. The dynasty founded

by Kaméhaméha held the throne until 1872. In 1840 a

constitution was proclaimed, which created a legislative body,

composed of hereditary nobles and seven representatives

informally elected by the people. In 1842 the United States,

by an official letter from Daniel Webster, then Secretary of

State, "recognized the independence of the Hawaiian Kingdom,

and declared, 'as the sense of the government of the United

States, that the government of the Sandwich Islands ought to

be respected; that no power ought to take possession of the

islands, either as a conquest or for the purpose of

colonization; and that no power ought to seek for any undue

control over the existing government, or any exclusive

privileges or preferences in matters of commerce.'" The

following year, France and England formally recognized "the

existence in the Sandwich Islands of a government capable of

providing for the regularity of its relations with foreign

nations," and agreed "never to take possession, either

directly or under the title of a protectorate, or under any

other form, of any part of the territory of which they are

composed." In 1852 the constitution was revised. The

legislature, formerly sitting in one body, was now divided

into two houses and both enlarged.

{1629}

In 1864, however, King Kaméhaméha V. forced the adoption of a

new constitution which reversed this bicameral arrangement and

restored the single chamber. A double qualification of the

suffrage, by property and by education, was also introduced.

With the death of Kaméhaméha V., in 1872, his line ended. His

successor, Lunalilo, was elected by the legislature, and the

choice ratified by a popular vote. The reign of Lunalilo

lasted but two years. His successor, David Kalakaua, was

raised to the throne by election. In the year after his

accession, Kalakaua visited the United States, and soon

afterwards, in 1875, a treaty of reciprocity between the two

countries was negotiated. This was renewed and enlarged in

1887. In 1881 the King made a tour of the world. In the fall

of 1890 he came to California for his health; in January,

1891, he died at San Francisco. His sister, Liliuokulani,

widow of an American resident, succeeded him.

W. D. Alexander,

Brief History of the Hawaiian People.

In 1887 a new constitution had been adopted. "This new

constitution was not framed by the king but by the people

through their own appointed citizens and members of the

courts. The legislative powers of the crown which had been

abridged by the constitution of 1864 were now entirely removed

and vested in the representatives of the people. By this the

crown became an executive. In addition to this provision there

was one making the ministry a responsible body and depriving

the king of the right to nominate members of the house of

nobles. … The legislature consists of a House of Nobles

composed of twenty-four members, who are elected for a term of

six years, and a House of Representatives consisting of from

twenty-four to forty-two members elected for two years. The

Houses sit in joint session. In addition to these public

officers there is a cabinet composed of four ministers

appointed by the sovereign holding executive power and who may

be removed upon sufficient cause by the legislature. Such was

the form of government in vogue up to the time of the recent

revolution which has excited the interest of the American

government. On the 15th of January (1893) … Queen

Liliuokalani made the attempt to promulgate a new

constitution, obviously for the purpose of increasing her

power in the government. It has been hinted that the queen

desired to benefit in a pecuniary way by granting concessions

for the establishment of a lottery, and the importation of

opium into the kingdom, both of which had until a year ago

been prohibited. It is best, however, to adhere to fact. The

queen desired more power. This new constitution, as framed by

her, deprived foreigners of the right of franchise, abrogated

the House of Nobles, and gave to the queen herself the power

to appoint a new House. This blow aimed directly at the

foreigners, who are the largest property holders in the

kingdom, stirred them to prompt action. The queen's own

ministry were unsuccessful in their efforts to dissuade her

from the attempt to put the new constitution into effect. The

resolve was not to be shaken, however, and her determination

to carry out her plan incited the people, chiefly the

foreigners, to oppose the measure. The outcome was a

revolution in which not a single life was sacrificed."

A. A. Black,

The Hawaiian Islands

(Chautauquan, April, 1893, pages 54-57).

A provisional government set up by the revolutionists was

immediately recognized by the United States Minister, Mr.

Stevens, and commissioners were sent to Washington to apply

for the annexation of the islands to the United States. On the

16th of February, 1893, the President of the United States,

Mr. Harrison, sent a message to the Senate, submitting an

annexation treaty and recommending its ratification. Meantime,

at Honolulu, on the 9th of February, the United States

Minister, acting without instructions, had established a

protectorate over the Hawaiian Islands, in the name of the

United States. On the 4th of March, a change in the Presidency

of the United States occurred, Mr. Cleveland succeeding Mr.

Harrison. One of the earliest acts of President Cleveland was

to send a message to the Senate, withdrawing the annexation

treaty of his predecessor. A commissioner, Mr. Blount, was

then sent to the Hawaiian Islands to examine and report upon

the circumstances attending the change of government. On the

18th of the following December the report of Commissioner

Blount was sent to Congress, with an accompanying message from

the President, in which latter paper the facts set forth by

the Commissioner, and the conclusions reached and action taken

by the United States Government, were summarized partly as

follows: "On Saturday, January 14, 1893, the Queen of Hawaii,

who had been contemplating the proclamation of a new

constitution, had, in deference to the wishes and

remonstrances of her Cabinet, renounced it for the present at

least. Taking this relinquished purpose as a basis of action,

citizens of Honolulu, numbering from fifty to one hundred,

mostly resident aliens, met in a private room and selected a

so-culled committee of safety composed of thirteen persons,

nine of whom were foreign subjects, and composed of seven

Americans, one Englishman, and one German. This committee,

though its designs were not revealed, had in view nothing less

than annexation to the United States, and between Saturday,

the 14th, and the following Sunday, the 18th of

January—though exactly what action was taken may never be

revealed—they were certainly in communication with the United

States Minister. On Monday morning the Queen and her Cabinet

made public proclamation, with a notice which was specially

served upon the representatives of all foreign governments,

that any changes in the constitution would be sought only in

the methods provided by that instrument. Nevertheless, at the

call and under the auspices of the committee of safety, a mass

meeting of citizens was held on that day to protest against

the Queen's alleged illegal and unlawful proceedings and

purpose. Even at this meeting the committee of safety

continued to disguise their real purpose and contented

themselves with procuring the passage of a resolution

denouncing the Queen and empowering the committee to devise

ways and means 'to secure the permanent maintenance of law and

order and the protection of life, liberty, and property in

Hawaii.' This meeting adjourned between 3 and 4 o'clock in the

afternoon. On the same day, and immediately after such

adjournment, the committee, unwilling to take further steps

without the co-operation of the United States Minister,

addressed him a note representing that the public safety was

menaced and that lives and property were in danger, and

concluded as follows: 'We are unable to protect ourselves

without aid, and therefore pray for the protection of the

United States forces.'

{1630}

Whatever may be thought of the other contents of this note,

the absolute truth of this latter statement is incontestable.

When the note was written and delivered, the committee, so far

as it appears, had neither a man nor a gun at their command,

and after its delivery they became so panic-stricken at their

position that they sent some of their number to interview the

Minister and request him not to land the United States forces

till the next morning, but he replied the troops had been

ordered and whether the committee were ready or not the

landing should take place. And so it happened that on the 16th

day of January, 1893, between 4 and 5 o'clock in the

afternoon, a detachment of marines from the United States

steamship Boston, with two pieces of artillery, landed at

Honolulu. The men, upwards of one hundred and sixty in all,

were supplied with double cartridge belts, filled with

ammunition, and with haversacks and canteens, and were

accompanied by a hospital corps with stretchers and medical

supplies. This military demonstration upon the soil of

Honolulu was of itself an act of war, unless made either with

the consent of the Government of Hawaii or for the bona fide

purpose of protecting the imperilled lives and property of the

citizens of the United States. But there is no pretense of any

such consent on the part of the Government of Hawaii, which at

that time was undisputed, and was both the de facto and the de

jure Government. In point of fact the Government, instead of

requesting the presence of an armed force, protested against

it. There is little basis for the pretense that such forces

landed for the security of American life and property. …

When these armed men were landed the city of Honolulu was in

its customary orderly and peaceful condition. There was no

symptom of riot or disturbance in any quarter. … Thus it

appears that Hawaii was taken possession of by the United

States forces without the consent or wish of the Government of

the Islands, or anybody else so far as known, except the

United States Minister. Therefore, the military occupation of

Honolulu by the United States on the day mentioned was wholly

without satisfaction, either as an occupation by consent or as

an occupation necessitated by dangers threatening American

life and property. It must be accounted for in some other way

and on some other ground, and its real motive and purpose are

neither obscure nor far to seek. The United States forces

being now on the scene and favorably stationed, the committee

proceeded to carry out their original scheme. They met the

next morning, Tuesday, the 17th, perfected the plan of

temporary government and fixed upon its principal officers,

who were drawn from 13 members of the committee of safety.

Between 1 and 2 o'clock, by squads and by different routes to

avoid notice, and having first taken the precaution of

ascertaining whether there was anyone there to oppose them,

they proceeded to the Government building to proclaim the new

Government. No sign of opposition was manifest, and thereupon

an American citizen began to read the proclamation from the

steps of the Government Building almost entirely without

auditors. It is said that before the reading was finished

quite a concourse of persons, variously estimated at from 50

to 100, some armed and some unarmed, gathered about the

committee to give them aid and confidence. This statement is

not important, since the one controlling factor in the whole

affair was unquestionably the United States marines, who,

drawn up under arms with artillery in readiness only 76 yards

distant, dominated the situation. The Provisional Government

thus proclaimed was by the terms of the proclamation 'to exist

until terms of the Union with the United States had been

negotiated and agreed upon.' The United States Minister,

pursuant to prior agreement, recognized this Government within

an hour after the reading of the proclamation, and before 5

o'clock, in answer to an inquiry on behalf of the Queen and

her Cabinet, announced that he had done so. … Some hours

after the recognition of the Provisional Government by the

United States Minister, the barracks and the police station,

with all the military resources of the country, were delivered

up by the Queen upon the representation made to her that her

cause would thereafter be reviewed at Washington, and while

protesting that she surrendered to the superior force of the

United States, whose Minister had caused United States troops

to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support

the Provisional Government, and that she yielded her authority

to prevent collision of armed forces and loss of life, and

only until such time as the United States, upon the facts

being presented to it, should undo the action of its

representative and reinstate her in the authority she claimed

as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands. This

protest was delivered to the chief of the Provisional

Government, who indorsed it in his acknowledgment of its

receipt. … As I apprehend the situation, we are brought face

to face with the fact that the lawful government of Hawaii was

overthrown without the drawing of a sword or the firing of a

shot, by a process every step of which, it may safely be

asserted, is directly traceable to and dependent for its

success upon the agency of the United States acting through

its diplomatic and naval representatives. … Believing,

therefore, that the United States could not, under the

circumstances disclosed, annex the islands without justly

incurring the imputation of acquiring them by unjustifiable

methods, I shall not again submit the treaty of annexation to

the Senate for its consideration, and in the instructions to

Minister Willis, a copy of which accompanies this message, I

have directed him to so inform the Provisional Government. But

in the present instance our duty does not, in my opinion, end

with refusing to consummate this questionable transaction. …

I mistake the American people if they favor the odious

doctrine that there is no such thing as international

morality; that there is one law for a strong nation and

another for a weak one; and that even by indirection a strong

power may, with impunity, despoil a weak one of its territory.

… The Queen surrendered, not to the Provisional Government,

but to the United States. She surrendered not absolutely and

permanently, but temporarily and conditionally until such

facts could be considered by the United States. …

{1631}

In view of the fact that both the Queen and the Provisional

Government had at one time apparently acquiesced in a

reference of the entire case to the United States Government,

and considering the further fact that, in any event, the

Provisional Government, by its own declared limitation, was

only 'to exist until terms of union with the United States of

America have been negotiated and agreed upon,' I hoped that

after the assurance to the members of that Government that

such union could not be consummated, I might compass a

peaceful adjustment of the difficulty. Actuated by these

desires and purposes, and not unmindful of the inherent

perplexities of the situation nor limitations upon my part, I

instructed Mr. Willis to advise the Queen and her supporters

of my desire to aid in the restoration of the status existing

before the lawless landing of the United States forces at

Honolulu on the 17th of January last, if such restoration

could be effected upon terms providing for clemency as well as

justice to all parties concerned. The conditions suggested

contemplated a general amnesty to those concerned in setting

up the Provisional Government and a recognition of all the

bona fide acts and obligations. In short, they require that

the past should be buried, and that the restored Government

should reassume its authority as if its continuity had not

been interrupted. These conditions have not proved acceptable

to the Queen, and though she has been informed that they will

be insisted upon, and that unless acceded to the effort of the

President to aid in the restoration of her Government will

cease, I have not thus far learned that she is willing to

yield them her acquiescence." The refusal of the Queen to

consent to a general amnesty forbade further thought of her

restoration; while the project of annexation to the United

States was extinguished for the time by the just action of

President Cleveland, sustained by the Senate. The unauthorized

protectorate assumed by Minister Stevens having been

withdrawn, the Provisional government remains (March, 1894) in

control of the Government of the Hawaiian Islands, and a

republican constitution is said to be in preparation.

HAWKINS' FIRST THREE VOYAGES.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1562-1567.

HAWKWOOD, Sir John, The Free Company of.

See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

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

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

HAYES, General Rutherford B.,

Presidential election and administration.

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

HAYNE AND WEBSTER DEBATE, The.

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

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

HAYTI, HAITI, OR SAN DOMINGO (Originally called Hispaniola):

Its names.

Its beauty.

"Columbus called the island Hispaniola, and it has also been

called St. Domingo from the city of that name on its

southeastern coast; but Hayti or Haiti (the mountainous

country) was its original Carrib name. The French bestowed

upon it the deserved name of 'la Reine des Antilles.' All

descriptions of its magnificence and beauty, even those of

'Washington Irving in his history of Columbus, fall far short

of the reality. It seems beyond the power of language to

exaggerate its beauties, its productiveness, the loveliness of

its climate, and its desirableness as an abode for man.

Columbus labored hard to prove to Isabella that he had found

here the original garden of Eden."

W. H. Pearson,

Hayti and the Haitians

(Putnam's Monthly Magazine, January, 1854).

HAYTI: A. D. 1492-1505.

Discovery and occupation by Columbus.

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

HAYTI: A. D. 1499-1542.

The enslavement of the natives.

System of Repartimentos and Encomiendas.

Introduction of negro slavery.

Humane and reforming labors of Las Casas.

See SLAVERY, MODERN: OF THE INDIANS,

and SLAVERY, NEGRO: ITS BEGINNINGS.

HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.

Partly possessed France and partly by Spain.

Revolt of the Slaves and rise of Toussaint L'Ouverture to power.

Extinction of Slavery.

Treachery of the French.

Independence of the island acquired.

"About 1632 the French took possession of the western shore,

and increased so rapidly that the Spaniards found it

impossible to drive them out; and the footing they had gained

was recognized by the Treaty of Ryswick, in 1697, when the

western portion of Haiti was confirmed to France. The latter

nation was fully conscious of the importance of the new

acquirement, and under French rule it became of great value,

supplying almost all Europe with cotton and sugar. But the

larger eastern portion of the island, which still belonged to

Spain, had no share in this progress, remaining much in the

same condition as formerly; and thus matters stood—a sluggish

community side by side with a thriving one—when the French

Revolution broke out, and plunged the island into a state of

ferment. In 1790 the population of the western colony

consisted of half a million, of which number 38,360 were of

European origin, 28,370 free people of colour, and the whole

of the remainder negro slaves. The government of the island

excluded the free people of colour—mostly mulattoes—from

all political privileges, although they were in many cases

well-educated men, and themselves the owners of large estates.

… On the 15th May, 1790, the French National Assembly passed

a decree declaring that people of colour, born of free

parents, were entitled to all the privileges of French

citizens. When this news reached the colony, it set the

inhabitants in a perfect frenzy, the mulattoes manifesting an

unbounded joy, whilst the whites boiled at the indignity their

class had sustained. The representations of the latter caused

the governor to delay the operation of the decree until the

home government could be communicated with—a measure that

aroused the greatest indignation amongst the mulattoes, and

civil war appeared inevitable, when a third and wholly

unexpected party stepped into the arena. The slaves rose in

insurrection on August 23rd, 1791, marching with the body of a

white infant on a spear-head as a standard, and murdering all

Europeans indiscriminately. In the utmost consternation the

whites conceded the required terms to the mulattoes, and,

together with the help of the military, the rising was

suppressed, and there seemed a prospect of peace, when the

Assembly at Paris repealed the decree of the 15th May. The

mulattoes now flew to arms, and for several years a terrible

struggle was sustained, the horrors of which were augmented by

vindictive ferocity on both sides. Commissioners sent from

France could effect no settlement, for the camp of the whites

was divided into two hostile sections, royalist and

republican.

{1632}

The English and Spaniards both descended on the island, and

the blacks, under able chiefs, held impregnable positions in

the mountains. Apprehensive of a British invasion in force,

the Commissioners, finding they could not conquer the blacks,

resolved on conciliating them; and in August, 1793, universal

freedom was proclaimed—a measure ratified by the National

Convention early in the following year. Meanwhile the English

had taken Port-au-Prince, and were besieging the French

governor in Port de la Paix, when the blacks, relying on the

recent proclamation, came to his assistance, under the command

of Toussaint L'Ouverture, and effected his release. …

François Dominique Toussaint, a negro of pure blood, a slave

and the offspring of slaves, was born in 1743, and on

attaining manhood was first employed as a coachman, and

afterwards held a post of trust in connexion with the sugar

manufactory of the estate to which he belonged. The overseer

having taken a fancy to him, he was taught to read and write,

and even picked up some slight knowledge of Latin and

mathematics." He was slow to join the rising of the blacks;

"but at length, after having secured the escape of his master

and family, he joined the negro army in a medical capacity,"

but quickly rose to leadership. "At first the blacks fought

with the Spaniards against the French;" but Toussaint came to

the conclusion that they had more to hope from the French, and

persuaded his followers to march to the relief of the French

governor, Levaux. When the latter heard that Toussaint had won

the blacks to this alliance, he exclaimed, "'Mais cet homme

fait ouverture partout,' and from that day the black

commander-in-chief received the surname of L'Ouverture, by

which he is best known in history. Acting with wonderful

energy, Toussaint effected a junction with Levaux, drove the

English from their positions, took 28 Spanish batteries in

four days, and finally the British abandoned the island,

whilst the Spaniards [1797] gave up all claim to its western

end. Toussaint L'Ouverture—now holding the position of

commander-in-chief, but virtually dictator—succeeded with

great skill in combining all the hostile elements of the

colony. Peace was restored, commerce and agriculture revived,

the whites were encouraged to reclaim their estates, and by a

variety of prudent and temperate measures Toussaint showed the

remarkable administrative abilities that he possessed. At this

stage he assumed great state in public, being always guarded

by a chosen body of 1,500 men in brilliant uniform, but in

private life he was frugal and moderate. In the administration

of affairs he was assisted by a council of nine, of whom eight

were white planters. This body drew up a Constitution by which

L'Ouverture was named president for life, and free trade

established. The draft of this constitution, together with an

autograph letter, he forwarded to Bonaparte; but the First

Consul had no toleration for fellow-upstarts, and replied, 'He

is a revolted slave whom we must punish; the honour of France

is outraged.' At this time the whole island of Haiti was under

Toussaint's sway. As some excuse for Bonaparte it must be

acknowledged that Toussaint undoubtedly contemplated

independence. … Anxious to divest his new presidency of even

nominal subjection to France, he declared the independence of

the island, with himself as supreme chief, in July 1801. Most

unfortunately for the Haitian general, hostilities had for the

moment ceased between Great Britain and France, and the First

Consul was enabled to bestow his close attention on the former

French colony. Determined to repossess it, Bonaparte sent out

an army of 30,000 men, with 66 ships of war, under the command

of his brother-in-law General Leclerc. … During Toussaint's

presidency he had abolished slavery, the negroes still working

the plantations, but as free men, and under the name of

'cultivators.' … Leclerc now endeavoured by proclamations to

turn the cultivators against their chief, and also laboured to

sow dissension in the ranks of the black army, by making the

officers tempting offers, which they too often believed in and

accepted. For months a bloody war raged, in which great

cruelties were inflicted; but the discipline of the French was

slowly telling in their favour, when Leclerc made a political

blunder that destroyed the advantages he had gained. Thinking

that all obstacles were overcome, he threw off the mask, and

boldly declared the real object of the expedition—the

re-enslavement of the negro population. This news fell like a

thunderbolt amongst the blacks, who rallied round Toussaint in

thousands." Alarmed at the effect, Leclerc recalled his

proclamation, acknowledged it to be an error, and promised the

summoning of an assembly representative of all races alike.

"This specious programme won over Cristophe, Dessalines, and

other negro generals; and finally, on receiving solemn

assurances from Leclerc, Toussaint accepted his offers, and

peace was concluded." Soon afterwards, by an act of the

blackest treachery, the negro statesman and soldier was lured

into the hands of his mean enemy, and sent, a prisoner, to

France. Confined, without trial, or any hearing, in the

dungeons of the Château Joux, in the department of Doubs, he

was there allowed to pine away, without warm clothing and

with insufficient food. … Finally the governor of the prison

went away for four days, leaving his captive without food or

drink. On his return Toussaint was dead, and the rats had

gnawed his feet. It was given out that apoplexy was the cause

of death. … This breach of faith on the part of the French

aroused the fury and indignation of the blacks. … Under

Dessalines, Cristophe, Clerveaux, and others, the fires of

insurrection blazed out afresh." At the same time yellow fever

raged and Leclerc was among the victims. General Rochambeau,

who succeeded him, continued the war with unmeasured

barbarity, but also with continued defeat and discouragement,

until he was driven, in 1803, to surrender, and "the power of

the French was lost on the island."

C. H. Eden,

The West Indies,

chapter 13.

Toussaint L'Ouverture: A Biography.

(by J. R. Beard) and an Autobiography.

ALSO IN:

H. Martineau,

The Hour and the Man.

J. Brown,

History of St. Domingo.

H. Adams,

Historical Essays,

chapter 4.

HAYTI: A. D. 1639-1700.

The Buccaneers.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

{1633}

HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.

Massacre of whites.

The Empire of Dessalines.

The kingdom of Christophe.

The Republic of Pétion and Boyer.

Separation of the independent Republic of San Domingo.

The Empire of Soulouque.

The restored Republic of Hayti.

"In the beginning of 1804 the independence of the negroes

under Dessalines was sufficiently assured: but they were not

satisfied until they had completed a general massacre of

nearly the whole of the whites, including aged men, women and

children, who remained in the island, numbering, according to

the lowest estimate, 2,500 souls. Thus did Dessalines, in his

own savage words, render war for war, crime for crime, and

outrage for outrage, to the European cannibals who had so long

preyed upon his unhappy race. The negroes declared Dessalines

Emperor: and in October 1804 he was crowned at Port-au-Prince

by the title of James I. Dessalines was at once a brave man

and a cruel and avaricious tyrant. He acquired great influence

over the negroes, who long remembered him with affectionate

regret: but he was not warmly supported by the mulattoes, who

were by far the most intelligent of the Haytians. He abolished

the militia, and set up a standing army of 40,000 men, whom he

found himself unable to pay, from the universal ruin which had

overtaken the island. The plantation labourers refused to

work. … Dessalines authorised the landowners to flog them.

Dessalines was himself a large planter: he had 32 large

plantations of his own at work, and he forced his labourers to

work on them at the point of the bayonet. Both he and his

successor, Christophe, like Mahomed Ali in Egypt, grew rich by

being the chief merchants in their own dominions. … He

failed in an expedition against St. Domingo, the Spanish part

of the island, whence the French general Ferrand still

threatened him: and at length some sanguinary acts of tyranny

roused against him an insurrection headed by his old comrade

Christophe. The insurgents marched on Port-au-Prince, and the

first black Emperor was shot by an ambuscade at the Pont Rouge

outside the town. The death of Dessalines delivered up Hayti

once more to the horrors of civil war. The negroes and

mulattoes, who had joined cordially enough to exterminate

their common enemies, would no longer hold together; and ever

since the death of Dessalines their jealousies and differences

have been a source of weakness in the black republic. In the

old times, Hayti, as the French part of the island of Española

was henceforth called, had been divided into three provinces:

South, East, and North. After the death of Dessalines each of

these provinces became for a time a separate state. Christophe

wished to maintain the unlimited imperialism which Dessalines

had set up: but the Constituent Assembly, which he summoned at

Port-au-Prince in 1806, had other views. They resolved upon a

Republican constitution." Christophe, not contented with the

offered presidency, "collected an army with the view of

dispersing the Constituent Assembly: but they collected one of

their own, under Pétion, and forced him to retire from the

capital. Christophe maintained himself in Cap François, or, as

it is now called, Cap Haytien; and here he ruled for 14 years.

In 1811, despising the imperial title which Dessalines had

desecrated, he took the royal style by the name of Henry I.

Christophe, as a man, was nearly as great a monster as

Dessalines. … Yet Christophe at his best was a man capable

of great aims, and a sagacious and energetic ruler." In 1820,

finding himself deserted in the face of a mulatto

insurrection, he committed suicide. "In a month or two after

Christophe's suicide the whole island was united under the

rule of President Boyer." Boyer was the successor of Pétion,

who had been elected in the North, under the republican

constitution which Christophe refused submission to. Pétion,

"a mulatto of the best type," educated at the military academy

of Paris, and full of European ideas, had ruled the province

which he controlled ably and well for eleven years. In

discouragement he then took his own life, and was succeeded,

in 1818, by his lieutenant, Jean Pierre Boyer, a mulatto. "On

the suicide of Christophe, the army of the Northern Province,

weary of the tyranny of one of their own race, declared for

Boyer. The French part of the island was now once more under a

single government: and Boyer turned his attention to the much

larger Spanish territory, with the old capital of St. Domingo,

where a Spaniard named Muñez de Caceres, with the aid of the

negroes, had now followed the example in the West, and

proclaimed an independent government. The Dominicans, however,

were still afraid of Spain, and were glad to put themselves

under the wing of Hayti: Boyer was not unwilling to take

possession of the Spanish colony, and thus it happened that in

1822 he united the whole island under his Presidency. In the

same year he was elected President for life under the

constitution of Pétion, whose general policy he maintained:

but his government, especially in his later years, was almost

as despotic as that of Christophe. Boyer was the first Haytian

who united the blacks and mulattoes under his rule. It was

mainly through confidence in him that the government of Hayti

won the recognition of the European powers. … In 1825 its

independence was formally recognised by France, on a

compensation of 150,000,000 of francs being guaranteed to the

exiled planters and to the home government. This vast sum was

afterwards reduced: but it still weighed heavily on the

impoverished state, and the discontents which the necessary

taxation produced led to Boyer's downfall," in 1843, when he

withdrew to Jamaica, and afterwards to Paris, where he died in

1850. A singular state of affairs ensued. The eastern, or

Spanish, part of the island resumed its independence (1844),

under a republican constitution resembling that of Venezuela,

and with Pedro Santana for its President, and has been known

since that time as the Republic of San Domingo, or the

Dominican Republic. In the Western, or Haytian Republic, large

numbers of the negroes, "under the names of Piquets and

Zinglins, now formed themselves into armed bands, and sought

to obtain a general division of property under some

communistic monarch of their own race. The mulatto officials

now cajoled the poor negroes by bribing some old negro, whose

name was well known to the mass of the people as one of the

heroes of the war of liberty, to allow himself to be set up as

President. The Boyerists, as the mulatto oligarchy were

called, thus succeeded in re-establishing their power," and

their system (for describing which the word "gerontocracy" has

been invented) was carried on for some years, until it

resulted, in 1847, in the election to the Presidency of

General Faustin Soulouque. "Soulouque was an illiterate negro

whose recommendations to power were that he was old enough to

have taken part in the War of Independence, having been a

lieutenant under Pétion, and that he was popular with the

negroes, being devotedly attached to the strange mixture of

freemasonry and fetish worship by which the Haytian blacks

maintain their political organisation."

{1634}

The new President took his elevation more seriously than was

expected, and proved to be more than a match for the mulattoes

who thought to make him their puppet. He gathered the reins

into his own hands, and crushed the mulattoes at

Port-au-Prince by a general massacre. He then "caused himself

to be proclaimed Emperor, by the title of Faustinus the First

(1849)," and established a grotesque imperial court, with a

fantastic nobility, in which a Duke de Lemonade figured by the

side of a Prince Tape-à-l'œil. This lasted until December

1858, when Soulouque was dethroned and sent out of the

country, to take refuge in Jamaica, and the republic was

restored, with Fabre Nicholas Geffrard, a mulatto general, at

its head. Geffrard held the Presidency for eight years, when

he followed his predecessor into exile in Jamaica, and was

succeeded by General Salnave, a negro, who tried to

re-establish the Empire and was shot, 1869. Since that time

revolutions have been frequent and nothing has been constant

except the disorder and decline of the country. Meantime, the

Dominican Republic has suffered scarcely less, from its own

disorders and the attacks of its Haytian neighbors. In 1861 it

was surrendered by a provisional government to Spain, but

recovered independence three years later. Soon afterwards one

of its parties sought annexation to the United States, and in

1869 the President of the latter republic, General Grant,

concluded a treaty with the Dominican government for the

cession of the peninsula of Samana, and for the placing of San

Domingo under American protection. But the Senate of the

United States refused to ratify the treaty.

E. J. Payne,

History of European Colonies,

chapter 15.

ALSO IN:

Sir S. St. John,

Hayti, or the Black Republic,

chapter 3.

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

HEAD-CENTER, Fenian.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867.

HEARTS OF OAK BOYS.

HEARTS OF STEEL BOYS.

See IRELAND: A. D.1760-1798.

HEAVENFIELD.

Battle of the (635).

Defeat of the Welsh, with the death of Cadwallon, the "last

great hero of the British race," by the English of Bernicia,

A.D. 635. "The victory of the Heaven-field indeed is memorable

as the close of the last rally which the Britons ever made

against their conquerors."

J. R. Green,

The Making of England,

page 275.

ALSO IN:

Bede,

Ecclesiastical History,

book 3, chapters 1-2.

HÉBERT AND THE HÉBERTISTS IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1790; 1793 (MARCH-JUNE),

(SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER), to 1793-1794 (NOVEMBER-JUNE).

HEBREW, The Name.

See JEWS: THEIR NATIONAL NAMES.

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

HEBRIDES OR WESTERN ISLANDS, The.

"The Hebrides or Western Islands comprise all the numerous

islands and islets which extend along nearly all the west

coast of Scotland; and they anciently comprised also the

peninsula of Cantyre, the islands of the Clyde, the isle of

Rachlin, and even for some time the isle of Man."

Historical Tales of the Wars of Scotland,

volume 3, page 60.

HEBRIDES: 9th-13th Centuries.

The dominion of the Northmen.

See

NORMANS.

NORTHMEN: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES,

and 10TH-13TH CENTURIES;

also, SODOR AND MAN.

HEBRIDES: A. D. 1266.

Cession to Scotland.

See SCOTLAND; A. D. 1266.

HEBRIDES: A. D. 1346-1504.

The Lords of the Isles.

In 1346, the dominion of most of the Hebrides became

consolidated under John, son of Ronald or Angus Oig, of Islay,

and he assumed the title of "Lord of the Isles." The Lords of

the Isles became substantially independent of the Scottish

crown until the battle of Harlaw, in 1411 (see HARLAW, BATTLE

OF). The lordship was extinguished in 1504 (see SCOTLAND: A.

D. 1502-1504).

Historical Tales of the Wars of Scotland,

pages 65-72.

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

HEBRON.

In the settlement of the tribes of Israel, after the conquest

of Canaan, Caleb, one of the heroes of Judah, "took possession

of the territory round the famous old city of Hebron, and

thereby gained for his tribe a seat held sacred from

Patriarchal times. … Beginning with Hebron, he acquired for

himself a considerable territory, which even in David's time

was named simply Caleb, and was distinguished from the rest of

Judah as a peculiar district. … Hebron remained till after

David's time celebrated as the main seat and central point of

the entire tribe, around which it is evident that all the rest

of Judah gradually clustered in good order."

H. Ewald,

History of Israel,

book 2, section 3, A.

"Hebron was a Hittite city, the centre of an ancient

civilization, which to some extent had been inherited by the

tribe of Judah. It was undoubtedly the capital of Judah, a

city of the highest religious character full of recollections

and traditions. It could boast of fine public buildings, good

water, and a vast and well-kept pool. The unification of

Israel had just been accomplished there. It was only natural

that Hebron should become the capital of the new kingdom [of

David]. … It is not easy to say what induced David to leave

a city which had such ancient and evident claims for a hamlet

like Jebus [Jerusalem], which did not yet belong to him. It is

probable that he found Hebron too exclusively Judahite."

E. Renan,

History of the People of Israel,

book 2, chapter 18.

See, also, ZOAN;

and JEWS: THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL IN EGYPT.

HECANA, Kingdom of.

One of the small, short-lived kingdoms of the Angles in early

England, its territory was in modern Herefordshire.

N. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 7, section 70.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

HECATOMB

"Large sacrifices, where a great number of animals were

slaughtered, [among the ancient Greeks] are called hecatombs."

G. F. Schömann,

Antiquity of Greece: The State,

page 60.

HECATOMBÆON, Battle of.

Fought, B. C. 224, by Cleomenes of Sparta with the forces of

the Achæan League, over which he won a complete victory. The

result was the calling in of Antigonus Doson, king of

Macedonia, to become the ally of the League, and to be aided

by it in crushing the last independent political life of

Peloponnesian Greece.

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 62.

{1635}

HECATOMPEDON, The.

See PARTHENON AT ATHENS.

HECATOMPYLOS.

The chief city of Parthia Proper, founded by Alexander the

Great, and long remaining one of the capitals of the Parthian

empire.

HEDGELEY MOOR, Battle of (1464)

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

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

HEELERS.

See BOSSISM.

HEERBAN, The.

The "heerban" was a military system instituted by Charlemagne,

which gave way to the feudal system under his successors. "The

basis of the heerban system was the duty of every fighting man

to answer directly the call of the king to arms. The freeman,

not only of the Franks, but of all the subject peoples, owed

military service to the king alone. This duty is insisted upon

in the laws of Charlemagne with constant repetition. The

summons (heerban) was issued at the spring meeting, and sent

out by the counts or missi. The soldier was obliged to present

himself at the given time, fully armed and equipped with all

provision for the campaign, except fire, water, and fodder for

the horses."

E. Emerton,

Introduction to the Study of the Middle Ages,

chapter 14.

HEGEMONY.

"A hegemony, the political ascendancy of some one city or

community over a number of subject commonwealths."

Sir H. S. Maine,

Dissertations on Early Law and Custom,

page 131.

HEGIRA, The.

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

HEGIRA, Era of the.

See ERA, MAHOMETAN.

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

HEIDELBERG: A. D. 1622.

Capture by Tilly.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

HEIDELBERG: A. D. 1631.

Burning of the Castle.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

HEIDELBERG: A. D. 1690.

Final destruction of the Castle.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

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

HEIDELBERG UNIVERSITY.

See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

HEILBRONN, Union of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

HELAM, OR HALAMAH, Battle of.

A decisive victory won by King David over the Syrians.

II. Samuel,

x. 15-19.

HELENA, Arkansas, The defense of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

HELEPOLIS, The.

See RHODES: B. C. 305-304.

HELIÆA, The.

Under Solon's constitution for the government of Athens, "a

body of 6,000 citizens was every year created by lot to form a

supreme court, called Heliæa, which was divided into several

smaller ones, not limited to any precise number of persons.

The qualifications required for this were the same with those

which gave admission into the general assembly, except that

the members of the former might not be under the age of

thirty. It was, therefore, in fact, a select portion of the

latter, in which the powers of the larger body were

concentrated and exercised under a judicial form."

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 11.

HELICON.

See THESSALY.

HELIGOLAND: A. D. 1814.

Acquisition by Great Britain.

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

HELIGOLAND: A. D. 1890.

Cession to Germany.

See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

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

HELIOPOLIS.

See ON.

HELIOPOLIS: Battle of.

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

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

HELLAS.

HELLENES.

GRAIKOI.

GREEKS.

"To the Greek of the historical ages the idea of Hellas was

not associated with any definite geographical limits. Wherever

a Greek settlement existed, there for the colonists was

Hellas. … Of a Hellas lying within certain specified bounds,

and containing within it only Greek inhabitants, they knew

nothing."

G. W. Cox,

History of Greece,

book 1, chapter 1.

"Their language was, … from the beginning, the token of

recognition among the Hellenes. … Where this language was

spoken—in Asia, in Europe, or in Africa—there was Hellas.

… A considerable number of the Greek tribes which immigrated

by land [from Asia] into the European peninsula [of Greece]

followed the tracks of the Italicans, and, taking a westward

route through Pæonia and Macedonia, penetrated through Illyria

into the western half of the Alpine country of Northern

Greece, which the formation of its hill ranges and valleys

renders more easily accessible from the north than Thessaly in

its secluded hollow. The numerous rivers, abounding in water,

which flow close by one another through long gorges into the

Ionian Sea, here facilitated an advance into the south; and

the rich pasture-land invited immigration; so that Epirus

became the dwelling-place of a dense crowd of population,

which commenced its civilized career in the fertile lowlands

of the country. Among them three main tribes were marked out,

of which the Chaones were regarded as the most ancient. …

Farther to the south the Thesprotians had settled, and more

inland, in the direction of Pindus, the Molossians. A more

ancient appellation than those of this triple division is that

of the Greeks (Graikoi), which the Hellenes thought the

earliest designation of their ancestors. The same name of

Græci (Greeks) the Italicans applied to the whole family of

peoples with whom they had once dwelt together in these

districts. This is the first collective name of the Hellenic

tribes in Europe. … Far away from the coast, in the

seclusion of the hills, where lie closely together the springs

of the Thyamis, Aous, Aracthus, and Achelous, extends at the

base of Tomarus the lake Ioannina, on the thickly wooded banks

of which, between fields of corn and damp meadows, lay Dodona,

a chosen seat of the Pelasgian Zeus, the invisible God, who

announced his presence in the rustling of the oaks, whose

altar was surrounded by a vast circle of tripods, for a sign

that he was the first to unite the domestic hearths and civic

communities into a great association centering in himself.

This Dodona was the central seat of the Græci; it was a sacred

centre of the whole district before the Italicans commenced

their westward journey; and at the same time the place where

the subsequent national name of the Greeks can be first proved

to have prevailed; for the chosen of the people, who

administered the worship of Zeus, were called Selli or Helli,

and after them the surrounding country Hellopia or Hellas."

{1636}

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 1, chapters 1 and 4 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 2 (volume 2).

G. W. Cox,

History of Greece,

book 1, chapter 4.

W. E. Gladstone,

Juventus Mundi,

chapter 4.

HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.

HELLENIC AND HELLENISTIC CULTURE.

HELLENISM.

"It was the privilege of the Greeks to discover the sovereign

efficacy of reason. They entered on the pursuit of knowledge

with a sure and joyous instinct. Baffled and puzzled they

might be, but they never grew weary of the quest. The

speculative faculty which reached its height in Plato and

Aristotle, was, when we make due allowance for time and

circumstance, scarcely less eminent in the Ionian

philosophers; and it was Ionia that gave birth to an idea,

which was foreign to the East, but has become the

starting-point of modern science,—the idea that Nature works

by fixed laws. A fragment of Euripides speaks of him as 'happy

who has learned to search into causes,' who 'discerns the

deathless and ageless order of nature, whence it arose, the

how and the why.' The early poet-philosophers of Ionia gave

the impulse which has carried the human intellect forward

across the line which separates empirical from scientific

knowledge; and the Greek precocity of mind in this direction,

unlike that of the Orientals, had in it the promise of

uninterrupted advance in the future,—of great discoveries in

mathematics, geometry, experimental physics, in medicine also

and physiology. … By the middle of the fifth century B. C.

the general conception of law in the physical world was firmly

established in the mind of Greek thinkers. Even the more

obscure phenomena of disease were brought within the rule.

Hippocrates writing about a malady which was common among the

Scythians and was thought to be preternatural says: 'As for me

I think that these maladies are divine like all others, but

that none is more divine or more human than another. Each has

its natural principle and none exists without its natural

cause.' Again, the Greeks set themselves to discover a

rational basis for conduct. Rigorously they brought their

actions to the test of reason, and that not only by the mouth

of philosophers, but through their poets, historians, and

orators. Thinking and doing—clear thought and noble

action—did not stand opposed to the Greek mind. The

antithesis rather marks a period when the Hellenic spirit was

past its prime, and had taken a one-sided bent. The Athenians

of the Periclean age—in whom we must recognise the purest

embodiment of Hellenism—had in truth the peculiar power,

which Thucydides claims for them, of thinking before they

acted and of acting also. … To Greece … we owe the love of

Science, the love of Art, the love of Freedom: not Science

alone, Art alone, or Freedom alone, but these vitally

correlated with one another and brought into organic union.

And in this union we recognise the distinctive features of the

West. The Greek genius is the European genius in its first and

brightest bloom. From a vivifying contact with the Greek

spirit Europe derived that new and mighty impulse which we

call Progress. Strange it is to think that these Greeks, like

the other members of the Indo-European family, probably had

their cradle in the East; that behind Greek civilisation,

Greek language, Greek mythology, there is that Eastern

background to which the comparative sciences seem to point.

But it is no more than a background. In spite of an

resemblances, in spite of common customs, common words, common

syntax, common gods, the spirit of the Greeks and of their

Eastern kinsmen—the spirit of their civilisation, art,

language, and mythology—remains essentially distinct. …

From Greece came that first mighty impulse, whose far-off

workings are felt by us to-day, and which has brought it about

that progress has been accepted as the law and goal of human

endeavour. Greece first took up the task of equipping man with

all that fits him for civil life and promotes his secular well

being; of unfolding and expanding every inborn faculty and

energy, bodily and mental; of striving restlessly after the

perfection of the whole, and finding in this effort after an

unattainable ideal that by which man becomes like to the gods.

The life of the Hellenes, like that of their Epic hero

Achilles, was brief and brilliant. But they have been endowed

with the gift of renewing their youth. Renan, speaking of the

nations that are fitted to play a part in universal history,

says 'that they must die first that the world may live through

them;' that a people must choose between the prolonged life,

the tranquil and obscure destiny of one who lives for himself,

and the troubled stormy career of one who lives for humanity.

The nation which revolves within its breast social and

religious problems is always weak politically. Thus it was

with the Jews, who in order to make the religious conquest of

the world must needs disappear as a nation.' 'They lost a

material city, they opened the reign of the spiritual

Jerusalem.' So too it was with Greece. As a people she ceased

to be. When her freedom was overthrown at Chaeronea, the page

of her history was to all appearance closed. Yet from that

moment she was to enter on a larger life and on universal

empire. Already during the last days of her independence it

had been possible to speak of a new Hellenism, which rested

not on ties of blood but on spiritual kinship. This

presentiment of Isocrates was marvellously realised. As

Alexander passed conquering through Asia, he restored to the

East, as garnered grain, that Greek civilisation whose seeds

had long ago been received from the East. Each conqueror in

turn, the Macedonian and the Roman, bowed before conquered

Greece and learnt lessons at her feet. To the modern world too

Greece has been the great civiliser, the oecumenical teacher,

the disturber and regenerator of slumbering societies. She is

the source of most of the quickening ideas which re-make

nations and renovate literature and art. If we reckon up our

secular possessions, the wealth and heritage of the past, the

larger share may be traced back to Greece. One half of life

she has made her domain,—all, or well-nigh all, that belongs

to the present order of things and to the visible world."

S. H. Butcher,

Some Aspects of the Greek Genius,

pages 9-43.

"The part assigned to [the Greeks] in the drama of the nations

was to create forms of beauty, to unfold ideas which should

remain operative when the short bloom of their own existence

was over, and thus to give a new impulse, a new direction, to

the whole current of human life.

{1637}

The prediction which Thucydides puts into the mouth of the

Athenian orator has been fulfilled, though not in the sense

literally conveyed; 'Assuredly we shall not be without

witnesses,' says Pericles; 'there are mighty documents of our

power, which shall make us the wonder of this age, and of ages

to come.' He was thinking of those wide-spread settlements

which attested the empire of Athens. But the immortal

witnesses of his race are of another kind. Like the victims of

the war, whose epitaph he was pronouncing, the Hellenes have

their memorial in all lands, graven, not on stone, but in the

hearts of mankind. … Are we not warranted by what we know of

Greek work, imperfect though our knowledge is, in saying that

no people has yet appeared in the world whose faculty for art,

in the largest sense of the term, has been so comprehensive?

And there is a further point that may be noted. It has been

said that the man of genius sometimes is such in virtue of

combining the temperament distinctive of his nation with some

gift of his own which is foreign to that temperament; as in

Shakespeare the basis is English, and the individual gift a

flexibility of spirit which is not normally English. But we

cannot apply this remark to the greatest of ancient Greek

writers. They present certainly a wide range of individual

differences. Yet so distinctive and so potent is the Hellenic

nature that, if any two of such writers be compared, however

wide the individual differences may be,—as between

Aristophanes and Plato, or Pindar and Demosthenes,—such

individual differences are less significant than those common

characteristics of the Hellenic mind which separate both the

men compared from all who are not Hellenes. If it were

possible to trace the process by which the Hellenic race was

originally separated from their Aryan kinsfolk, the

physiological basis of their qualities might perhaps be traced

in the mingling of different tribal ingredients. As it is,

there is no clue to these secrets of nature's alchemy: the

Hellenes appear in the dawn of their history with that unique

temperament already distinct: we can point only to one cause,

and that a subordinate cause, which must have aided its

development, namely, the geographical position of Greece. No

people of the ancient world were so fortunately placed.

Nowhere are the aspects of external nature more beautiful,

more varied, more stimulating to the energies of body and

mind. A climate which, within three parallels of latitude,

nourishes the beeches of Pindus and the palms of the Cyclades;

mountain barriers which at once created a framework for the

growth of local federations, and encouraged a sturdy spirit of

freedom; coasts abounding in natural harbors; a sea dotted

with islands, and notable for the regularity of its

wind-currents; ready access alike to Asia and to the western

Mediterranean,—these were circumstances happily congenial to

the inborn faculties of the Greek race, and admirably fitted

to expand them."

R. C. Jebb,

The Growth and Influence of Classical Greek Poetry,

pages 27-31.

"The sense of beauty which the Greeks possessed to a greater

extent than any other people could not fail to be caught by

the exceptionally beautiful natural surroundings in which they

lived; and their literature, at any rate their poetry, bears

abundant testimony to the fact. Small though Greece is, it

contains a greater variety, both in harmony and contrast, of

natural beauty than most countries, however great. Its

latitude gives it a southern climate, while its mountains

allow of the growth of a vegetation found in more northern

climes. Within a short space occur all the degrees of

transition from snow-topped hills to vine-clad fountains. And

the joy with which the beauty of their country filled the

Greeks may be traced through all their poetry. … The two

leading facts in the physical aspect of Greece are the sea and

the mountains. As Europe is the most indented and has

relatively the longest coast-line of all the continents of the

world, so of all the countries of Europe the land of Greece is

the most interpenetrated with arms of the sea. …

'Two voices are there: one is of the Sea,

One of the Mountains; each a mighty voice:

In both from age to age thou didst rejoice;

They were thy chosen music, Liberty!'

Both voices spoke impressively to Greece, and her literature

echoes their tones. So long as Greece was free and the spirit

of freedom animated the Greeks, so long their literature was

creative and genius marked it. When liberty perished,

literature declined. The field of Chæronea was fatal alike to

the political liberty and to the literature of Greece. The

love of liberty was indeed pushed even to an extreme in

Greece; and this also was due to the physical configuration of

the country. Mountains, it has been said, divide; seas unite.

The rise and the long continuance in so small a country of so

many cities, having their own laws, constitution, separate

history, and independent existence, can only be explained by

the fact that in their early growth they were protected, each

by the mountains which surrounded it, so effectually, and the

love of liberty in this time was developed to such an extent,

that no single city was able to establish its dominion over

the others. … Everyone of the numerous states, whose

separate political existence was guaranteed by the mountains,

was actually or potentially a separate centre of civilisation

and of literature. In some one of these states each kind of

literature could find the conditions appropriate or necessary

to its development. Even a state which produced no men of

literary genius itself might become the centre at which poets

collected and encouraged the literature it could not produce,

as was the case with Sparta, to which Greece owed the

development of choral lyric. … The eastern basin of the

Mediterranean has deserved well of literature, for it brought

Greece into communication with her colonies on the islands and

on the surrounding coasts, and enabled the numerous Greek

cities to co-operate in the production of a rich and varied

literature, instead of being confined each to a one-sided and

incomplete development. The process of communication began in

the earliest times, as is shown by the spread of epic

literature. Originating in Ionia, it was taken up in Cyprus,

where the epic called the Cypria was composed, and, at the

beginning of the sixth century it was on the coast of Africa

in the colony of Cyrene. The rapid spread of elegiac poetry is

even more strikingly illustrated, for we find Solon in Athens

quoting from his contemporary Mimnermus of Colophon. Choral

lyric, which originated in Asia Minor, was conveyed to Sparta

by Alcman, and by Simonides of Ceos all over the Greek world.

But although in early times we find as much interchange and

reaction in the colonies amongst themselves as between the

colonies and the mother-country, with the advance of time we

find the centripetal tendency becoming dominant.

{1638}

The mother-country becomes more and more the centre to which

all literature and art gravitates. At the beginning of the

sixth century Sparta attracted poets from the colonies in Asia

Minor, but the only form of literature which Sparta rewarded

and encouraged was choral lyric. No such narrowness

characterised Athens, and when she established herself as the

intellectual capital of Greece, all men of genius received a

welcome there, and we find all forms of literature deserting

their native homes, even their native dialects, to come to

Athens. … As long as literature had many centres, there was

no danger of all falling by a single stroke; but when it was

centralised in Athens, and the blow delivered by Philip at

Chæronea had fallen on Athens, classical Greek literature

perished in a generation. It is somewhat difficult to

distinguish race-qualities from the characteristics impressed

on a people by the conditions under which it lives, since the

latter by accumulation and transmission from generation to

generation eventually become race-qualities. Thus the Spartans

possessed qualities common to them and the Dorians, of whom

they were a branch, and also qualities peculiar to themselves,

which distinguished them from other Dorians. … The ordinary

life of a Spartan citizen was that of a soldier in camp or

garrison, rather than that of a member of a political

community, and this system of life was highly unfavourable to

literature. … Other Dorians, not hemmed in by such

unfavourable conditions as the Spartans, did provide some

contributions to the literature of Greece, and in the nature

of their contributions we may detect the qualities of the

race. The Dorians in Sicily sowed the seeds of rhetoric and

carried comedy to considerable perfection. Of imagination the

race seems destitute: it did not produce poets. On the other

hand, the race is eminently practical as well as prosaic, and

their humour was of a nature which corresponded to these

qualities. … The Æolians form a contrast both to the

Spartans and to the Athenians. The development of

individuality is as characteristic of the Æolians as its

absence is of the Spartans. But the Æolians, first of all

Greeks, possessed a cavalry, and this means that they were

wealthy and aristocratic. … This gives us the distinction

between the Æolians and the Athenians: among the former,

individuality was developed in the aristocracy alone; among

the latter, in all the citizens. The Æolians added to the

crown of Greek literature one of the brightest of its

jewels-lyric poetry, as we understand lyric in modern times,

that is, the expression of the poet's feelings, on any subject

whatever, as his individual feeling. … But it was the

Ionians who rendered the greatest services to Greek

literature. They were a quick-witted race, full of enterprise,

full of resources. In them we see reflected the character of

the sea, as in the Dorians the character of the mountains. The

latter partook of the narrowness and exclusiveness of their

own homes, hemmed in by mountains, and by them protected from

the incursion of strangers and strange innovations. The

Ionians, on the other hand, were open as the sea, and had as

many moods. They were eminently susceptible to beauty in all

its forms, to the charm of change and to novelty. They were

ever ready to put any belief or institution to the test of

discussion, and were governed as much by ideas as by

sentiments. Keenness of intellect, taste in all matters of

literature and art, grace in expression, and measure in

everything distinguished them above all Greeks. The

development of epic poetry, the origin of prose, the

cultivation of philosophy, are the proud distinction of the

Ionian race. In Athens we have the qualities of the Ionian

race in their finest flower."

F. B. Jevons,

A History of Greek Literature,

pages 485-490.

HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE:

Hellenism and the Jews.

"The Jewish region … was, in ancient times as well as in the

Graeco-Roman period, surrounded on all sides by heathen

districts. Only at Jamnia and Joppa had the Jewish element

advanced as far as the sea. Elsewhere, even to the west, it

was not the sea, but the Gentile region of the Philistine and

Phenician cities, that formed the boundary of the Jewish.

These heathen lands were far more deeply penetrated by

Hellenism, than the country of the Jews. No reaction like the

rising of the Maccabees had here put a stop to it, besides

which heathen polytheism was adapted in quite a different

manner from Judaism for blending with Hellenism. While

therefore the further advance of Hellenism was obstructed by

religious barriers in the interior of Palestine, it had

attained here, as in all other districts since its triumphant

entry under Alexander the Great, its natural preponderance

over Oriental culture. Hence, long before the commencement of

the Roman period, the educated world, especially in the great

cities in the west and east of Palestine, was, we may well

say, completely Hellenized. It is only with the lower strata

of the populations and the dwellers in rural districts, that

this must not be equally assumed. Besides however the border

lands, the Jewish districts in the interior of Palestine were

occupied by Hellenism, especially Scythopolis … and the town

of Samaria, where Macedonian colonists had already been

planted by Alexander the Great … while the national

Samaritans had their central point at Sichem. The victorious

penetration of Hellenistic culture is most plainly and

comprehensively shown by the religious worship. The native

religions, especially in the Philistine and Phenician cities,

did indeed in many respects maintain themselves in their

essential character; but still in such wise, that they were

transformed by and blended with Greek elements. But besides

these the purely Greek worship also gained an entrance, and in

many places entirely supplanted the former. Unfortunately our

sources of information do not furnish us the means of

separating the Greek period proper from the Roman; the best

are afforded by coins, and these for the most part belong to

the Roman. On the whole however the picture, which we obtain,

holds good for the pre-Roman period also, nor are we entirely

without direct notices of this age. … In the Jewish region

proper Hellenism was in its religious aspect triumphantly

repulsed by the rising of the Maccabees; it was not till after

the overthrow of Jewish nationality in the wars of Vespasian

and Hadrian, that an entrance for heathen rites was forcibly

obtained by the Romans. In saying this however we do not

assert, that the Jewish people of those early times remained

altogether unaffected by Hellenism. For the latter was a

civilising power, which extended itself to every department of

life.

{1639}

It fashioned in a peculiar manner the organization of the

state, legislation, the administration of justice, public

arrangements, art and science, trade and industry, and the

customs of daily life down to fashion and ornaments, and thus

impressed upon every department of life, wherever its

influence reached, the stamp of the Greek mind. It is true

that Hellenistic is not identical with Hellenic culture. The

importance of the former on the contrary lay in the fact, that

by its reception of the available elements of all foreign

cultures within its reach, it became a world-culture. But this

very world-culture became in its turn a peculiar whole, in

which the preponderant Greek element was the ruling keynote.

Into the stream of this Hellenistic culture the Jewish people

was also drawn; slowly indeed and with reluctance, but yet

irresistibly, for though religious zeal was able to banish

heathen worship and all connected therewith from Israel, it

could not for any length of time restrain the tide of

Hellenistic culture in other departments of life. Its several

stages cannot indeed be any longer traced. But when we reflect

that the small Jewish country was enclosed on almost every

side by Hellenistic regions, with which it was compelled, even

for the sake of trade, to hold continual intercourse, and when

we remember, that even the rising of the Maccabees was in the

main directed not against Hellenism in general, but only

against the heathen religion, that the later Asmonaeans bore

in every respect a Hellenistic stamp-employed foreign

mercenaries, minted foreign coins, took Greek names, etc., and

that some of them, e. g. Aristobulus I., were direct favourers

of Hellenism,—when all this is considered, it may safely be

assumed, that Hellenism had, notwithstanding the rising of the

Maccabees, gained access in no inconsiderable measure into

Palestine even before the commencement of the Roman period."

E. Schürer,

History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ,

division 2, volume 1, pages 29-30.

HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE:

Hellenism and the Romans.

"In the Alexandrian age, with all its close study and

imitation of the classical models, nothing is more remarkable

than the absence of any promise that the Hellenic spirit which

animated those masterpieces was destined to have any abiding

influence in the world. … And yet it is true that the vital

power of the Hellenic genius was not fully revealed, until,

after suffering some temporary eclipse in the superficially

Greek civilizations of Asia and Egypt, it emerged in a new

quality, as a source of illumination to the literature and the

art of Rome. Early Roman literature was indebted to Greece for

the greater part of its material; but a more important debt

was in respect to the forms and moulds of composition. The

Latin language of the third century B. C. was already in full

possession of the qualities which always remained distinctive

of it; it was clear, strong, weighty, precise, a language made

to be spoken in the imperative mood, a fitting interpreter of

government and law. But it was not flexible or graceful,

musical or rapid; it was not suited to express delicate shades

of thought or feeling; for literary purposes, it was, in

comparison with Greek, a poor and rude idiom. The development

of Latin into the language of Cicero and Virgil was gradually

and laboriously accomplished under the constant influence of

Greece. That finish of form, known as classical, which Roman

writers share with Greek, was a lesson which Greece slowly

impressed upon Rome. … A close and prolonged study of the

Greek models could not end in a mere discipline of form; the

beauty of the best Greek models depends too much on their

vital spirit. Not only was the Roman imagination enriched, but

the Roman intellect, through literary intercourse with the

Greek, gradually acquired a flexibility and a plastic power

which had not been among its original gifts. Through Roman

literature the Greek influence was transmitted to later times

in a shape which obscured, indeed, much of its charm, but

which was also fitted to extend its empire, and to win an

entrance for it in regions which would have been less

accessible to a purer form of its manifestation."

R. C. Jebb,

The Growth and Influence of Classical Greek Poetry,

chapter 8.

"Italy had been subject to the influence of Greece, ever since

it had a history at all. … But the Hellenism of the Romans

of the present period [second century B. C.] was, in its

causes as well as its consequences, something essentially new.

The Romans began to feel the lack of a richer intellectual

life, and to be startled as it were at their own utter want of

mental culture; and, if even nations of artistic gifts, such

as the English and Germans, have not disdained in the pauses

of their own productiveness to avail themselves of the paltry

French culture for filling up the gap, it need excite no

surprise that the Italian nation now flung itself with eager

zeal on the glorious treasures as well as on the vile refuse

of the intellectual development of Hellas. But it was an

impulse still more profound and deep-rooted which carried the

Romans irresistibly into the Hellenic vortex. Hellenic

civilization still assumed that name, but it was Hellenic no

longer; it was, it fact, humanistic and cosmopolitan. It had

solved the problem of moulding a mass of different nations

into one whole completely in the field of intellect, and to a

certain degree in that of politics, and, now when the same

task on a wider scale devolved on Rome, she entered on the

possession of Hellenism along with the rest of the inheritance

of Alexander the Great. Hellenism therefore was no longer a

mere stimulus, or subordinate influence; it penetrated the

Italian nation to the very core. Of course, the vigorous home

life of Italy strove against the foreign element. It was only

after a most vehement struggle that the Italian farmer

abandoned the field to the cosmopolite of the capital; and, as

in Germany the French coat called forth the national Germanic

frock, so the reaction against Hellenism aroused in Rome a

tendency, which opposed the influence of Greece on principle

in a style to which earlier centuries were altogether

unaccustomed, and in doing so fell not unfrequently into

downright follies and absurdities. No department of human

action or thought remained unaffected by this struggle between

the new fashion and the old. Even political relations were

largely influenced by it. The whimsical project of

emancipating the Hellenes, … the kindred, likewise Hellenic,

idea of combining republics in a common opposition to kings,

and the desire of propagating Hellenic polity at the expense

of eastern despotism—which were the two principles that

regulated, for instance, the treatment of Macedonia—were

fixed ideas of the new school, just as dread of the

Carthaginians was the fixed idea of the old; and, if Cato

pushed the latter to a ridiculous excess, Philhellenism now

and then indulged in extravagances at least as foolish. …

{1640}

But the real struggle between Hellenism and its national

antagonists during the present period was carried on in the

field of faith, of manners, and of art and literature. … If

Italy still possessed—what had long been a mere antiquarian

curiosity in Hellas—a national religion, it was already

visibly beginning to be ossified into theology. The torpor

creeping over faith is nowhere perhaps so distinctly apparent

as in the alterations in the economy of divine service and of

the priesthood. The public service of the gods became not only

more tedious, but above all more and more costly. … An augur

like Lucius Paullus, who regarded the priesthood as a science

and not as a mere title, was already a rare exception; and

could not but be so, when the government more and more openly

and unhesitatingly employed the auspices for the

accomplishment of its political designs, or, in other words,

treated the national religion in accordance with the view of

Polybius as a superstition useful for imposing on the public

at large. Where the way was thus paved, the Hellenistic

irreligious spirit found free course. In connection with the

incipient taste for art the sacred images of the gods began

even in Cato's time to be employed, like other furniture, to

embellish the chambers of the rich. More dangerous wounds were

inflicted on religion by the rising literature. … Thus the

old national religion was visibly on the decline; and, as the

great trees of the primeval forest were uprooted, the soil

became covered with a rank growth of thorns and briars and

with weeds that had never been seen before. Native

superstitions and foreign impostures of the most various hues

mingled, competed and conflicted with each other. … The

Hellenism of that epoch, already denationalized and pervaded

by Oriental mysticism, introduced not only unbelief but also

superstition in its most offensive and dangerous forms to

Italy; and these vagaries, moreover, had a special charm,

precisely because they were foreign. … Rites of the most

abominable character came to the knowledge of the Roman

authorities: a secret nocturnal festival in honour of the god

Bacchus had been first introduced into Etruria by a Greek

priest, and spreading like a cancer, had rapidly reached Rome

and propagated itself over all Italy, everywhere corrupting

families and giving rise to the most heinous crimes,

unparalleled unchastity, falsifying of testaments, and

murdering by poison. More than 7,000 men were sentenced to

punishment, most of them to death, on this account, and

rigorous enactments were issued as to the future. … The ties

of family life became relaxed with fearful rapidity. The evil

of grisettes and boy-favourites spread like a pestilence. …

Luxury prevailed more and more in dress, ornaments and

furniture, in the buildings and on the tables. Especially

after the expedition to Asia Minor, which took place in 564,

[B. C. 190] Asiatico-Hellenic luxury, such as prevailed at

Ephesus and Alexandria, transferred its empty refinement and

its petty trifling, destructive alike of money, time, and

pleasure, to Rome. … As a matter of course, this revolution

in life and manners brought an economic revolution in its

train. Residence in the capital became more and more coveted

as well as more costly. Rents rose to an unexampled height.

Extravagant prices were paid for the new articles of luxury.

… The influences which stimulated the growth of Roman

literature were of a character altogether peculiar and hardly

paralleled in any other nation. … By means of the Italian

slaves and freedmen, a very large portion of whom were Greek

or half Greek by birth, the Greek language and Greek knowledge

to a certain extent reached even the lower ranks of the

population, especially in the capital. The comedies of this

period indicate that even the humbler classes of the capital

were familiar with a sort of Latin, which could no more be

properly understood without a knowledge of Greek than Sterne's

English or Wieland's German without a knowledge of French. Men

of senatorial families, however, not only addressed a Greek

audience in Greek, but even published their speeches. …

Under the influence of such circumstances Roman education

developed itself. It is a mistaken opinion, that antiquity was

materially inferior to our own times in the general diffusion

of elementary attainments. Even among the lower classes and

slaves there was considerable knowledge of reading, writing,

and counting. … Elementary instruction, as well us

instruction in Greek, must have been long ere this period

imparted to a very considerable extent in Rome. But the epoch

now before us initiated an education, the aim of which was to

communicate not merely an outward expertness, but a real

mental culture. The internal decomposition of Italian

nationality had already, particularly in the aristocracy,

advanced so far as to render the substitution of a broader

human culture for that nationality inevitable: and the craving

after a more advanced civilization was already powerfully

stirring men's minds. The study of the Greek language as it

were spontaneously met this craving. The classical literature

of Greece, the Iliad and still more the Odyssey, had all along

formed the basis of instruction; the overflowing treasures of

Hellenic art and science were already by this means spread

before the eyes of the Italians. Without any outward

revolution, strictly speaking, in the character of instruction

the natural result was, that the empirical study of the

language became converted into a higher study of the

literature; that the general culture connected with such

literary studies was communicated in increased measure to the

scholars; and that these availed themselves of the knowledge

thus acquired to dive into that Greek literature which most

powerfully influenced the spirit of the age—the tragedies of

Euripides and the comedies of Menander. In a similar way

greater importance came to be attached to the study of Latin.

The higher society of Rome began to feel the need, if not of

exchanging their mother-tongue for Greek, at least of refining

it and adapting it to the changed state of culture. … But a

Latin culture presupposed a literature, and no such literature

existed in Rome. … The Romans desired a theatre, but the

pieces were wanting. On these elements Roman literature was

based; and its defective character was from the first and

necessarily the result of such an origin. … Roman poetry in

particular had its immediate origin not in the inward impulse

of the poet, but in the outward demands of the school, which

needed Latin manuals, and of the stage, which needed Latin

dramas. Now both institutions—the school and the stage—were

thoroughly anti-Roman and revolutionary. … The school and

the theatre became the most effective levers in the hands of

the new spirit of the age, and all the more so that they used

the Latin tongue.

{1641}

Men might perhaps speak and write Greek, and yet not cease to

be Romans; but in this case they were in the habit of speaking

in the Roman language, while the whole inward being and life

were Greek. It is one of the most pleasing, but it is one of

the most remarkable and in a historical point of view most

instructive, facts in this brilliant era of Roman

conservatism, that during its course Hellenism struck root in

the whole field of intellect not immediately political, and

that the school-master and the maître de plaisir of the great

public in close alliance created a Roman literature."

T. Mommsen,

The History of Rome,

book 3, chapter 13 (volume 2).

Panætius was the founder of "that Roman Stoicism which plays

so prominent a part in the history of the Empire. He came from

Rhodes, and was a pupil of Diogenes at Athens. The most

important part of his life was, however, spent at Rome, in the

house of Scipio Æmilianus, the centre of the Scipionic circle,

where he trained up a number of Roman nobles to understand and

to adopt his views. He seems to have taken the place of

Polybius, and to have accompanied Scipio in his tour to the

East (143 B. C.). He died as head of the Stoic school in

Athens about 110 B. C. This was the man who, under the

influence of the age, really modified the rigid tenets of his

sect to make it the practical rule of life for statesmen,

politicians, magnates, who had no time to sit all day and

dispute, but who required something better than effete

polytheism to give them dignity in their leisure, and

steadfastness in the day of trial. … With the pupils of

Panætius begins the long roll of Roman Stoics. … Here then,

after all the dissolute and disintegrating influences of

Hellenism,—its comœdia palliata, its parasites, its panders,

its minions, its chicanery, its mendacity—had produced their

terrible effect, came an antidote which, above all the human

influences we know, purified and ennobled the world. It

affected, unfortunately, only the higher classes at Rome; and

even among them, as among any of the lower classes that

speculated at all, it had as a dangerous rival that cheap and

vulgar Epicureanism, which puffs up common natures with the

belief that their trivial and coarse reflections have some

philosophic basis, and can be defended with subtle arguments.

But among the best of the Romans Hellenism produced a type

seldom excelled in the world's history, a type as superior to

the old Roman model as the nobleman is to the burgher in most

countries—a type we see in Rutilius Rufus, as compared with

the elder Cato. … It was in this way that Hellenistic

philosophy made itself a home in Italy, and acquired pupils

who in the next generation became masters in their way, and

showed in Cicero and Lucretius no mean rivals of the

contemporary Greek. … Till the poem of Lucretius and the

works of Cicero, we may say nothing in Latin worth reading

existed on the subject. Whoever wanted to study philosophy,

therefore, down to that time (60 B. C.) studied it in Greek.

Nearly the same thing may be said of the arts of architecture,

painting, and sculpture. There were indeed distinctly Roman

features in architecture, but they were mere matters of

building, and whatever was done in the way of design, in the

way of adding beauty to strength, was done wholly under the

advice and direction of Greeks. The subservience to Hellenism

in the way of internal household ornament was even more

complete. … And with the ornaments of the house, the proper

serving of the house, especially the more delicate

departments—the cooking of state dinners, the attendance upon

guests, the care of the great man's intimate comforts—could

only be done fashionably by Greek slaves. … But of course

these lower sides of Hellenism had no more potent effect in

civilising Rome than the employing of French cooks and valets

and the purchase of French ornaments and furniture had in

improving our grandfathers. Much more serious was the

acknowledged supremacy of the Greeks in literature of all

kinds, and still more their insistence that this superiority

depended mainly upon a careful system of intellectual

education. … This is the point where Polybius, after his

seventeen years' experience of Roman life, finds the capital

flaw in the conduct of public affairs. In every Hellenistic

state, he says, nothing engrosses the attention of legislators

more than the question of education, whereas at Rome a most

moral and serious government leaves the training of the young

to the mistakes and hazards of private enterprise. That this

was a grave blunder as regards the lower classes is probably

true. … But when Rome grew from a city controlling Italy to

an empire directing the world, such men as Æmilius Paullus saw

plainly that they must do something more to fit their children

for the splendid position they had themselves attained, and so

they were obliged to keep foreign teachers of literature and

art in their houses as private tutors. The highest class of

these private tutors was that of the philosophers, whom we

have considered, and while the State set itself against their

public establishments, great men in the State openly

encouraged them and kept them in their houses. … As regards

literature, however, in the close of the second century B. C.

a change was visible, which announced the new and marvellous

results of the first. … Even in letters Roman culture began

to take its place beside Greek, and the whole civilised world

was divided into those who knew Greek letters and those who

knew Roman only. There was no antagonism in spirit between

them, for the Romans never ceased to venerate Greek letters or

to prize a knowledge of that language. But of course there

were great domains in the West beyond the influence of the

most western Greeks, even of Massilia, where the first higher

civilisation introduced was with the Roman legions and

traders, and where culture assumed permanently a Latin form.

In the East, though the Romans asserted themselves as

conquerors, they always condescended to use Greek, and there

were prætors proud to give their decisions at Roman assize

courts in that language."

J. P. Mahaffy,

The Greek World under Roman Sway,

chapter 5.

HELLENION, The.

See NAUKRATIS.

HELLESPONT, The.

The ancient Greek name of what is now called the straits of

The Dardanelles, the channel which unites the Sea of Marmora

with the Ægean. The name (Sea of Helle) came from the myth of

Helle, who was said to have been drowned in these waters.

HELLESPONTINE SIBYL.

See SIBYLS.

HELLULAND.

See AMERICA: 10TH-11TH CENTURIES.

HELOTS.

See SPARTA: THE CITY.

HELVECONES, The.

See LYGIANS.

{1642}

HELVETIAN REPUBLIC, The.

Switzerland is sometimes called the Helvetian Republic, for no

better reason than is found in the fact that the country

occupied by the Helvetii of Cæsar is embraced in the modern

Swiss Confederacy. But the original confederation, out of

which grew the federal republic of Switzerland, did not touch

Helvetian ground.

See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS,

and A. D. 1332-1460.

HELVETIC REPUBLIC OF 1798, The.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.

HELVETII, The arrested migration of the.

"The Helvetii, who inhabited a great part of modern

Switzerland, had grown impatient of the narrow limits in which

they were crowded together, and harassed at the same time by

the encroachments of the advancing German tide. The Alps and

Jura formed barriers to their diffusion on the south and west,

and the population thus confined outgrew the scanty means of

support afforded by its mountain valleys. … The Helvetii

determined to force their way through the country of the

Allobroges, and to trust either to arms or persuasion to

obtain a passage through the [Roman] province and across the

Rhone into the centre of Gaul. … Having completed their

preparations, [they] appointed the 28th day of March [B. C.

58] for the meeting of their combined forces at the western

outlet of the Lake Lemanus. The whole population of the

assembled tribes amounted to 368,000 souls, including the

women and children; the number that bore arms was 92,000. They

cut themselves off from the means of retreat by giving

ruthlessly to the flames every city and village of their land;

twelve of one class and four hundred of the other were thus

sacrificed, and with them all their superfluous stores, their

furniture, arms and implements." When the news of this

portentous movement reached Rome, Cæsar, then lately appointed

to the government of the two Gauls, was raising levies, but

had no force ready for the field. He flew to the scene in

person, making the journey from Rome to Geneva in eight days.

At Geneva, the frontier town of the conquered Allobroges, the

Romans had a garrison, and Cæsar quickly gathered to that

point the one legion stationed in the province. Breaking down

the bridge which had spanned the river and constructing with

characteristic energy a ditch and rampart from the outlet of

the lake to the gorge of the Jura, he held the passage of the

river with his single legion and forced the migratory horde to

move off by the difficult route down the right bank of the

Rhone. This accomplished, Cæsar hastened back to Italy, got

five legions together, led them over the Cottian Alps, crossed

the Rhone above Lyons, and caught up with the Helvetii before

the last of their cumbrous train had got beyond the Saone.

Attacking and cutting to pieces this rear-guard (it was the

tribe of the Tigurini, which the Romans had encountered

disastrously half a century before), he bridged the Saone and

crossed it to pursue the main body of the enemy. For many days

he followed them, refusing to give battle to the great

barbarian army until he saw the moment opportune. His blow was

struck at last in the neighborhood of the city of Bibracte,

the capital of the Ædui—modern Autun. The defeat of the

Helvetii was complete, and, although a great body of them

escaped, they were set upon by the Gauls of the country and

were soon glad to surrender themselves unconditionally to the

Roman proconsul. Cæsar compelled them—110,000 survivors, of

the 368,000 who left Switzerland in the spring—to go back to

their mountains and rebuild and reoccupy the homes they had

destroyed.

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 6 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

Cæsar,

Gallic Wars,

chapters 1-29.

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 4, chapter 1.

Napoleon III.,

History of Julius Cæsar,

book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).

HELVII, The.

The Helvii were a tribe of Gauls whose country was between the

Rhone and the Cevennes, in the modern department of the

Ardêche.

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 4, chapter 17.

HENGESTESDUN, Battle of.

Defeat of the Danes and Welsh by Ecgbehrt, the West Saxon

king, A. D. 835.

HENNERSDORF, Battle of (1745).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

HENOTICON OF ZENO, The.

See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

HENRICIANS.

See PETROBRUSIANS.

HENRY,

Latin Emperor at Constantinople (Romania), A. D. 1206-1216.

Henry (of Corinthia), King of Bohemia, 1307-1310.

Henry, King of Navarre, 1270-1274.

Henry, King of Portugal, 1578-1580.

Henry, Count of Portugal, 1093-1112.

Henry (called the Lion), The ruin of.

See SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.

Henry (called the Navigator), Prince, The explorations of.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.

Henry (called the Proud), The fall of.

See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES.

Henry I., King of Castile, 1214-1217.

Henry I., King of England, 1100-1135.

Henry I., King of France, 1031-1060.

Henry I. (called The Fowler), King of the East Franks

(Germany), 919-936.

Henry II.,

Emperor, A. D. 1014-1024;

King of the East Franks (Germany), 1002-1024;

King of Italy, 1004-1024.

Henry II. (of Trastamare),

King of Castile and Leon, 1369-1379.

Henry II. (first of the Plantagenets),

King of England, 1154-1189.

Henry II., King of France, 1547-1559.

Henry III., Emperor, King of Germany,

and King of Burgundy, 1089-1056.

Henry III., King of Castile and Leon, 1390-1407.

Henry III., King of England, 1216-1272.

Henry III.,

King of France (the last of the Valois), 1574-1589;

King of Poland, 1573-1574.

Henry IV.,

Emperor, 1077-1106;

King of Germany, 1056-1106.

Henry IV., King of Castile and Leon, 1454-1474.

Henry IV., King of England

(first of the Lancastrian royal line), 1399-1413.

Henry IV. (called the Great), King of France and Navarre

(the first of the Bourbon kings), 1589-1610.

Abjuration.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

Assassination.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1610.

Henry V.,

Emperor, 1112-1125;

King of Germany, 1106-1125.

Henry V., King of England, 1413-1422.

Henry VI.,

King of Germany, 1190-1197;

Emperor, 1191-1197;

King of Sicily, 1194-1197.

Henry VI., King of England, 1422-1461.

Henry VII. (of Luxemburg),

King of Germany, 1308-1313;

King of Italy and Emperor, 1312-1313.

Henry VII., King of England, 1485-1509.

Henry VIII., King of England, 1509-1547.

HENRY, Patrick,

The Parson's cause.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1763.

{1643}

HENRY, Patrick:

The American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765

RECEPTION OF THE NEWS OF THE STAMP ACT, 1774 (SEPTEMBER),

1775 (APRIL-JUNE), 1778-1779 CLARKE'S CONQUEST;

also, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776.

Opposition to the Federal Constitution.

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

HENRY, Fort, Capture of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY—TENNESSEE).

HEPTANOMIS, The.

The northern district of Upper Egypt, embracing seven

provinces, or nomes; whence its name.

HEPTARCHY, The so-called Saxon.

See ENGLAND: 7th CENTURY.

HERACLEA.

The earliest capital of the Venetians.

See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

HERACLEA, Battle of (B. C. 280).

See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

HERACLEA PONTICA,

Siege of.

Heraclea, a flourishing town of Greek origin on the Phrygian

coast, called Heraclea Pontica to distinguish it from other

towns of like name, was besieged for some two years by the

Romans in the Third Mithridatic War. It was surrendered

through treachery, B. C. 70, and suffered so greatly from the

ensuing pillage and massacre that it never recovered. The

Roman commander, Cotta, was afterwards prosecuted at Rome for

appropriating the plunder of Heraclea, which included a famous

statue of Hercules, with a golden club.

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 3, chapter 5.

HERACLEIDÆ, OR HERAKLEIDS, The.

Among the ancient Greeks the reputed descendants of the

demi-god hero, Herakles, or Hercules, were very numerous.

"Distinguished families are everywhere to be traced who bear

his patronymic and glory in the belief that they are his

descendants. Among Achæans, Kadmeians, and Dorians, Hêraklês

is venerated: the latter especially treat him as their

principal hero—the Patron Hero-God of the race: the

Hêrakleids form among all Dorians a privileged gens, in which

at Sparta the special lineage of the two kings was included."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 1, chapter 4 (volume 1).

"The most important, and the most fertile in consequences, of

all the migrations of Grecian races, and which continued even

to the latest periods to exert its influence upon the Greek

character, was the expedition of the Dorians into

Peloponnesus. … The traditionary name of this expedition is

'the Return of the Descendants of Hercules' [or 'the Return of

the Heraclidæ']. Hercules, the son of Zeus, is (even in the

Iliad), both by birth and destiny, the hereditary prince of

Tiryns and Mycenæ, and ruler of the surrounding nations. But

through some evil chance Eurystheus obtained the precedency

and the son of Zeus was compelled to serve him. Nevertheless

he is represented as having bequeathed to his descendants his

claims to the dominion of Peloponnesus, which they afterwards

made good in conjunction with the Dorians; Hercules having

also performed such actions in behalf of this race that his

descendants were always entitled to the possession of

one-third of the territory. The heroic life of Hercules was

therefore the mythical title, through which the Dorians were

made to appear, not as unjustly invading, but merely as

reconquering, a country which had belonged to their princes in

former times."

C. O. Müller,

History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,

book 1, chapter 3.

See, also, DORIANS AND IONIANS.

HERACLEIDÆ OF LYDIA.

The second dynasty of the kings of Lydia—so-called by the

Greeks as reputed descendants of the sun-god. The dynasty is

represented as ending with Candaules.

M. Duncker,

History of Antiquity,

book 4, chapter 17.

HERACLEONAS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 641.

HERACLIUS I., Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 610-641.

----------HERAT: Start--------

HERAT: B. C. 330.

Founding of the city by Alexander the Great.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.

HERAT: A. D. 1221.

Destruction by the Mongols.

See KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.

----------HERAT: End--------

HERCTÉ, Mount, Hamilcar on.

See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

HERCULANEUM.

See POMPEII.

HERCULIANS AND JOVIANS.

See PRÆTORIAN GUARDS: A. D. 312.

HERCYNIAN FOREST, The.

"The Hercynian Forest was known by report to Eratosthenes and

some other Greeks, under the name Orcynia. The width of this

forest, as Caesar says (B. G. vi. 25), was nine days' journey

to a man without any incumbrance. It commenced at the

territory of the Helvetii [ Switzerland] … and following the

straight course of the Dunube reached to the country of the

Daci and the Anartes. Here it turned to the left in different

directions from the river, and extended to the territory of

many nations. No man of western Germany could affirm that he

had reached the eastern termination of the forest even after a

journey of six days, nor that he had heard where it did

terminate. This is all that Caesar knew of this great forest.

… The nine days' journey, which measures the width of the

Hercynian forest, is the width from south to north; and if we

assume this width to be estimated at the western end of the

Hercynia, which part would be the best known, it would

correspond to the Schwarzwald and Odenwald, which extend on

the east side of the Rhine from the neighbourhood of Bâle

nearly as far north as Frankfort on the Main. The eastern

parts of the forest would extend on the north side of the

Danube along the Rauhe Alp and the Boehmerwald and still

farther east. Caesar mentions another German forest named

Bacenis (B. G. vi. 10), but all that he could say of it is

this: it was a forest of boundless extent, and it separated

the Suevi and the Cherusci; from which we may conclude that it

is represented by the Thüringerwald, Erzgebirge,

Riesengebirge, and the mountain ranges farther east, which

separate the basin of the Danube from the basins of the Oder

and the Vistula."

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 4, chapter 2.

HERETOGA.

See EALDORMAN.

HEREWARD'S CAMP IN THE FENS.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1069-1071.

HERIBANN.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: FRANCE.

HERKIMER, General, and the Battle of Oriskany.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

HERMÆ AT ATHENS, Mutilation of the.

See ATHENS: B. C. 415.

{1644}

HERMÆAN PROMONTORY.

The ancient name of the north-eastern horn of the Gulf of

Tunis, now called Cape Bon. It was the limit fixed by the old

treaties between Carthage and Rome, beyond which Roman ships

must not go.

R. B. Smith,

Carthage and the Carthaginians,

chapter 5.

HERMANDAD, The.

See HOLY BROTHERHOOD.

HERMANRIC, OR ERMANARIC, The empire of.

See GOTHS: A. D. 350-375; and 376.

HERMANSTADT,

Battle of (1442).

See TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451.

(Or Schellenberg,) Battle of (1599).

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:

14TH-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, &c.).

HERMINSAULE, The.

See SAXONS: A.D. 772-804.

HERMIONES, The.

See GERMANY: As KNOWN TO TACITUS.

HERMITS.

See ANCHORITES.

HERMONTHIS.

See ON.

HERMUNDURI, The.

Among the German tribes of the time of Tacitus, "a people

loyal to Rome. Consequently they, alone of the Germans, trade

not merely on the banks of the river, but far inland, and in

the most flourishing colony of the province of Rætia.

Everywhere they are allowed to pass without a guard; and while

to the other tribes we display only our arms and our camps, to

them we have thrown open our houses and country-seats, which

they do not covet."

Tacitus,

Minor Works, translated by Church and Brodribb:

The Germany.

"The settlements of the Hermunduri must have been in Bavaria,

and seem to have stretched from Ratisbon, northwards, as far

as Bohemia and Saxony."

Tacitus,

Minor Works, translated by Church and Brodribb:

The Germany.

Geography notes.

HERNICANS, The.

A Sabine tribe, who anciently occupied a valley in the Lower

Appenines, between the Anio and the Trerus, and who were

leagued with the Romans and the Latins against the Volscians

and the Æquians.

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

book 2, chapter 6.

HERODEANS, The.

See JEWS: B. C. 40-A. D. 44.

REIGN OF THE HERODEANS.

HEROIC AGE OF GREECE.

See GREECE: THE HEROES.

HEROÖPOLIS.

See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

HERRINGS, The Battle of the (1429).

In February, 1429, while the English still held their ground

in France, and while the Duke of Bedford was besieging Orleans

[see FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431], a large convoy of Lenten

provisions, salted herring in the main, was sent away from

Paris for the English army. It was under the escort of Sir

John Fastolfe, with 1,500 men. At Rouvray en Beausse the

convoy was attacked by 5,000 French cavalry, including the

best knights and warriors of the kingdom. The English

entrenched themselves behind their wagons and repelled the

attack, with great slaughter and humiliation of the French

chivalry; but in the mêlée the red-herrings were scattered

thickly over the field. This caused the encounter to be named

the Battle of the Herrings.

C. M. Yonge,

Cameos from English History,

2d series, chapter 35.

HERRNHUT.

See MORAVIAN OR BOHEMIAN BRETHREN.

HERULI, The.

The Heruli were a people closely associated with the Goths in

their history and undoubtedly akin to them in blood. The great

piratical expedition of A. D. 267 from the Crimea, which

struck Athens, was made up of Herules as well as Goths. The

Heruli passed with the Goths under the yoke of the Huns. After

the breaking up of the empire of Attila, they were found

occupying the region of modern Hungary which is between the

Carpathians, the upper Theiss, and the Danube. The Herules

were numerous among the barbarian auxiliaries of the Roman

army in the last days of the empire.

H. Bradley,

Story of the Goths.

ALSO IN:

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 3, chapter 8 (volume 2).

----------HERZEGOVINA: Start--------

HERZEGOVINA: A. D. 1875-1876.

Revolt against Turkish rule.

Interposition of the Powers.

See TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877.

HERZEGOVINA: A. D. 1878.

Given over to Austria by the Treaty of Berlin.

See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

----------HERZEGOVINA: End--------

HESSE: A. D. 1866.

Extinction of the electorate.

Absorption by Prussia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

HESSIANS, The, in the American War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

HESTIASIS.

The feasting of the tribes at Athens.

See LITURGIES.

HESYCHASTS, The.

See MYSTICISM.

HETÆRIES, Ancient.

Political clubs "which were habitual and notorious at Athens;

associations, bound together by oath, among the wealthy

citizens, partly for purposes of amusement, but chiefly

pledging the members to stand by each other in objects of

political ambition, in judicial trials, in accusation or

defence of official men after the period of office had

expired, in carrying points through the public assembly, &c.

… They furnished, when taken together, a formidable

anti-popular force."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 62 (volume 7).

ALSO IN:

G. F. Schömann,

Antiquities of Greece: The State,

part 3, chapter 3.

HETAIRA.

HETAIRISTS, Modern.

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

HETMAN.

See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696;

also, COSSACKS.

HEXHAM, Battle of (1464).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

HEYDUCS.

Servian Christians who, in the earlier period of the Turkish

domination, fled into the forest and became outlaws and

robbers were called Heyducs.

L. Ranke,

History of Servia,

chapter 3.

HIAWATHA AND THE IROQUOIS CONFEDERATION.

See IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

HIBERNIA.

See IRELAND.

HICKS PASHA, Destruction of the army of (1883).

See EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883.

HIDALGO.

"Originally written 'fijodalgo,' son of something. Later

applied to gentlemen, country gentlemen perhaps more

particularly. … In the Dic. Univ. authorities are quoted

showing that the word 'hidalgo' originated with the Roman

colonists of Spain, called 'Italicos,' who were exempt from

imposts. Hence those enjoying similar benefits were called

'Italicos,' which word in lapse of time became 'hidalgo.'"

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 1, page 252, foot-note.

HIDATSA INDIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HIDATSA.

{1645}

HIDE OF LAND.

CARUCATE.

VIRGATE.

"In the [Hundred] rolls for Huntingdonshire [England] a series

of entries occurs, describing, contrary to the usual practice

of the compilers, the number of acres in a virgate, and the

number of virgates in a hide, in several manors. … They show

clearly—(1) That the bundle of scattered strips called a

virgate did not always contain the same number of acres. (2)

That the hide did not always contain the same number of

virgates. But at the same time it is evident that the hide in

Huntingdonshire most often contained 120 acres or thereabouts.

… We may gather from the instances given in the Hundred

Rolls for Huntingdonshire, that the 'normal' hide consisted as

a rule of four virgates of about thirty acres each. The really

important consequence resulting from this is the recognition

of the fact that as the virgate was a bundle of so many

scattered strips in the open fields, the hide, so far as it

consisted of actual virgates in villenage, was also a

bundle—a compound and fourfold bundle—of scattered strips in

the open fields. … A trace at least of the original reason

of the varying contents and relations of the hide and virgate

is to be found in the Hundred Rolls, as, indeed, almost

everywhere else, in the use of another word in the place of

hide, when, instead of the anciently assessed hidage of a

manor, its modern actual taxable value is examined into and

expressed. This new word is 'carucate'—'the land of a plough

or plough team,'—'caruca' being the mediæval Latin term for

both plough and plough team. … In some cases the carucate

seems to be identical with the normal hide of 120 acres, but

other instances show that the carucate varied in area. It is

the land cultivated by a plough team; varying in acreage,

therefore, according to the lightness or heaviness of the

soil, and according to the strength of the team. … In

pastoral districts of England and Wales the Roman tribute may

possibly have been, if not a hide from each plough team, a

hide from every family holding cattle. … The supposition of

such an origin of the connexion of the word 'hide' with the

'land of a family,' or of a plough team, is mere conjecture;

but the fact of the connexion is clear."

F. Seebohm,

English Village Community,

chapter 2, section 4,

and chapter 10, section 6.

ALSO IN:

J. M. Kemble,

The Saxons in England,

book 1, chapter 4.

See, also, MANORS.

HIERATIC WRITING.

See HIEROGLYPHICS.

HIERODULI, The.

In some of the early Greek communities, the Hieroduli, or

ministers of the gods, "formed a class of persons bound to

certain services, duties, or contributions to the temple of

some god, and … sometimes dwelt in the position of serfs on

the sacred ground. They appear in considerable numbers, and as

an integral part of the population only in Asia, as, e. g., at

Comana in Cappadocia, where in Strabo's time there were more

than 6,000 of them attached to the temple of the goddess Ma,

who was named by the Greeks Enyo, and by the Romans Bellona.

In Sicily too the Erycinian Aphrodite had numerous ministers,

whom Cicero calls Venerii, and classes with the ministers of

Mars (Martiales) at Larinum in South Italy. In Greece we may

consider the Craugallidæ as Hieroduli of the Delphian Apollo.

They belonged apparently to the race of Dryopes, who are said

to have been at some former time conquered by Heracles, and

dedicated by him to the god. The greater part of them, we are

told, were sent at the command of Apollo to the Peloponnese,

whilst the Craugallidæ remained behind. … At Corinth too

there were numerous Hieroduli attached to Aphrodite, some of

whom were women, who lived as Hetæræ and paid a certain tax

from their earnings to the goddess."

G. Schömann,

Antiquities of Greece: The State,

part 2, chapter 4.

See, also, DORIS AND DRYOPIS.

HIEROGLYPHICS, Egyptian.

"The Greeks gave the name of Hieroglyphics, that is, 'Sacred

Sculpture,' to the national writing of the Egyptians, composed

entirely of pictures of natural objects. Although very

inapplicable, this name has been adopted by modern writers,

and has been so completely accepted and used that it cannot

now be replaced by a more appropriate appellation. … For a

long series of ages the decipherment of the hieroglyphics, for

which the classical writers furnish no assistance, remained a

hopeless mystery. The acute genius of a Frenchman at last

succeeded, not fifty years since, in lifting the veil. By a

prodigious effort of induction, and almost divination, Jean

François Champollion, who was born at Figeac (Lot) on the 23d

of December, 1790, and died at Paris on the 4th of March,

1832, made the greatest discovery of the nineteenth century in

the domain of historical science, and succeeded in fixing on a

solid basis the principle of reading hieroglyphics. Numerous

scholars have followed the path opened by him. … It would

… be very far from the truth to regard hieroglyphics as

always, or even generally, symbolical. No doubt there are

symbolical characters among them, generally easy to

understand; as also there are, and in very great number,

figurative characters directly representing the object to be

designated; but the majority of the signs found in every

hieroglyphic text are characters purely phonetic; that is,

representing either syllables (and these are so varied as to

offer sometimes serious difficulties) or the letters of an

only moderately complicated alphabet. These letters are also

pictures of objects, but of objects or animals whose Egyptian

name commenced with the letter in question, while also the

syllabic characters (true rebusses) represented objects

designated by that syllable."

F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier.

Manual of the Ancient History of the East,

book 3, chapter 5 (volume 1).

"The system of writing employed by the people called Egyptians

was probably entirely pictorial either at the time when they

first arrived in Egypt, or during the time that they still

lived in their original home. We, however, know of no

inscription in which pictorial characters alone are used, for

the earliest specimens of their writing known to us contain

alphabetical characters. The Egyptians had three kinds of

writing—Hieroglyphic, Hieratic, and Demotic. …

Hieroglyphics … were commonly employed for inscriptions upon

temples, tombs, coffins, statues, and stelæ, and many copies

of the Book of the Dead were written in them. The earliest

hieroglyphic inscription at present known is found on the

monument of Shera, parts of which are preserved in the

Ashmolean Museum at Oxford and in the Gîzeh Museum; it dates

from the IInd dynasty. Hieroglyphics were used in Egypt for

writing the names of Roman Emperors and for religious purposes

until the third century after Christ, at least.

{1646}

Hieratic … was a style of cursive writing much used by the

priests in copying literary compositions on papyrus; during

the XIth or XIIth dynasty wooden coffins were inscribed in

hieratic with religious texts. The oldest document in hieratic

is the famous Prisse papyrus, which records the counsels of

Ptah-hetep to his son; the composition itself is about a

thousand years older than this papyrus, which was probably

inscribed about the XIth dynasty. Drafts of inscriptions were

written upon flakes of calcareous stone in hieratic, and at a

comparatively early date hieratic was used in writing copies

of the Book of the Dead. Hieratic was used until about the

fourth century after Christ. Demotic … is a purely

conventional modification of hieratic characters, which

preserve little of their original form, and was used for

social and business purposes; in the early days of Egyptian

decipherment it was called enchorial. … The Demotic writing

appears to have come into use about B. C. 900, and it survived

until about the fourth century after Christ. In the time of

the Ptolemies three kinds of writing were inscribed side by

side upon documents of public importance, hieroglyphic, Greek,

and Demotic; examples are the stele of Canopus, set up in the

ninth year of the reign of Ptolemy III. Euergetes I., B. C.

247-222, at Canopus, to record the benefits which this king

had conferred upon his country, and the famous Rosetta Stone,

set up at Rosetta in the eighth year of the reign of Ptolemy

V. Epiphanes (B. C. 205-182), likewise to commemorate the

benefits conferred upon Egypt by himself and his family, etc.

… A century or two after the Christian era Greek had

obtained such a hold upon the inhabitants of Egypt, that the

native Christian population, the disciples and followers of

Saint Mark, were obliged to use the Greek alphabet to write

down the Egyptian, that is to say Coptic, translation of the

books of the Old and New Testaments, but they borrowed six

signs from the demotic forms of ancient Egyptian characters to

express the sounds which they found unrepresented in Greek."

E. A. Wallis Budge,

The Mummy,

pages 353-354.

See, also, ROSETTA STONE.

HIEROGLYPHICS, Mexican (so-called).

See AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING.

HIERONYMITES, The.

"A number of solitaries residing among the mountains of Spain,

Portugal, and Italy, gradually formed into a community, and

called themselves Hieronymites, either because they had

compiled their Rule from the writings of St. Jerome, or

because, adopting the rule of St. Augustine, they had taken

St. Jerome for their patron. … The community was approved by

Gregory XI., in 1374. The famous monastery of Our Lady of

Guadaloupe, in Estremadura; the magnificent Escurial, with its

wealth of literary treasures, and the monastery of St. Just,

where Charles V. sought an asylum in the decline of his life,

attest their wonderful energy and zeal."

J. Alzog,

Manual of Universal Church History,

volume 3, page 149.

HIGH CHURCH AND LOW CHURCH:

First use of the names.

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

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

See CURIA REGIS.

HIGH GERMANY, Old League of.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1332-1460.

HIGH MIGHTINESSES, Their.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1651-1660.

HIGHER LAW DOCTRINE, The.

William H. Seward, speaking in the Senate of the United

States, March 11, 1850, on the question of the admission of

California into the Union as a Free State, used the following

language: "'The Constitution,' he said, 'regulates our

stewardship; the Constitution devotes the domain to union, to

justice, to defence, to welfare, and to liberty. But there is

a higher law than the Constitution, which regulates our

authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same noble

purposes. The territory is a part, no inconsiderable part, of

the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the

Creator of the universe. We are His stewards, and must so

discharge our trust as to secure in the highest attainable

degree their happiness.' This public recognition by a Senator

of the United States that the laws of the Creator were

'higher' than those of human enactment excited much

astonishment and indignation, and called forth, in Congress

and out of it, measureless abuse upon its author."

H. Wilson,

History of the Rise and Fall

of the Slave Power in America,

volume 2, pages 262-263.

In the agitations that followed upon the adoption of the

Fugitive Slave Law, and the other compromise measures

attending the admission of California, this Higher Law

Doctrine was much talked about.

HIGHLAND CLANS.

See CLANS.

HIGHLANDS OF SCOTLAND,

See SCOTCH HIGHLAND AND LOWLAND.

HIKENILDE—STRETE.

See ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

HILDEBRAND (Pope Gregory VII.), and the Papacy.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122;

GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122;

and CANOSSA.

HILDEBRAND, KING OF THE LOMBARDS, A. D. 743-744.

HILL, Isaac, in the "Kitchen Cabinet" of President Jackson.

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

HILL, Rowland, and the adoption of penny-postage.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1840.

HILTON HEAD, The capture of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA-GEORGIA).

HIMATION, The.

An article of dress in the nature of a cloak, worn by both men

and women among the ancient Greeks. It "was arranged so that

the one corner was thrown over the left shoulder in front, so

as to be attached to the body by means of the left arm. On the

back the dress was pulled toward the right side, so as to

cover it completely up to the right shoulder, or, at least, to

the armpit, in which latter case the right shoulder remained

uncovered. Finally, the himation was again thrown over the

left shoulder, so that the ends fell over the back. … A

second way of arranging the himation, which left the right arm

free, was more picturesque, and is therefore usually found in

pictures."

E. Guhl and W. Koner,

Life of the Greeks and Romans,

section 42.

----------HIMERA: Start--------

HIMERA, Battle of.

See SICILY: B. C. 480.

HIMERA:

Destroyed by Hannibal.

See SICILY: B. C. 409-405.

----------HIMERA: End--------

HIMYARITES, The.

See ARABIA.

HIN, The.

See EPHAH.

HINDMAN, Fort, Capture of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JANUARY: ARKANSAS).

{1647}

HINDOO KOOSH, The Name of the.

See CAUCASUS, THE INDIAN.

HINDUISM.

See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.

HINDUSTAN.

See INDIA: THE NAME.

HINKSTON'S FORK, Battle of (1782).

See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1775-1784.

HIONG-NU, The.

See TURKS: 6TH CENTURY.

HIPPARCH.

A commander of cavalry in the military organization of the

ancient Athenians.

G. F. Schömann,

Antiquity of Greece: The State,

part 3, chapter 3.

HIPPEIS.

Among the Spartans, the honorary title of Hippeis, or Knights,

was given to the members of a chosen body of three hundred

young men, the flower of the Spartan youth, who had not

reached thirty years of age. "Their three leaders were called

Hippagretæ, although in war they served not as cavalry but as

hoplites. The name may possibly have survived from times in

which they actually served on horseback." At Athens the term

Hippeis was applied to the second of the four property classes

into which Solon divided the population,—their property

obliging them to serve as cavalry.

G. Schömann,

Antiquity of Greece, The State,

part 3, chapters 1 and 3.

See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 594.

HIPPIS, Battle of the,

Fought, A. D. 550, in what was known as the Lazic War, between

the Persians on one side and the Romans and the Lazi on the

other. The latter were the victors.

G. Rawlinson,

Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 20.

----------HIPPO: Start--------

HIPPO, OR HIPPO REGIUS.

An ancient city of north Africa, on the Numidian coast.

See NUMIDIANS; and CARTHAGE: DOMINION OF.

HIPPO: A. D. 430-431.

Siege by the Vandals.

See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.

----------HIPPO: End--------

HIPPOBOTÆ, The.

See EUBŒA.

HIPPODROME.

STADION.

THEATER.

"The arts practised in the gymnasia were publicly displayed at

the festivals. The buildings in which these displays took

place were modified according to their varieties. The races

both on horseback and in chariots took place in the

hippodrome; for the gymnastic games of the pentathlon served

the stadion; while for the acme of the festivals, the musical

and dramatic performances, theatres were erected."

E. Guhl and W. Koner,

Life of the Greeks and Romans

(translated by Hueffer),

sections 28-30.

HIPPOTOXOTÆ, The.

See SCYTHIANS, OR SCYTHÆ, OF ATHENS.

HIRA.

"The historians of the age of Justinian represent the state of

the independent Arabs, who were divided by interest or

affection in the long quarrel of the East [between the Romans

and Persians—3rd to 7th century]: the tribe of Gassan was

allowed to encamp on the Syrian territory; the princes of Hira

were permitted to form a city about 40 miles to the southward

of the ruins of Babylon. Their service in the field was speedy

and vigorous; but their friendship was venal, their faith

inconstant, their enmity capricious: it was an easier task to

excite than to disarm these roving barbarians; and, in the

familiar intercourse of war, they learned to see and to

despise the splendid weakness both of Rome and of Persia."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 50 (volume 5).

"The dynasty of Palmyra and the western tribes embraced

Christianity in the time of Constantine; to the east of the

desert the religion was later of gaining ground, and indeed

was not adopted by the court of Hira till near the end of the

6th century. Early in the 7th, Hira fell from its dignity as

an independent power, and became a satrapy of Persia."

Sir William Muir,

Life of Mahomet,

introduction, chapter 1.

In 633 Hira was overwhelmed by the Mahometan conquest, and the

greater city of Kufa was built only 3 miles distant from it.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651;

also, BUSSORAH AND KUFA.

HISPALIS.

The name of Seville under the Romans.

See SEVILLE.

HISPANIA CITERIOR AND HISPANIA ULTERIOR.

See SPAIN: B. C. 218-25.

HISPANIOLA.

The name given by Columbus to the island now divided between

the Republics of Hayti and San Domingo.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1492; 1493-1496, and after;

and HAYTI.

HISSARLIK.

The site of ancient Troy, as supposed to be identified by the

excavations of Dr. Schliemann.

See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES;

also, TROJA, and HOMER.

----------HISTORY: Start--------

HISTORY:

Definitions.

"With us the word 'history,' like its equivalents in all

modern languages, signifies either a form of literary

composition or the appropriate subject or matter of such

composition—either a narrative of events, or events which

may be narrated. It is impossible to free the term from this

doubleness and ambiguity of meaning. Nor is it, on the whole,

to be desired. The advantages of having one term which may,

with ordinary caution, be innocuously applied to two things so

related, more than counterbalances the dangers involved in two

things so distinct having the same name. … Since the word

history has two very different meanings, it obviously cannot

have merely one definition. To define an order of facts and a

form of literature in the same terms—to suppose that when

either of them is defined the other is defined—is so absurd

that one would probably not believe it could be seriously done

were it not so often done. But to do so has been the rule

rather than the exception. The majority of so-called

definitions of history are definitions only of the records of

history. They relate to history as narrated and written, not

to history as evolved and acted; in other words, although

given as the only definitions of history needed, they do not

apply to history itself, but merely to accounts of history.

They may tell us what constitutes a book of history, but they

cannot tell us what the history is with which all books of

history are occupied. It is, however, with history in this

latter sense that a student of the science or philosophy of

history is mainly concerned. … If by history be meant

history in its widest sense, the best definition of history as

a form of literature is, perhaps, either the very old one,

'the narration of events,' or W. von Humboldt's, 'the

exhibition of what has happened' (die Darstellung des

Geschehenen).

{1648}

The excellence of these definitions lies in their clear and

explicit indication of what history as effectuated or

transacted is. It consists of events; it is das Geschehene. It

is the entire course of events in time. It is all that has

happened precisely as it happened. Whatever happens is

history. Eternal and unchanging being has no history. Things

or phenomena considered as existent, connected, and

comprehended in space, compose what is called nature as

distinguished from history. … Probably Droysen has found a

neater and terser formula for it in German than any which the

English language could supply. Nature he describes as 'das

Nebeneinander des Seienden,' and history as 'das Nacheinander

des Gewordenen.' … The only kind of history with which we

have here directly to deal is that kind of it to which the

name is generally restricted, history par excellence, human

history, what has happened within the sphere of human agency

and interests, the actions and creations of men, events which

have affected the lives and destinies of men, or which have

been produced by men. This is the ordinary sense of the word

history. … To attempt further to define it would be worse

than useless. It would be unduly to limit, and to distort and

pervert, its meaning. In proof of this a few brief remarks on

certain typical or celebrated definitions of history may

perhaps be of service. The definition given in the Dictionary

of the French Academy—'l'histoire est le récit des choses

dignes de mémoire' [Transcriber: "the story of things worth

remembering"]—is a specimen of a very numerous species.

According to such definitions history consists of exceptional

things, of celebrated or notorious events, of the lives and

actions of great and exalted men, of conspicuous achievements

in war and politics, in science and art, in religion and

literature. But this is a narrow and superficial conception of

history. History is made up of what is little as well as of

what is great, of what is common as well as of what is

strange, of what is counted mean as well as of what is counted

noble. … Dr. Arnold's definition—'history is the biography

of a society'—has been often praised. Nor altogether

undeservedly. For it directs attention to the fact that all

history accords with biography in supposing in its subject a

certain unity of life, work, and end. … It does not follow,

however, that biography is a more general notion than history,

and history only a species of biography. In fact, it is not

only as true and intelligible to say that biography is the

history of an individual as to say that history is the

biography of a society, but more so. It is the word biography

in the latter case which is used in a secondary and analogical

sense, not the word history in the former case. … According

to Mr. Freeman, 'history is past politics and politics are

present history.' This is not a mode of definition which any

logician will be found to sanction. It is equivalent to saying

that politics and history are the same, and may both be

divided into past and present; but it does not tell us what

either is. To affirm that this was that and that is this is

not a definition of this or that, but only an assertion that

something may be called either this or that. Besides, the

identification of history with politics proceeds, as has been

already indicated, on a view of history which is at once

narrow and arbitrary. Further, it is just as true that

mathematical history is past mathematics and mathematics are

present history, as that political history is past politics

and politics are present history. … The whole of man's past

was once present thought, feeling, and action. There is

nothing peculiar to politics in this respect."

R. Flint,

History of the Philosophy of History: France, etc.,

pages 5-10.

HISTORY:

The subjects and objects of History.

"The position for which I have always striven is this, that

history is past politics, that politics are present history.

The true subject of history, of any history that deserves the

name, is man in his political capacity, man as the member of

an organized society, governed according to law. History, in

any other aspect, hardly rises above antiquarianism, though I

am far from holding that even simple antiquarianism, even the

merest scraping together of local and genealogical detail, is

necessarily antiquarian rubbish. I know not why the pursuits

of the antiquary should be called rubbish, any more than the

pursuits of the seeker after knowledge of any other kind.

Still, the pursuits of the antiquary, the man of local and

special detail, the man of buildings or coins or weapons or

manuscripts, are not in themselves history, though they are

constantly found to be most valuable helps to history. The

collections of the antiquary are not history; but they are

materials for history, materials of which the historian makes

grateful use, and without which he would often be sore put to

in doing his own work. … It is not too much to say that no

kind of knowledge, of whatever kind, will be useless to the

historian. There is none, however seemingly distant from his

subject, which may not stand him in good stead at some pinch,

sooner or later. But his immediate subject, that to which all

other things are secondary, is man as the member of a

political community. Rightly to understand man in that

character, he must study him in all the forms, in all the

developments, that political society has taken. Effects have

to be traced up to their causes, causes have to be traced up

to their effects; and we cannot go through either of those

needful processes if we confine our studies either to the

political societies of our own day or to political societies

on a great physical scale. The object of history is to watch

the workings of one side, and that the highest side, of human

nature in all its shapes; and we do not see human nature in

all its shapes, unless we follow it into all times and all

circumstances under which we have any means of studying it.

… In one sense it is perfectly true that history is always

repeating itself; in another sense it would be equally true to

say that history never repeats itself at all. No historical

position can be exactly the same as any earlier historical

position, if only for the reason that the earlier position has

gone before it. … Even where the reproduction is

unconscious, where the likeness is simply the result of the

working of like causes, still the two results can never be

exactly the same, if only because the earlier result itself

takes its place among the causes of the later result.

Differences of this kind must always be borne in mind, and

they are quite enough to hinder any two historical events from

being exact doubles of one another. … We must carefully

distinguish between causes and occasions. It is one of the

oldest and one of the wisest remarks of political philosophy

that great events commonly arise from great causes, but from

small occasions.

{1649}

A certain turn of mind, one which is more concerned with

gossip, old or new, than with real history, delights in

telling us how the greatest events spring from the smallest

causes, how the fates of nations and empires are determined by

some sheer accident, or by the personal caprice or personal

quarrel of some perhaps very insignificant person. A good deal

of court-gossip, a good deal of political gossip, passes both

in past and present times for real history. Now a great deal

of this gossip is sheer gossip, and may be cast aside without

notice; but a good deal of it often does contain truth of a

certain kind. Only bear in mind the difference between causes

and occasions, and we may accept a good many of the stories

which tell us how very trifling incidents led to very great

events. … When I speak of causes and occasions, when I speak

of small personal caprices and quarrels, as being not the

causes of great events, but merely the occasions, I wish it to

be fully understood that I do not at all place the agency of

really great men among mere occasions: I fully give it its

place among determining causes. In any large view of history,

we must always be on our guard against either underrating or

overrating the actions of individual men. History is something

more than biography; but biography is an essential and a most

important part of history. We must not think, on the one hand,

that great men, heroes, or whatever we please to call them,

can direct the course of history according to their own will

and pleasure, perhaps according to their mere caprice, with no

danger of their will being thwarted, unless it should run

counter to the will of some other great man or hero of equal

or greater power. … On the other hand, we must not deem that

the course of history is so governed by general laws, that it

is so completely in bondage to almost mechanical powers, that

there is no room for the free agency of great men and of small

men too. For it is of no little importance that, while we talk

of the influence of great men on the history of the world, we

should not forget the influence of the small men. Every man

has some influence on the course of history."

E. A. Freeman,

The Practical Bearings of European History

(Lectures to American Audiences),

pages 207-215.

HISTORY:

The Philosophy of History

"The philosophy of history is not a something separate from

the facts of history, but a something contained in them. The

more a man gets into the meaning of them, the more he gets

into it, and it into him; for it is simply the meaning, the

rational interpretation, the knowledge of the true nature and

essential relations of the facts. And this is true of whatever

species or order the facts may be. Their philosophy is not

something separate and distinct from, something over and

above, their interpretation, but simply their interpretation.

He who knows about any people, or epoch, or special

development of human nature, how it has come to be what it is

and what it tends to, what causes have given it the character

it has, and what its relation is to the general development of

humanity, has attained to the philosophy of the history of

that people, epoch, or development. Philosophical history is

sometimes spoken of as a kind of history, but the language is

most inaccurate. Every kind of history is philosophical which

is true and thorough; which goes closely and deeply enough to

work; which shows the what, how, and why of events as far as

reason and research can ascertain. History always participates

in some measure of philosophy, for events are always connected

according to some real or supposed principle either of

efficient or final causation."

R. Flint,

Philosophy of History,

introduction.

HISTORY:

The possibility of a Science of History.

Mr. Buckle's theory.

"The believer in the possibility of a science of history is

not called upon to hold either the doctrine of predestined

events, or that of freedom of the will; and the only positions

which, in this stage of the inquiry, I shall expect him to

concede are the following: That when we perform an action, we

perform it in consequence of some motive or motives; that

those motives are the results of some antecedents; and that,

therefore, if we were acquainted with the whole of the

antecedents, and with all the laws of their movements, we

could with unerring certainty predict the whole of their

immediate results. This, unless I am greatly mistaken, is the

view which must be held by every man whose mind is unbiased by

system, and who forms his opinions according to the evidence

actually before him. … Rejecting, then, the metaphysical

dogma of free will and, the theological dogma of predestined

events, we are driven to the conclusion that the actions of

men, being determined solely by their antecedents, must have a

character of uniformity, that is to say, must, under precisely

the same circumstances, always issue in precisely the same

results. And as all antecedents are either in the mind or out

of it, we clearly see that all the variations in the

results—in other words, all the changes of which history is

full, all the vicissitudes of the human race, their progress

or their decay, their happiness or their misery—must be the

fruit of a double action; an action of external phenomena upon

the mind, and another action of the mind upon the phenomena.

These are the materials out of which a philosophic history can

alone be constructed. On the one hand, we have the human mind

obeying the laws of its own existence, and, when uncontrolled

by external agents, developing itself according to the

conditions of its organization. On the other hand, we have

what is called Nature, obeying likewise its laws; but

incessantly coming into contact with the minds of men,

exciting their passions, stimulating their intellect, and

therefore giving to their actions a direction which they would

not have taken without such disturbance. Thus we have man

modifying nature, and nature modifying man; while out of this

reciprocal modification all events must necessarily spring.

The problem immediately before us is to ascertain the method

of discovering the laws of this double modification."

H. T. Buckle,

History of Civilization in England,

chapter 1.

"Buckle is not the first who has attempted to treat the

unscientific character of History, the 'methodless matter,' as

an ancient writer names it, by the method of exhibiting vital

phenomena under points of view analogous to those which are

the starting-point of the exact sciences. But a notion which

others have incidentally broached under some formula about

'natural growth,' or carried out in the very inadequate and

merely figurative idea of 'the inorganic; what still others,

as Comte in his attractive 'Philosophie Positive,' have

developed speculatively, Buckle undertakes to ground in a

comprehensive historical exposition. …

{1650}

He purposes to raise History to a science by showing how to

demonstrate historical facts out of general laws. He paves the

way for this by setting forth that the earliest and rudest

conceptions touching the course of human destiny were those

indicated by the ideas of chance and necessity, that in all

probability' out of these grew later the 'dogmas' of free-will

and predestination, that both are in a great degree

'mistakes,' or that, as he adds, 'we at least have no adequate

proof of their truth.' He finds that all the changes of which

History is full, all the vicissitudes which have come upon the

human race, its advance and its decline, its happiness and its

misery, must be the fruit, of a double agency, the working of

outer phenomena upon our nature, and the working of our nature

upon outer phenomena. He has confidence that he has discovered

the 'laws' of this double influence, and that he has therefore

elevated the History of mankind to a science. … Buckle does

not so much leave the freedom of the will, in connection with

divine providence, out of view, but rather declares it an

illusion and throws it overboard. Within the precincts of

philosophy also something similar has recently been taught. A

thinker whom I regard with personal esteem says: 'If we call

all that an individual man is, has and performs A, then this A

arises out of a + x, a embracing all that comes to the

man from his outer circumstances: from his country, people,

age, etc., while the vanishingly little x is his own

contribution, the work of his free will.' However vanishingly

small this x may be, it is of infinite value. Morally

and humanly considered it alone has value. The colors, the

brush, the canvas which Raphael used were of materials which

he had not created. He had learned from one and another master

to apply these materials in drawing and painting. The idea of

the Holy Virgin and of the saints and angels, he met with in

church tradition. Various cloisters ordered pictures from him

at given prices. That this incitement alone, these material

and technical conditions and such traditions and

contemplations, should 'explain' the Sistine Madonna, would

be, in the formula A = a + x, the service of the

vanishing little x. Similarly everywhere. Let

statistics go on showing that in a certain country so and so

many illegitimate births occur. Suppose that in the formula A

= a + x this a includes all the elements which

'explain' the fact that among a thousand mothers twenty,

thirty, or whatever the number is, are unmarried; each

individual case of the kind has its history, how often a

touching and affecting one. Of those twenty or thirty who have

fallen is there a single one who will be consoled by knowing

that the statistical law 'explains' her case? Amid the

tortures of conscience through nights of weeping, many a one

of them will be profoundly convinced that in the formula A =

a + x the vanishing little x is of immeasurable

weight, that in fact it embraces the entire moral worth of the

human being, his total and exclusive value. No intelligent man

will think of denying that the statistical method of

considering human affairs has its great worth; but we must not

forget how little, relatively, it can accomplish and is meant

to accomplish: Many and perhaps all human relations have a

legal side; yet no one will on that account bid us seek for

the understanding of the Eroica or of Faust among jurists'

definitions concerning intellectual property."

J. G. Droysen,

Outline of the Principles of History

pages 62-64 and 77-79.

HISTORY:

History as the root of all Science.

Lost History.

"History, as it lies at the root of all science, is also the

first distinct product of man's spiritual nature; his earliest

expression of what can be called Thought. It is a looking both

before and after; as, indeed, the coming Time already waits,

unseen, yet definitely shaped, predetermined and inevitable,

in the Time come; and only by the combination of both is the

meaning of either completed. The Sibylline Books, though old,

are not the oldest. Some nations have prophecy, some have not:

but of all mankind, there is no tribe so rude that it has not

attempted History, though several have not arithmetic enough

to count Five. History has been written with quipo-threads,

with feather-pictures, with wampum-belts; still oftener with

earth-mounds and monumental stone-heaps, whether as pyramid or

cairn; for the Celt and the Copt, the Red man as well as the

White, lives between two eternities, and warring against

Oblivion, he would fain unite himself in clear conscious

relation, as in dim unconscious relation he is already united,

with the whole Future and the whole Past. A talent for History

may be said to be born with us, as our chief inheritance. In a

certain sense all men are historians. Is not every memory

written quite full with Annals, wherein joy and mourning,

conquest and loss manifoldly alternate; and, with or without

philosophy, the whole fortunes of one little inward Kingdom,

and all its politics, foreign and domestic, stand ineffaceably

recorded? Our very speech is curiously historical. Most men,

you may observe, speak only to narrate; not in imparting what

they have thought, which indeed were often a very small

matter, but in exhibiting what they have undergone or seen,

which is a quite unlimited one, do talkers dilate. Cut us off

from Narrative, how would the stream of conversation, even

among the wisest, languish into detached handfuls, and among

the foolish utterly evaporate! Thus, as we do nothing but

enact History, we say little but recite it: nay rather, in

that widest sense, our whole spiritual life is built thereon.

For, strictly considered, what is all Knowledge too but

recorded Experience, and a product of History; of which;

therefore, Reasoning and Belief, no less than Action and

Passion, are essential materials? … Social Life is the

aggregate of all the individual men's Lives who constitute

society; History is the essence of innumerable Biographies.

But if one Biography, nay our own Biography, study and

recapitulate it as we may, remains in so many points

unintelligible to us; how much more must these million, the

very facts of which, to say nothing of the purport of them, we

know not, and cannot know! … Which was the greatest

innovator, which was the more important personage in man's

history, he who first led armies over the Alps, and gained the

victories of Cannæ and Thrasymene; or the nameless boor who

first hammered out for himself an iron spade? When the oak

tree is felled, the whole forest echoes with it; but a hundred

acorns are planted silently by some unnoticed breeze.

{1651}

Battles and war-tumults, which for the time din every ear, and

with joy or terror intoxicate every heart, pass away like

tavern-brawls; and, except some few Marathons and Morgartens,

are remembered by accident, not by desert. Laws themselves,

political Constitutions, are not our Life, but only the house

wherein our Life is led: nay they are but the bare walls of

the house; all whose essential furniture, the inventions and

traditions, and daily habits that regulate and support our

existence, are the work not of Dracos and Hampdens, but of

Phœnician mariners, of Italian masons and Saxon metallurgists,

of philosophers, alchymists, prophets, and all the

long-forgotten train of artists and artisans; who from the

first have been jointly teaching us how to think and how to

act, how to rule over spiritual and over physical Nature. Well

may we say that of our History the more important part is lost

without recovery."

T. Carlyle,

On History

(Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, volume 2).

HISTORY:

Interpretation of the Past by the Present.

"But how, it may be asked, are we to interpret the Past from

the Present, if there are no institutions in the present

answering to those in the past? We have no serfs, for example,

in England at the present time, how then are we to understand

a state of Society of which they were a component element? The

answer is—by analogy, by looking at the essence of the

relation. Between a modern master and his lackeys and

dependents, the same essential relation subsists as between

the lord and serf of feudal times. If we realise to ourselves

the full round of this relationship, deepen the shades to

correspond with the more absolute power possessed by a lord in

early times, allow for a more aristocratic state of opinion

and belief, the result will be the solution desired. This

method of interpreting the Past from the Present has been

followed by Shakespeare in his great historical dramas, with

such success as we all know. He wishes, for example, to give

us a picture of old Roman times. He gets from Plutarch and

other sources the broad historical facts, the form of

Government and Religion, the distribution of Power and

Authority: this is the skeleton to which he has to give life

and reality. How does he proceed? He simply takes his stand on

the times in which he himself lived; notes the effects

existing institutions have on his own and other minds; allows

for the differences in custom, mode of life, and political and

religious forms; and the result is a drama or dramas more real

and lifelike, more true and believable, an insight into the

working of Roman life more subtle and profound, than all the

husks with which the historians have furnished us."

J. B. Crozier,

Civilization and Progress,

page 35.

HISTORY:

The Moral lessons of History.

"Gibbon believed that the era of conquerors was at an end. Had

he lived out the full life of man, he would have seen Europe

at the feet of Napoleon. But a few years ago we believed the

world had grown too civilized for war, and the Crystal Palace

in Hyde Park was to be the inauguration of a new era. Battles

bloody as Napoleon's are now the familiar tale of every day;

and the arts which have made greatest progress are the arts of

destruction. … What, then, is the use of History, and what

are its lessons? If it can tell us little of the past, and

nothing of the future, why waste our time over so barren a

study? First, it is a voice forever sounding across the

centuries the laws of right and wrong. Opinions alter, manners

change, creeds rise and fall, but the moral law is written on

the tablets of eternity. For every false word or unrighteous

deed, for cruelty and oppression, for lust or vanity, the

price has to be paid at last; not always by the chief

offenders, but paid by some one. Justice and truth alone

endure and live. Injustice and falsehood may be long-lived,

but doomsday comes at last to them, in French revolutions and

other terrible ways. That is one lesson of History. Another is

that we should draw no horoscopes; that we should expect

little, for what we expect will not come to pass."

J. A. Froude,

Short Studies on Great Subjects,

pages 27-28.

HISTORY:

The Educational and Practical value of History.

"It is, I think, one of the best schools for that kind of

reasoning which is most useful in practical life. It teaches

men to weigh conflicting probabilities, to estimate degrees of

evidence, to form a sound judgment of the value of

authorities. Reasoning is taught by actual practice much more

than by any a priori methods. Many good judges—and I own I am

inclined to agree with them—doubt much whether a study of

formal logic ever yet made a good reasoner. Mathematics are no

doubt invaluable in this respect, but they only deal with

demonstrations; and it has often been observed how many

excellent mathematicians are somewhat peculiarly destitute of

the power of measuring degrees of probability. But History is

largely concerned with the kind of probabilities on which the

conduct of life mainly, depends. There is one hint about

historical reasoning which I think may not be unworthy of your

notice. When studying some great historical controversy, place

yourself by an effort of the imagination alternately on each

side of the battle; try to realise as fully as you can the

point of view of the best men on either side, and then draw up

upon paper the arguments of each in the strongest form you can

give them. You will find that few practices do more to

elucidate the past, or form a better mental discipline."

W. E. H. Lecky,

The Political Value of History,

pages 47-49.

"He who demands certainties alone as the sphere of his action

must retire from the activities of life, and confine himself

to the domain of mathematical computation. He who is unwilling

to investigate and weigh probabilities can have no good reason

to hope for any practical success whatever. It is strictly

accurate to say that the highest successes in life, whether in

statesmanship, in legislation, in war, in the civic

professions, or in the industrial pursuits, are attained by

those who possess the greatest skill in the weighing of

probabilities and the estimating of them at their true value.

This is the essential reason why the study of history is so

important an element in the work of improving the judgment,

and in the work of fitting men to conduct properly the larger

interests of communities and states. It is a study of

humanity, not in an ideal condition, but as humanity exists.

The student of history surveys the relations of life in

essentially the same manner as the man of business surveys

them. Perhaps it ought rather to be said that the historical

method is the method that must be used in the common affairs

of everyday life.

{1652}

The premises from which the man of business has to draw his

conclusions are always more or less involved and uncertain.

The gift which insures success, therefore, is not so much the

endowment of a powerful reasoning faculty as that other

quality of intelligence, which we call good judgment. It is

the ability to grasp what may be called the strategic points

of a situation by instinctive or intuitive methods. It reaches

its conclusions not by any very clearly defined or definable

process, but rather by the method of conjecturing the value

and importance of contingent elements. It is the ability to

reach correct conclusions when the conditions of a strictly

logical process are wanting. To a man of affairs this is the

most valuable of all gifts; and it is acquired, so far as it

comes by effort, not by studying the rigid processes of

necessary reasoning, but by a large observance and

contemplation of human affairs. And it is precisely this

method of studying men that the historical student has to use.

His premises are always more or less uncertain, and his

conclusions, therefore, like the conclusions of every day

life, are the product of his judgment rather than the product

of pure reason. It is in the light of this fact that we are to

explain the force of Guizot's remark, that nothing tortures

history more than logic. Herein also is found the reason why

the study of history is so necessary a part of a good

preparation for the affairs of politics and statesmanship.

Freeman has said that history is simply past politics, and

politics are simply present history. If this be true—and who

can deny it?—the study of history and the study of politics

are much the same. The kind of involved and contingent

reasoning necessary for the successful formation of political

judgments is unquestionably the kind of reasoning which, of

all studies, history is best adapted to give. It may also be

said that the most important elements of success are the same

in all practical vocations. The conditions, whether those of

statesmanship or those of industry and commerce, have been

essentially the same in all ages. Society is, and has been,

from its first existence, a more or less complicated organism.

It is a machine with a great number of wheels and springs. No

part is independent. Hence it is that no man can be completely

useful if he is out of gear with his age, however perfect he may

be in himself."

C. K. Adams,

A Manual of Historical Literature,

pp. 15-16.

"To turn for a moment to the general question. I should not

like to be thought to be advocating my study on the mere

grounds of utility; although I believe that utility, both as

regards the training of the study and the information attained

in it, to be the highest, humanly speaking, of all utilities;

it helps to qualify a man to act in his character of a

politician as a Christian man should. But this is not all;

beyond the educational purpose, beyond the political purpose,

beyond the philosophical use of history and its training, it

has something of the preciousness of everything that is

clearly true. In common with Natural Philosophy it has its

value, I will not say as Science, for that would be to use a

term which has now become equivocal, but it has a value

analogous to the value of science; a value as something that

is worth knowing and retaining in the knowledge for its own

and for the truth's sake. And in this consists its especial

attraction for its own votaries. It is not the pleasure of

knowing something that the world does not know,—that

doubtless is a motive that weighs with many minds, a motive to

be accepted as a fact, though it may not be worth analysis. It

is not the mere pleasure of investigating and finding with

every step of investigation new points of view open out, and

new fields of labour, new characters of interest;—that

investigating instinct of human nature is not one to be

ignored, and the exercise of it on such inexhaustible

materials as are before us now is a most healthy exercise, one

that cannot but strengthen and develop the whole mind of the

man who uses it, urging him on to new studies, new languages,

new discoveries in geography and science. But even this is not

all. There is, I speak humbly, in common with Natural Science,

in the study of living History, a gradual approximation to a

consciousness that we are growing into a perception of the

workings of the Almighty Ruler of the world. … The study of

History is in this respect, as Coleridge said of Poetry, its

own great reward, a thing to be loved and cultivated for its

own sake. … If man is not, as we believe, the greatest and

most wonderful of God's works, he is at least the most

wonderful that comes within our contemplation; if the human

will, which is the motive cause of all historical events, is

not the freest agent in the universe, it is at least the

freest agency of which we have any knowledge; if its

variations are not absolutely innumerable and irreducible to

classification, on the generalisations of which we may

formulate laws and rules, and maxims and prophecies, they are

far more diversified and less reducible than any other

phenomena in those regions of the universe that we have power

to penetrate. For one great insoluble problem of astronomy or

geology there are a thousand insoluble problems in the life,

in the character, in the face of every man that meets you in

the street. Thus, whether we look at the dignity of the

subject-matter, or at the nature of the mental exercise which

it requires, or at the inexhaustible field over which the

pursuit ranges, History, the knowledge of the adventures, the

development, the changeful career, the varied growths, the

ambitions, aspirations, and, if you like, the approximating

destinies of mankind, claims a place second to none in the

roll of sciences."

W. Stubbs,

Seventeen Lectures on the Study of

Medieval and Modern History,

lectures 1 and 4.

"There is a passage in Lord Bacon so much to this purpose that

I cannot forbear quoting it. 'Although' (he says) 'we are

deeply indebted to the light, because by means of it we can

find our way, ply our tasks, read, distinguish one another;

and yet for all that the vision of the light itself is more

excellent and more beautiful than all these various uses of

it; so the contemplation and sight of things as they are,

without superstition, without imposture, without error, and

without confusion, is in itself worth more than all the

harvest and profit of inventions put together.' And so may I

say of History; that useful as it may be to the statesman, to

the lawyer, to the schoolmaster, or the annalist, so far as it

enables us to look at facts as they are, and to cultivate that

habit within us, the importance of History is far beyond all

mere amusement or even information that we may gather from

it."

J. S. Brewer,

English Studies,

page 382.

{1653}

"To know History is impossible; not even Mr. Freeman, not

Professor Ranke himself, can be said to know History. … No

one, therefore, should be discouraged from studying History.

Its greatest service is not so much to increase our knowledge

as to stimulate thought and broaden our intellectual horizon,

and for this purpose no study is its equal."

W. P. Atkinson,

On History and the Study of History,

page 107.

HISTORY:

The Writing of History.

Macaulay's view.

"A history in which every particular incident may be true may

on the whole be false. The circumstances which have most

influence on the happiness of mankind, the changes of manners

and morals, the transition of communities from poverty to

wealth, from knowledge to ignorance, from ferocity to

humanity—these are, for the most part, noiseless revolutions.

Their progress is rarely indicated by what historians are

pleased to call important events. They are not achieved by

armies, or enacted by senates. They are sanctioned by no

treaties and recorded in no archives. They are carried on in

every school, in every church, behind ten thousand counters,

at ten thousand firesides. The upper current of society

presents no certain criterion by which we can judge of the

direction in which the under current flows. We read of defeats

and victories. But we know that nations may be miserable

amidst victories and prosperous amidst defeats. We read of the

fall of wise ministers and of the rise of profligate

favourites. But we must remember how small a proportion the

good or evil effected by a single statesman can bear to the

good or evil of a great social system. … The effect of

historical reading is analogous, in many respects, to that

produced by foreign travel. The student, like the tourist, is

transported into a new state of society. He sees new fashions.

He hears new modes of expression. His mind is enlarged by

contemplating the wide diversities of laws, of morals, and of

manners. But men may travel far and return with minds as

contracted as if they had never stirred from their own

market-town. In the same manner, men may know the dates of

many battles and the genealogies of many royal houses, and yet

be no wiser. … The perfect historian is he in whose work the

character and spirit of an age is exhibited in miniature. He

relates no fact, he attributes no expression to his

characters, which is not authenticated by sufficient

testimony. But, by judicious selection, rejection, and

arrangement, he gives to truth those attractions which have

been usurped by fiction. In his narrative a due subordination

is observed: some transactions are prominent; others retire.

But the scale on which he represents them is increased or

diminished, not according to the dignity of the persons

concerned in them, but according to the degree in which they

elucidate the condition of society and the nature of man. He

shows us the court, the camp, and the senate. But he shows us

also the nation. He considers no anecdote, no peculiarity of

manner, no familiar saying, as too insignificant for his

notice which is not too insignificant to illustrate the

operation of laws, of religion, and of education, and to mark

the progress of the human mind. Men will not merely be

described, but will be made intimately known to us."

Lord Macaulay,

History

(Essays, volume 1).

HISTORY:

The Writing of History.

Truthfulness in Style.

"That man reads history, or anything else, at great peril of

being thoroughly misled, who has no perception of any

truthfulness except that which can be fully ascertained by

reference to facts; who does not in the least perceive the

truth, or the reverse, of a writer's style, of his epithets,

of his reasoning, of his mode of narration. In life our faith

in any narration is much influenced by the personal

appearance, voice, and gesture of the person narrating. There

is some part of all these things in his writing; and you must

look into that well before you can know what faith to give

him. One man may make mistakes in names, and dates, and

references, and yet have a real substance of truthfulness in

him, a wish to enlighten himself and then you. Another may not

be wrong in his facts, but have a declamatory, or sophistical,

vein in him, much to be guarded against. A third may be both

inaccurate and untruthful, caring not so much for any thing as

to write his book. And if the reader cares only to read it,

sad work they make between them of the memories of former

days."

Sir A. Helps,

Friends in Council,

volume 1, pages 199-200.

HISTORY:

Historical Romance and Romantic History.

Sir Walter Scott.

"The prodigious addition which the happy idea of the

historical romance has made to the stories of elevated

literature, and through it to the happiness and improvement of

the human race, will not be properly appreciated, unless the

novels most in vogue before the immortal creations of Scott

appeared are considered. … Why is it that works so popular

in their day, and abounding with so many traits of real

genius, should so soon have palled upon the world? Simply

because they were not founded upon a broad and general view of

human nature; because they were drawn, not from real life in

the innumerable phases which it presents to the observer, but

imaginary life as it was conceived in the mind of the

composer; because they were confined to one circle and class

of society, and having exhausted all the natural ideas which

it could present, its authors were driven, in the search of

variety, to the invention of artificial and often ridiculous

ones. Sir Walter Scott, as all the world knows, was the

inventor of the historical romance. As if to demonstrate how

ill founded was the opinion, that all things were worked out,

and that originality no longer was accessible for the rest of

time, Providence, by the means of that great mind, bestowed a

new art, as it were, upon mankind—at the very time when

literature to all appearance was effete, and invention, for

above a century, had run in the cramped and worn-out channels

of imitation. Gibbon was lamenting that the subjects of

history were exhausted, and that modern story would never

present the moving incidents of ancient story, on the verge of

the French Revolution and the European war—of the Reign of

Terror and the Moscow retreat. Such was the reply of Time to

the complaint that political incident was worn out. Not less

decisive was the answer which the genius of the Scottish bard

afforded to the opinion, that the treasures of original

thought were exhausted, and that nothing now remained for the

sons of men. In the midst of that delusion he wrote

'Waverley'; and the effect was like the sun bursting through

the clouds."

Historical Romance

(Blackwood's Magazine, September, 1845).

{1654}

"Those sticklers for truth, who reproach Scott with having

falsified history because he wilfully confused dates, forget

the far greater truth which that wonderful writer generally

presented. If, for his purposes, he disarranged the order of

events a little; no grave historian ever succeeded better in

painting the character of the epoch. He committed errors of

detail enough to make Mrs. Markham shudder. He divined

important historical truth which had escaped the sagacity of

all historians. A great authority, Augustin Thierry, has

pronounced Scott the greatest of all historical divinators."

G. H. Lewes,

Historical Romance

(Westminster Review, March, 1846).

"The novel of Ivanhoe places us four generations after the

invasion of the Normans, in the reign of Richard, son of Henry

Plantagenet, sixth king since the conqueror. At this period,

at which the historian Hume can only represent to us a king

and England, without telling us what a king is, nor what he

means by England, Walter Scott, entering profoundly into the

examination of events, shows us classes of men, distinct

interests and conditions, two nations, a double language,

customs which repel and combat each other; on one side tyranny

and insolence, on the other misery and hatred, real

developments of the drama of the conquest, of which the battle

of Hastings had been only the prologue. … In the midst of

the world which no longer exists, Walter Scott always places

the world which does and always will exist, that is to say,

human nature, of which he knows all the secrets. Everything

peculiar to the time and place, the exterior of men, the

aspect of the country and of the habitations, costumes, and

manners, are described with the most minute truthfulness; and

yet the immense erudition which has furnished so many details

is nowhere to be perceived. Walter Scott seems to have for the

past that second sight, which in times of ignorance, certain

men attributed to themselves for the future. To say that there

is more real history in his novels on Scotland and England

than in the philosophically false compilations which still

possess that great name, is not advancing any thing strange in

the eyes of those who have read and understood 'Old

Mortality,' 'Waverley,' 'Rob Roy,' the 'Fortunes of Nigel,'

and the 'Heart of Mid-Lothian.'"

A. Thierry, Narratives of the Merovingian Era,

Historical Essays, etc., essay 9.

"We have all heard how the romances of Walter Scott brought

history home to people who would never have looked into the

ponderous volumes of professed historians, and many of us

confess to ourselves that there are large historical periods

which would be utterly unknown to us but for some story either

of the great romancer or one of his innumerable imitators.

Writers, as well as readers, of history were awakened by Scott

to what seemed to them the new discovery that the great

personages of history were after all men and women of flesh

and blood like ourselves. Hence in all later historical

literature there is visible the effort to make history more

personal, more dramatic than it had been before. We can hardly

read the interesting Life of Lord Macaulay without perceiving

that the most popular historical work of modern times owes its

origin in a great measure to the Waverley Novels. Macaulay

grew up in a world of novels; his conversation with his

sisters was so steeped in reminiscences of the novels they had

read together as to be unintelligible to those who wanted the

clue. His youth and early manhood witnessed the appearance of

the Waverley Novels themselves. … He became naturally

possessed by the idea which is expressed over and over again

in his essays, and which at last he realized with such

wonderful success, the idea that it was quite possible to make

history as interesting as romance. … Macaulay is only the

most famous of a large group of writers who have been

possessed with the same idea. As Scott founded the historical

romance, he may be said to have founded the romantic history.

And to this day it is an established popular opinion that this

is the true way of writing history, only that few writers have

genius enough for it. … It must be urged against this kind

of history that very few subjects or periods are worthy of it.

Once or twice there have appeared glorious characters whose

perfection no eloquence can exaggerate; once or twice national

events have arranged themselves like a drama, or risen to the

elevation of an epic poem. But the average of history is not

like this; it is indeed much more ordinary and monotonous than

is commonly supposed. The serious student of history has to

submit to a disenchantment like that which the experience of

life brings to the imaginative youth. As life is not much like

romance, so history when it is studied in original documents

looks very unlike the conventional representation of it which

historians have accustomed us to."

J. R. Seeley,

History and Polities

(Macmillan's Magazine, August, 1879).

HISTORY:

How to study History.

"The object of the historical student is to bring before his

mind a picture of the main events and the spirit of the times

which he studies. The first step is to get a general view from

a brief book; the second step is to enlarge it from more

elaborate books, reading more than one, and to use some system

of written notes keeping them complete. The next step is to

read some of the contemporary writers. Having done these three

things carefully, the historical student carries away an

impression of his period which will never be effaced."

Prof. A. B. Hart,

How to Study History

(Chautauquan, October, 1893).

HISTORY:

The Importance of a knowledge of Universal History.

"When I was a schoolmaster, I never considered a pupil

thoroughly educated unless he had read Gibbon through before

he left me. I read it through myself before I was eighteen,

and I have derived unspeakable advantage from this experience.

Gibbon's faults of style and matter have very slight effect on

the youthful mind, whereas his merits, his scholarship, his

learning, his breadth of view, his imagination, and his

insight, afford a powerful stimulus to study. … I … wish

to urge the claims of two subjects on your attention which

have hitherto been unaccountably neglected. The first of them

is universal history, the general course of the history of the

world. It seems natural to think that no subject could be more

important for the consideration of any human being than the

knowledge of the main lines which the race has followed since

the dawn of history in reaching the position which it has now

attained. The best way of understanding any situation is to

know how affairs came into that position. Besides the

satisfaction of legitimate curiosity, it is only thus that we

can be wise reformers, and distinguish between what is a mere

survival of the past and an institution which is inherent in

the character of the community.

{1655}

Our German cousins are fully aware of this truth; a German

parlour, however meagerly furnished, always contains two

books, a Bible and a Weltgeschichte. I suppose that during the

present century from a hundred to a hundred and fifty of these

universal histories have made their appearance in Germany. In

England I only know of two. In Germany, Italy, and Austria,

and, I believe, in France, universal history forms an

essential part of education for nearly all classes. It is

taken as a subject under certain conditions in the

Abiturienten-Examen. I once had the privilege of reading the

notes of a viva voce examination of a student in this subject

who did not pass. It covered the whole range of ancient,

mediæval, and modern history. I was astonished at what the

student did know, and still more at what he was expected to

know. I should like to see the subject an essential part of

all secondary education in England, just as the knowledge of

Bible history was in my young days and may be still. If proper

text-books were forthcoming, to which I again direct the

attention of enterprising publishers, there would be no

difficulty in making this subject an accompaniment of nearly

every literary lesson. … The advantage would be the

enlargement of the mind by the contemplation of the majestic

march of human events and the preparation for any future

course of historical study. 'Boys come to us,' said a German

professor once to me, 'knowing their centuries.' How few

English boys or even English men have any notion of their

centuries! The dark ages are indeed dark to them. I once asked

a boy at Eton, who had given me a date, whether it was B. C.

or A. D. Being hopelessly puzzled, he replied that it was B.

D. Many of us, if we were honest, would give a similar

answer."

O. Browning,

The Teaching of History in Schools

(Royal Historical Society, Transactions,

new series, volume 4).

HISTORY:

The Importance of Local History.

"From a variety of considerations, the writer is persuaded

that one of the best introductions to history that can be

given in American high schools, and even in those of lower

grade, is through a study of the community in which the school

is placed. History, like charity, begins at home. The best

American citizens are those who mind home affairs and local

interest. 'That man's the best cosmopolite who loves his

native country best.' The best students of universal history

are those who know some one country or some one subject well.

The family, the hamlet, the neighborhood, the community, the

parish, the village, town, city, county, and state are

historically the ways by which men have approached national

and international life. It was a preliminary study of the

geography of Frankfort-on-the-Main that led Carl Ritter to

study the physical structure of Europe and Asia, and thus to

establish the new science of comparative geography. He says:

'Whoever has wandered through the valleys and woods, and over

the hills and mountains of his own state, will be the one

capable of following a Herodotus in his wanderings over the

globe.' And we may say, as Ritter said of the science of

geography, the first step in history is to know thoroughly the

district where we live. … American local history should be

studied as a contribution to national history. This country

will yet be viewed and reviewed as an organism of historic

growth, developing from minute germs, from the very protoplasm

of state life. And some day this country will be studied in

its international relations, as an organic part of a larger

organism now vaguely called the World State, but as surely

developing through the operation of economic, legal, social,

and scientific forces as the American Union, the German and

British Empires are evolving into higher forms. American

history in its widest relations is not to be written by any

one man nor by anyone generation of men. Our history will grow

with the nation and with its developing consciousness of

internationality. The present possibilities for the real

progress of historic and economic science lie, first and

foremost, in the development of a generation of economists and

practical historians, who realize that history is past

politics and politics present history; secondly, in the

expansion of the local consciousness into a fuller sense of

its historic worth and dignity, of the cosmopolitan relations

of modern local life, and of its wholesome conservative power

in these days of growing centralization. National and

international life can best develop upon the constitutional

basis of local self-government in church and state. … If

young Americans are to appreciate their religious and

political inheritance, they must learn its intrinsic worth.

They must be taught to appreciate the common and lowly things

around them. They should grow up with as profound respect for

town and parish meetings as for the State legislature, not to

speak of the Houses of Congress. They should recognize the

majesty of the law, even in the parish constable as well as

the high sheriff of the country. They should look on selectmen

as the head men of the town, the survival of the old English

reeve and four best men of the parish. They should be taught

to see in the town common or village green a survival of that

primitive institution of land-community upon which town and

state are based. They should be taught the meaning of town and

family names; how the word 'town' means, primarily, a place

hedged in for the purposes of defence; how the picket-fences

around home and house-lot are but a survival of the primitive

town idea; how home, hamlet, and town live on together in a

name like Hampton, or Home-town. They should investigate the

most ordinary thing for these are often the most archaic. …

It would certainly be an excellent thing for the development

of historical science in America if teachers in our public

schools would cultivate the historical spirit in their pupils

with special reference to the local environment. … A

multitude of historical associations gather around every old

town and hamlet in the land. There are local legends and

traditions, household tales, stories told by grandfathers and

grandmothers, incidents remembered by 'the oldest

inhabitants.' But above all in importance are the old

documents and manuscript records of the first settlers, the

early pioneers, the founders of our towns. Here are sources of

information more authentic than tradition, and yet often

entirely neglected. … In order to study history it is not

necessary to begin with dead men's bones, with Theban

dynasties, the kings of Assyria, the royal families of Europe,

or even with the presidents of the United States. These

subjects have their importance in certain connections, but for

beginners in history there are perhaps other subjects of

greater interest and vitality.

{1656}

The most natural entrance to a knowledge of the history of the

world is from a local environment through widening circles of

interest, until, from the rising ground of the present, the

broad horizon of the past comes clearly into view. … A study

of the community in which the student dwells will serve to

connect that community not only with the origin and growth of

the State and Nation, but with the mother-country, with the

German fatherland, with village communities throughout the

Aryan world,—from Germany and Russia to old Greece and Rome;

from these classic lands to Persia and India."

H. B. Adams, Methods of Historical Study

(Johns Hopkins University Studies, Second Series, 1-2),

pages 16-21.

----------HISTORY: Start--------

HITCHITIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

HITTIN, Battle of (1187).

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.

HITTITES, The.

The Hittites mentioned in the Bible were known as the Khita or

Khatta to the Egyptians, with whom they were often at war.

Recent discoveries indicate that they formed a more civilized

and powerful nation and played a more important part in the

early history of Western Asia than was previously supposed.

Many inscriptions and rock sculptures in Asia Minor and Syria

which were formerly inexplicable are now attributed to the

Hittites. The inscriptions have not yet been deciphered, but

scholars are confident that the key to their secret will be

found. The two chief cities of the Hittites were Kadesh on the

Orontes and Carchemish on the Euphrates; so that their seat of

empire was in northern Syria, but their power was felt from

the extremity of Asia Minor to the confines of Egypt. It is

conjectured that these people were originally from the

Caucasus. "Their descendants," says Professor Sayee, "are

still to be met with in the defiles of the Taurus and on the

plateau of Kappadokia, though they have utterly forgotten the

language or languages their forefathers spoke. What that

language was is still uncertain, though the Hittite proper

names which occur on the monuments of Egypt and Assyria show

that it was neither Semitic nor Indo-European."

A. H. Sayee,

Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,

chapter 5.

"We may … rest satisfied with the conclusion that the

existence of a Hittite empire extending into Asia Minor is

certified, not only by the records of ancient Egypt, but also

by Hittite monuments which still exist. In the days of Ramses

II., when the children of Israel were groaning under the tasks

allotted to them, the enemies of their oppressors were already

exercising a power and a domination which rivalled that of

Egypt. The Egyptian monarch soon learned to his cost that the

Hittite prince was as 'great' a king as himself, and could

summon to his aid the inhabitants of the unknown north.

Pharaoh's claim to sovereignty was disputed by adversaries as

powerful as the ruler of Egypt, if indeed not more powerful,

and there was always a refuge among them for those who were

oppressed by the Egyptian king. When, however, we speak of a

Hittite empire, we must understand clearly what that means. It

was not an empire like that of Rome, where the subject

provinces were consolidated together under a central

authority, obeying the same laws and the same supreme head. It

was not an empire like that of the Persians, or of the

Assyrian successors of Tiglath-pileser III., which represented

the organised union of numerous states and nations under a

single ruler. … Before the days of Tiglath-pileser, in fact,

empire in Western Asia meant the power of a prince to force a

foreign people to submit to his rule. The conquered provinces

had to be subdued again and again; but as long as this could

be done, as long as the native struggles for freedom could be

crushed by a campaign, so long did the empire exist. It was an

empire of this sort that the Hittites established in Asia

Minor. How long it lasted we cannot say. But so long as the

distant races of the West answered the summons to war of the

Hittite princes, it remained a reality. The fact that the

tribes of the Troad and Lydia are found fighting under the

command of the Hittite kings of Kadesh, proves that they

acknowledged the supremacy of their Hittite lords, and

followed them to battle like the vassals of some feudal chief.

If Hittite armies had not marched to the shores of the Ægean,

and Hittite princes been able from time to time to exact

homage from the nations of the far west, Egypt would not have

had to contend against the populations of Asia Minor in its

wars with the Hittites, and the figures of Hittite warriors

would not have been sculptured on the rocks of Karabel. There

was a time when the Hittite name was feared as far as the

western extremity of Asia Minor, and when Hittite satraps had

their seat in the future capital of Lydia. Traditions of this

period lingered on into classical days."

A. H. Sayee,

The Hittites,

chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

W. Wright,

The Empire of the Hittites.

See, also,

AMORITES; and ITALY, ANCIENT: EARLY ITALIANS.

HIVITES, The.

The "Midlanders," who dwelt in the middle of Canaan when the

Israelites invaded it.

See AMALEKITES.

HLÆFDIGE.

See LADY.

HLAFORD.

See LORD.

HLUDWIG.

See LOUIS.

HOARD.

HORDERE.

See STALLER.

HOBKIRK'S HILL, Battle of (1781).

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

HOCHE, Campaigns of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER),

PROGRESS OF THE WAR; 1794-1796; 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

HOCHELAGA.

The name of an Indian village found by Cartier on the site of

the present city of Montreal. An extensive region of

surrounding country seems to have likewise borne the name

Hochelaga, and Cartier calls the river St. Lawrence "the river

of Hochelaga," or "the great river of Canada."

See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535,

and CANADA: NAMES.

HOCHHEIM, The storming of.

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

HOCHKIRCH, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

HÖCHST, Battle of (1622).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

----------HOCHSTADT: Start--------

HOCHSTADT, Battle of (1704).

The great battle which English historians name from the

village of Blenheim, is named by the French from the

neighboring town of Hochstadt.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

HOCHSTADT: Battle of (1800).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

----------HOCHSTADT: End--------

{1657}

HODEIBIA, Truce of.

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

HOFER, Andrew, and the Tyrolese revolt.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809-1810 (APRIL-FEBRUARY).

HOHENFRIEDBERG, Battle of (1745).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

HOHENLINDEN, Battle of (1800).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

HOHENSTAUFEN OR SUABIAN FAMILY, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268;

and ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to A. D. 1183-1250.

HOHENZOLLERN:

Rise of the House of.

"Hohenzollern lies far south in Schwaben (Suabia), on the

sunward slope of the Rauhe-Alp Country; no great way north

from Constance and its Lake; but well aloft, near the springs

of the Danube; its back leaning on the Black Forest; it is

perhaps definable as the southern summit of that same huge old

Hercynian Wood, which is still called the Schwarzwald (Black

Forest), though now comparatively bare of trees. Fanciful

Dryasdust, doing a little etymology, will tell you the name

'Zollern' is equivalent to 'Tollery' or Place of Tolls.

Whereby Hohenzollern' comes to mean the 'High' or Upper

'Tollery';—and gives one the notion of antique pedlars

climbing painfully, out of Italy and the Swiss valleys, thus

far; unstrapping their packhorses here, and chaffering in

unknown dialect about 'toll.' Poor souls;—it may be so, but

we do not know, nor shall it concern us. This only is known:

That a human kindred, probably of some talent for coercing

anarchy and guiding mankind, had, centuries ago, built its

'Burg' there, and done that function in a small but creditable

way ever since."

T. Carlyle,

Frederick the Great,

book 2, chapter 5.

"The title, Count of Zollern, was conferred by Henry IV. in

the eleventh century. … In 1190 Henry VI. appointed the

Count of Zollern to the imperial office of Burgrave of

Nuremberg. By fortunate marriages and prudent purchases, his

descendants, who retained the office, gradually acquired

extensive estates in Franconia, Moravia, and Burgundy, and

their wisdom and growing power steadily increased their weight

in the councils of the German princes. … Frederick VI. was

enriched by Sigismund with large gifts of money, and was made

his deputy in Brandenburg in 1411. The marches were in utter

confusion, under the feuds and ravages of the unrestrained

knighthood. Frederick reduced them to order, and at the

Council of Constance, in 1417, received from Sigismund the

margraviate of Brandenburg with the dignity of Elector."

C. T. Lewis,

History of Germany,

book 3, chapter 12, section 1.

See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168-1417.

HOHENZOLLERN INCIDENT, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY).

----------HOLLAND: Start--------

HOLLAND:

The country and its Name.

See NETHERLANDS.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1430.

Absorbed in the dominions of the House of Burgundy.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1417-1430.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1477.

The "Great Privilege" granted by Mary of Burgundy.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1488-1491.

The Bread and Cheese War.

End of the Party of the Hooks.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1494.

The Great Privilege disputed by Philip the Handsome.

Friesland detached.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1506-1609.

The Austro-Spanish tyranny.

Revolt and independence of the United Provinces.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519, to 1594-1609.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1651-1660.

Supremacy in the Republic of the United Provinces.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1651-1660.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1665-1747.

Wars with England and France.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1665-1666.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1746.

The restored Stadtholdership.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1787.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1793-1810.

French invasion and conquest.

The Batavian Republic.

The kingdom of Louis Bonaparte.

Annexation to France.

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

1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY);

and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1813-1814.

Independence regained.

Belgium annexed.

The kingdom of the Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1813;

FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);

and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

HOLLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

Dissolution of the kingdom of the Netherlands.

Creation of the kingdoms of Holland and Belgium.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.

----------HOLLAND: Start--------

HOLLAND PURCHASE, The.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

HOLLY SPRINGS, Confederate capture.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (DECEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

HOLOCAUST.

"The sacrifice of a whole burnt-offering, where nothing was

kept back for the enjoyment of men," was called a holocaust by

the ancient Greeks.

G. F. Schömann,

Antiquities of Greece: The State,

page 60.

----------HOLSTEIN: Start--------

HOLSTEIN: A. D. 1848-1866.

The Schleswig-Holstein question.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862;

and GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

HOLSTEIN: A. D. 1866.

Annexation to Prussia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

----------HOLSTEIN: End--------

HOLY ALLIANCE, The.

"The document called the Holy Alliance was originally sketched

at Paris [during the occupation of the French capital by the

Allies, after Waterloo, in 1815], in the French language, by

[the Czar] Alexander's own hand, after a long and animated

conversation with Madame de Krüdener and Bergasse. It was

suggested, perhaps, by words spoken by the king of Prussia

after the battle of Bautzen, but was chiefly the result of the

influence, upon a mind always inclined to religious ideas, of

the conversation of Madame de Krüdener and of the philosopher

Bader, the admirer of Tauler, Jacob Boehm, and St. Martin, the

deadly foe of Kant and his successors in Germany. … The Czar

dreamt of founding a Communion of states, bound together by

the first principles of Christianity. … The king of Prussia

signed the paper from motives of friendship for the Czar,

without attaching much importance to what he did. … The

emperor of Austria, the least sentimental of mankind, at first

declined to sign, 'because,' he said, 'if the secret is a

political one, I must tell it, to Metternich; if it is a

religious one, I must tell it to my confessor.' Metternich

accordingly was told; and observed scornfully, 'C'est du

verbiage.'

{1658}

Indeed no one of the princes who adhered to the Holy Alliance,

with the single exception of Alexander himself, ever took it

seriously. It was doomed from its birth. As M. de Bernhardi

observes: 'It sank without leaving a trace in the stream of

events, never became a reality, and never had the slightest

real importance.' What had real importance was the continuance

of the good understanding between the powers who had put down

Napoleon, and their common fear of France. This good

understanding and that common fear led to the treaty of the

20th November 1815, by which it was stipulated that the Powers

should, from time to time, hold Congresses with a view to

regulating the welfare of nations and the peace of Europe. It

was these Congresses, and not the Holy Alliance, which kept up

close relations between the rulers of Russia, Prussia, and

Austria, and enabled them, when the liberal movement on the

Continent, which followed the conclusion of the war, began to

be alarming, to take measures for a combined system of

repression."

M. E. G. Duff,

Studies in European Polities,

chapter 2.

The text of the Treaty is as follows:

"In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity: Holy

Alliance of Sovereigns of Austria, Prussia, and Russia. Their

Majesties the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia, and the

Emperor of Russia, having, in consequence of the great events

which have marked the course of the three last years in

Europe, and especially of the blessings which it has pleased

Divine Providence to shower down upon those States which place

their confidence and their hope on it alone, acquired the

intimate conviction of the necessity of settling the steps to

be observed by the Powers, in their reciprocal relations, upon

the sublime truths which the Holy Religion of our Saviour

teaches; They solemnly declare that the present Act has no

other object than to publish, in the face of the whole world,

their fixed resolution, both in the administration of their

respective States, and in their political relations with every

other Government, to take for their sole guide the precepts of

that Holy Religion, namely, the precepts of Justice, Christian

Charity, and Peace, which, far from being applicable only to

private concerns, must have an immediate influence on the

councils of Princes, and guide all their steps, as being the

only means of consolidating human institutions and remedying

their imperfections. In consequence, their Majesties have

agreed on the following Articles:—

Art. I. Conformably to the words of the Holy Scriptures,

which command all men to consider each other as brethren,

the Three contracting Monarchs will remain united by the

bonds of a true and indissoluble fraternity, and

considering each other as fellow countrymen, they will, on

all occasions and in all places, lend each other aid and

assistance; and, regarding themselves towards their

subjects and armies as fathers of families, they will lead

them, in the same spirit of fraternity with which they are

animated, to protect Religion, Peace, and Justice.

Art II. In consequence, the sole principle of force,

whether between the said Governments or between their

Subjects, shall be that of doing each other reciprocal

service, and of testifying by unalterable good will the

mutual affection with which they ought to be animated, to

consider themselves all as members of one and the same

Christian nation; the three allied Princes looking on

themselves as merely delegated by Providence to govern

three branches of the One family, namely, Austria, Prussia,

and Russia, thus confessing that the Christian world, of

which they and their people form a part, has in reality no

other Sovereign than Him to whom alone power really

belongs, because in Him alone are found all the treasures

of love, science, and infinite wisdom, that is to say, God,

our Divine Saviour, the Word of the Most High, the Word of

Life. Their Majesties consequently recommend to their

people, with the most tender solicitude, as the sole means

of enjoying that Peace which arises from a good conscience,

and which alone is durable, to strengthen themselves every

day more and more in the principles and exercise of the

duties which the Divine Saviour has taught to mankind.

Art. III. All the Powers who shall choose solemnly to avow

the sacred principles which have dictated the present Act,

and shall acknowledge how important it is for the happiness

of nations, too long agitated, that these truths should

henceforth exercise over the destinies of mankind all the

influence which belongs to them, will be received with

equal ardour and affection into this Holy Alliance. Done in

triplicate, and signed at Paris, the year of Grace 1815,

14/26th September."

"It is stated in 'Martens' Treaties' that the greater part of

the Christian Powers acceded to this Treaty. France acceded to

it in 1815; the Netherlands and Wurtemberg did so in 1816; and

Saxony, Switzerland, and the Hansa Towns in 1817. But neither

the Pope nor the Sultan were invited to accede."

E. Hertslet,

Map of Europe by Treaty,

volume 1, number 36, pages 317-319.

"The Treaty of the Holy Alliance was not graced with the name

of the Prince Regent [of Great Britain], but the Czar received

a letter declaring that his principles had the personal

approval of this great authority on religion and morality. The

Kings of Naples and Sardinia were the next to subscribe, and

in due time the names of the witty glutton, Louis XVIII., and

of the abject Ferdinand of Spain were added."

C. A. Fyffe,

History of Modern Europe,

volume 2, chapter 1.

"Metternich, the worldly-wise, smiled at this manifesto as

'nothing more than a philanthropic aspiration clothed in a

religious garb.' He suspected that the evil-minded would

misinterpret and that the jokers would ridicule it, but none

knew better than he the flimsiness of diplomatic agreements,

and accordingly he consented to it. Christianity has had many

crimes committed in its name; the Holy Alliance made

Christianity the cloak under which the kings of Europe

conspired to perpetuate the helotage of their subjects.

Metternich found it all the easier to direct kings whose

common interest it was to uphold the paternal system therein

approved. He exerted his influence over each of them

separately; if the monarch were obdurate, he wheedled his

minister; if the minister were wary, he prejudiced the monarch

against him. Now by flattery, and now by specious argument, he

won his advantage. … Like a trickster at cards, he marked

every card in the pack and could always play the ace. … He

told the truth when he knew it would not be believed; he

prevaricated when he intended his falsehood should pass for

truth. This was diplomacy, these the 'Christian precepts' by

which one hundred and fifty millions of Europeans were

governed.

{1659}

In a society where everyone lies, falsehoods of equal cunning

nullify each other. Metternich took care that his should excel

in verisimilitude and in subtlety. It was an open battle of

craft; but his craft was as superior to that of his

competitors as a slow, undetectable poison is more often fatal

than the hasty stab of a bravo. He fished both with hooks and

nets; if one broke, the other held. … He was, we may affirm,

sincerely insincere; strongly attached to the Hapsburg

dynasty, and patriotic in so far as the aggrandizement of that

House corresponded with the interests of the Austrian State.

But the central figure in his perspective was always himself,

whom he regarded as the savior of a social order whose

preservation held back the world from chaos. … He spoke of

his mission as an 'apostolate.' … To resist all

change,—that was his policy; to keep the surface

smooth,—that was his peace. … He likened himself to a

spider, spinning a vast web. 'I begin to know the world well,'

he said, 'and I believe that the flies are eaten by the

spiders only because they die naturally so young that they

have no time to gain experience, and do not know what is the

nature of a spider's web.' How many flies he caught during his

forty years' spinning! but his success, he admitted, was due

quite as much to their blindness as to his cunning. … He

seemed to delight in royal conferences in order that he might

have the excitement of manipulating Alexander and Frederick

William; for his own Emperor, Francis, was as pliable as putty

in his hands. Such was Metternich, 'the most worldly, the most

dexterous, the most fortunate of politicians,' the embodiment

of that Old Régime strangely interpolated in the nineteenth

century. Knowing him, we shall know the nature of the

resistance which checked every patriotic impulse, every effort

towards progress in Italy, between 1815 and 1848. Few names

have been hated as his was hated, or feared as his was feared.

The Italians pictured to themselves a monster, a worse than

Herod, who gloated over human suffering, and spent his time in

inventing new tortures for his victims. He regarded them, and

all liberals, as natural enemies to the order in which he

flourished; and he had no more mercy for them than the Spanish

Inquisitors had for heretics."

W. R. Thayer,

The Dawn of Italian Independence,

book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

HOLY BROTHERHOOD, OR HERMANDAD, The.

Before the close of the 13th century, there first arose in

Spain "an anomalous institution peculiar to Castile, which

sought to secure the public tranquillity by means scarcely

compatible themselves with civil subordination. I refer to the

celebrated Hermandad, or Holy Brotherhood, as the association

was sometimes called,—a name familiar to most readers in the

lively fictions of Le Sage, though conveying there no very

adequate idea of the extraordinary functions which it assumed

at the period under review [13th-14th centuries]. Instead of a

regularly organized police, it then consisted of a

confederation of the principal cities, bound together by a

solemn league and covenant for the defence of their liberties

in seasons of civil anarchy. Its affairs were conducted by

deputies, who assembled at stated intervals for this purpose,

transacting their business under a common seal, enacting laws

which they were careful to transmit to the nobles and even the

sovereign himself, and enforcing their measures by an armed

force. … One hundred cities associated in the Hermandad of

1315. In that of 1295, were thirty-four. The knights and

inferior nobility frequently made part of the association. …

In one of [the articles of confederation] it is declared that

if any noble shall deprive a member of the association of his

property, and refuse restitution, his house shall be razed to

the ground. In another, that if any one, by command of the

king, shall attempt to collect an unlawful tax, he shall be

put to death on the spot." Under the government of Ferdinand

and Isabella, among the measures adopted for checking the

license and disorder which had become prevalent in Castile,

and restoring a more effective administration of justice, was

one for a reorganization of the Santa Hermandad. "The project

for the reorganization of this institution was introduced into

the cortes held, the year after Isabella's accession, at

Madrigal, 1476. … The new institution differed essentially

from the ancient hermandades, since, instead of being partial

in its extent, it was designed to embrace the whole kingdom;

and, instead of being directed, as had often been the case,

against the crown itself, it was set in motion at the

suggestion of the latter, and limited in its operation to the

maintenance of public order. The crimes reserved for its

jurisdiction were all violence or theft committed on the

highways or in the open country, and in cities by such

offenders as escaped into the country; house-breaking; rape;

and resistance of justice. … An annual contribution of

18,000 maravedis was assessed on every 100 vecinos or

householders, for the equipment and maintenance of a horseman,

whose duty it was to arrest offenders and enforce the sentence

of the law. On the flight of a criminal, the tocsins of the

villages through which he was supposed to have passed were

sounded, and the quadrilleros or officers of the brotherhood,

stationed on the different points, took up the pursuit with

such promptness as left little chance of escape. A court of

two alcaldes was established in every town containing thirty

families, for the trial of all crimes within the jurisdiction

of the hermandad; and an appeal lay from them in specified

cases to a supreme council. A general junta, composed of

deputies from the cities throughout the kingdom was annually

convened for the regulation of affairs, and their instructions

were transmitted to provincial juntas, who superintended the

execution of them. … Notwithstanding the popular

constitution of the hermandad, and the obvious advantages

attending its introduction at this juncture, it experienced so

decided an opposition from the nobility, who discerned the

check it was likely to impose on their authority, that it

required all the queen's address and perseverance to effect

its general adoption. … The important benefits resulting

from the institution of the hermandad secured its confirmation

by successive cortes, for the period of 22 years, in spite of

the repeated opposition of the aristocracy. At length, in

1498, the objects for which it was established having been

completely obtained, it was deemed advisable to relieve the

nation from the heavy charges which its maintenance imposed.

The great salaried officers were dismissed; a few subordinate

functionaries were retained for the administration of justice,

over whom the regular courts of criminal law possessed appellate

jurisdiction; and the magnificent apparatus of the Santa

Hermandad, stripped of all but the terrors of its name,

dwindled into an ordinary police, such as it has existed, with

various modifications of form, down to the present century."

W. H. Prescott,

History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,

introduction, section 1, with foot-note,

and part 1, chapter 6.

{1660}

HOLY BROTHERHOOD IN MEXICO.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1535-1822.

HOLY GHOST, The military Order of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

HOLY JUNTA, The.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.

----------HOLY LEAGUES: Start--------

HOLY LEAGUES:

Pope Julius II. against Louis XII. of France.

See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

Pope Clement VII. against Charles V.

See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.

German Catholic princes against the Protestant League of

Smalcald.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.

Spain, Venice and Pope Pius V. against the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

Of the Catholic party in the Religious Wars of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585, to 1593-1598.

Pope Innocent XI., the Emperor, Venice, Poland and Russia

against the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

----------HOLY LEAGUES: End--------

HOLY LION, Battle of the (1568).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572.

HOLY OFFICE, The.

See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE:

Its origin.

See ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 963.

Its extinction.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

HOLY ROOD OF SCOTLAND, The.

"A certified fragment of the true cross preserved in a shrine

of gold or silver gilt. It was brought over by St. Margaret,

and left as a sacred legacy to her descendants and their

kingdom. … The rood had been the sanctifying relic round

which King David I. raised the house of canons regular of the

Holy Rood, devoted to the rule of St. Augustin, at Edinburgh.

The kings of Scotland afterwards found it so convenient to

frequent this religious house that they built alongside of it

a royal residence or palace, well known to the world as

Holyrood House."

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

chapter 20 (volume 2).

The Holy Rood, or Black Rood as it was sometimes called, was

carried away from Scotland, along with the "coronation stone,"

by Edward I. of England, afterwards got back by treaty, and

then lost again at the battle of Neville's Cross, from which

it went as a trophy to Durham Abbey.

HOLY WAR, Mahometan.

See DAR-UL-ISLAM.

HOMAGE.

See FEUDAL TENURES.

HOME RULE MOVEMENT, The Irish.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879, to 1893.

HOMER AND THE HOMERIC POEMS.

"When we use the word Homer, we do not mean a person

historically known to us, like Pope or Milton. We mean in the

main the author, whoever or whatever he was, of the wonderful

poems called respectively, not by the author, but by the

world, the 'Iliad' and the 'Odyssey.' His name is

conventional, and its sense in etymology is not very different

from that which would be conveyed by our phrase, 'the author.'

… At the first dawn of the historic period, we find the

poems established in popular renown; and so prominent that a

school of minstrels takes the name of 'Homeridæ' from making

it their business to preserve and to recite them. Still, the

question whether the poems as we have them can be trusted,

whether they present substantially the character of what may

be termed original documents, is one of great but gradually

diminishing difficulty. It is also of importance, because of

the nature of their contents. In the first place, they give a

far greater amount of information than is to be found in any

other literary production of the same compass. In the second

place, that information, speaking of it generally, is to be

had nowhere else. In the third place, it is information of the

utmost interest, and even of great moment. It introduces to

us, in the very beginnings of their experience, the most

gifted people of the world, and enables us to judge how they

became such as in later times we know them. … And this

picture is exhibited with such a fulness both of particulars

and of vital force, that perhaps never in any country has an

age been so completely placed upon record. … We are …

probably to conceive of Homer as of a Bard who went from place

to place to earn his bread by his profession, to exercise his

knowledge in his gift of song, and to enlarge it by an

ever-active observation of nature and experience of men. …

It has … been extensively believed that he was a Greek of

Asia Minor. And as there were no Greeks of Asia Minor at the

time of the Trojan War, nor until a wide and searching

revolution in the peninsula had substituted Dorian manners for

those of the earlier Achaian age, which Homer sang, this

belief involves the further proposition that the poet was

severed by a considerable interval of time from the subjects

of his verse. The last-named opinion depends very much upon

the first; and the first chiefly, if not wholly, upon a

perfectly vague tradition, which has no pretence to an

historical character. … The question … has to be decided …

by the internal evidence of the poems. This evidence, I

venture to say, strongly supports the belief that Homer was an

European, and if an European, then certainly also an Achaian

Greek: a Greek, that is to say, of the pre-Doric period, when

the Achaian name prevailed and principally distinguished the

race. … Until the 18th century of our era was near its

close, it may be said that all generations had believed Troy

was actually Troy, and Homer in the main Homer; neither taking

the one for a fable, or (quaintest of all dreams) for a symbol

of solar phenomena, nor resolving the other into a multiform

assemblage of successive bards, whose verses were at length

pieced together by a clever literary tailor. … After

slighter premonitory movements, it was Wolf that made, by the

publication of his 'Prolegomena' in 1795, the serious attack.

… Wolf maintained that available writing was not known at,

or till long after, the period of their composition; and that

works of such length, not intrusted to the custody of written

characters, could not have been transmitted through a course

of generations with any approach to fidelity. Therefore they

could only be a number of separate songs, brought together at

a later date."

W. E. Gladstone,

Homer (Literature Primers),

chapters 1-2.

{1661}

"Homeric geography is entirely pre-Dorian. Total

unconsciousness of any such event as the Dorian invasion

reigns both in the Iliad and Odyssey. … A silence so

remarkable can be explained only by the simple supposition

that when they were composed the revolution in question had

not yet occurred. Other circumstances confirm this view."

A. M. Clerke,

Familiar Studies in Homer,

chapter 1.

"It is … in the discoveries of Dr. Schliemann that we have

the impulse which seems to be sending the balance over towards

the belief in the European instead of in the Asiatic origin of

the poems. We now know that at the very point which Homer

makes the chief royal city of Greece there did, in fact, exist

a civilisation which did, in fact, offer just the conditions

for the rise of a poetry such as the Homeric—a great city

'rich in gold,' with a cultivation of the material arts such

as is wont to go hand in hand with the growth of poetry. …

See GREECE: MYCENÆ AND ITS KINGS.

It is no longer possible to doubt that the world which the

poems describe was one which really existed in the place where

they put it. Even in details the poems have received striking

illustration from the remains of Mykenai. … It appears that

we may date the oldest part of the Iliad at least to some time

before the Dorian invasion, which, according to the

traditional chronology, took place about 1000 B. C. … But

the poems can hardly be much earlier than the invasion; for

there are various signs which indicate that the civilisation

which they depict had made some advance beyond that of which

we find the material remains in the 'shaft tombs,' discovered

by Dr. Schliemann in the Acropolis of Mykenai. And the date of

these has now been fixed by Mr. Petrie, from comparison with

Egyptian remains, at about 1150. We can therefore hardly be

far wrong, if the poems were composed in Achaian Greece, in

dating their origin at about 1050 B. C. There still remains

the question of the historical basis which may underlie the

story of the Iliad. The poem may give us a true picture of

Achaian Greece and its civilisation, and yet be no proof that

the armies of Agamemnon fought beneath the walls of Troy. But

here again the discoveries of recent years, and notably those

of Schliemann at Hissarlik, have tended on the whole to

confirm the belief that there is a historic reality behind the

tale of Troy. … The hypothesis that the Iliad and Odyssey

are the work of more than one poet … is one which has been

gaining ground ever since it was seriously taken up and argued

at length by Wolf in his famous 'Prolegomena,' just a century

ago. But it has from the first encountered strong opposition,

and is still regarded, in England at least, as the heretical

view."

W. Leaf,

Companion to the Iliad,

introd.

"It seems clear that the author or authors of the Iliad and

Odyssey lived long before the time when Æolian, Ionian,

Dorian, were the three great tribal names of Greece, and far

from the coast on which these three names were attached to

successive portions of territory. If we are to decide the

ancient controversy about the birthplace of Homer, we must

turn away from Asia, and set ourselves to consider the claims

of three districts of Greece proper: Thessaly, the home of the

chief hero and the most ancient worship; Bœotia, the ancient

seat of the Muses, and the first in the very ancient (if not

actually Homeric) muster-roll of the ships; and Argolis, the

seat of Achæan empire."

D. B. Monro,

Homer and the Early History of Greece

(English Historical Review, January, 1886).

"I hold that the original nucleus of the Iliad was due to a

single Achaean poet, living in Thessaly before the immigration

which partly displaced the primitive Hellenes there. This

primary Iliad may have been as old as the eleventh century B.

C. It was afterwards brought by Achaean emigrants to Ionia,

and there enlarged by successive Ionian poets. The original

nucleus of the Odyssey was also composed, probably, in Greece

proper, before the Dorian conquest of the Peloponnesus; was

carried to Ionia by emigrants whom the conquerors drove out;

and was there expanded into an epic which blends the local

traits of its origin with the spirit of Ionian adventure and

Ionian society."

R. C. Jebb,

The growth and influence of Classical Greek Poetry,

page 14.

R. C. Jebb,

Homer: An Introduction to the Iliad and the Odyssey.

"We accept the Iliad as one epic by one hand. The

inconsistencies which are the basis of the opposite theory

seem to us reconcileable in many places, in others greatly

exaggerated. … To us the hypothesis of a crowd of great

harmonious poets, working for centuries at the Iliad, and

sinking their own fame and identity in Homer's, appears more

difficult of belief than the opinion that one great poet may

make occasional slips and blunders." As for the Odyssey, "we

have … to deal with critics who do not recognise the unity,

the marshalling of incidents towards a given end. We have to

do with critics who find, in place of unity, patchwork and

compilation, and evident traces of diverse dates, and diverse

places of composition. Thus argument is inefficient,

demonstration is impossible, and the final judge must be the

opinion of the most trustworthy literary critics and of

literary tradition. These are unanimous, as against the

'microscope-men,' in favor of the unity of the Odyssey."

A. Lang,

Homer and the Epic,

chapters 7 and 13.

HOMERITES, The.

See ABYSSINIA: 6TH TO 16TH CENTURIES.

HOMESTEAD ACT, The.

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

HOMILDON HILL, Battle of.

A victory for the English, under "Hotspur," over a raiding

army of the Scots, A. D. 1402. It was won almost entirely by

the English cross-bow. By some historians it is called the

Battle of Humbledon.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1400-1436.

HOMOOUSION AND HOMOIOUSION.

SEE ARIANISM.

HOMS, Battle of (1832).

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

HONDSCHOTTEN, Battle of (1793).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

----------HONDURAS: Start--------

HONDURAS:

Aboriginal inhabitants.

Ruins of Ancient Civilization.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS, and QUICHES.

HONDURAS: A. D. 1502.

Discovery by Columbus.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.

HONDURAS: A. D. 1524.

Conquest by Olid and Cortes.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1521-1524.

{1662}

HONDURAS: A. D. 1821-1871.

Separation from Spain and independence.

Brief annexation to Mexico.

Attempted federations and their failure.

The British colony.

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

----------HONDURAS: End--------

HONDURAS, British: A. D. 1850.

The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

HONE, William, The Trials of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

HONEIN, Battle of.

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

HONG-KONG: A. D. 1842.

Ceded to Great Britain.

See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

HONG MERCHANTS.

See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

HONORIUS,

Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 395-423.

Honorius I., Pope, 625-638.

Honorius II., Pope, 1124-1130.

Honorius III., Pope, 1216-1227.

Honorius IV., Pope, 1285-1287;

HONOURS, Escheated.

"When a great barony by forfeiture or escheat fell into the

hands of the [English] crown, instead of being incorporated

with the general body of the county or counties in which it

lay, it retained a distinct corporate existence and the whole

apparatus of jurisdiction which it had possessed before. Under

the title of an Honour, it either continued in the possession

of the king and was farmed like a shire, or was granted out

again to another lord as a hereditary fief."

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 11, section 129 (volume 1).

HOOD, General John B.

The Atlanta campaign.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864

(MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA) to (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

HOOKER, General Joseph, Commander of the Army of the Potomac.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JANUARY-APRIL: VIRGINIA),

and (APRIL-MAY: VIRGINIA).

Transfer to Chattanooga.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

At Chattanooga.—The Battle above the Clouds.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863

(OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

HOOKS AND KABELJAUWS, OR HOOKS AND CODS.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1345-1354;

also, 1482-1493.

HOOVER'S GAP, Battle at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: TENNESSEE).

HOPLITES.

Heavy-armed foot-soldiers of the Greeks.

See PHYLÆ.

HORESTII, The.

See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

HORIKANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HORIKANS.

HORITES, The.

The aborigines of Canaan,—dwellers in caves, Troglodytes. "At

the time of the Israelitish conquest … there still existed

many remains of the Aborigines scattered through the land.

They were then ordinarily designated by a name which suggests

very different ideas—Rephaim, or Giants."

H. Ewald,

History of Israel, introduction,

section 4.

F. Lenormant considers the Rephaim a distinct race, divided

into the Rephaim of Bashan, the Emim, the Zamzummim, the Zumim

and the Anakim.

Manual of Ancient History,

book 6, chapter 1.

See, also,

JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY.

HORMUZ, Battle of.

The decisive battle, fought A. D. 226, on the plain of Hormuz,

in Persia Proper, in which the Parthian monarchy was

overthrown, its last king, Artabanus, slain, and the New

Persian, or Sassanian empire established by Artaxerxes I.

G. Rawlinson,

Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 3.

HORN, Count, and the struggle in the Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

HORN, Cape.

Discovered by Drake (1578).

See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

HORTENSIAN LAWS, The.

See ROME: B. C. 286.

HOSEIN, The martyrdom of.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 680.

HOSPES.

HOSPITES.

HOSPITIUM.

"In the earlier stages of society, especially in Greece and

Italy, where the population consisted of numerous independent

tribes constantly at variance with each other, every stranger

was looked upon with suspicion. … Hence it became common for

a person who was engaged in commerce, or any other occupation

which might compel him to visit a foreign country, to form

previously a connection with a citizen of that country, who

might be ready to receive him as a friend and act as his

protector. Such a connection was always strictly reciprocal.

… An alliance of this description was termed Hospitium, the

parties who concluded it were termed Hospites in relation to

each other, and thus the word Hospes bore a double

signification, denoting, according to circumstances, either an

entertainer or a guest. The obligations imposed by the

covenant were regarded as of the most sacred character. …

The league of Hospitium, when once formed, was hereditary. …

The parties interchanged tokens, by which they or their

descendants might recognise each other. This token, called

'tessera hospitalis,' was carefully preserved. … In process

of time, among both the Greeks and Romans, it became common

for a state, when it desired to pay a marked compliment to any

individual, to pass a resolution declaring him the Hospes of

the whole community."

W. Ramsay,

Manual of Roman Antiquity,

chapter 3.

----------HOSPITALLERS: Start--------

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM, The Knights:

A. D. 1115-1310.

The origin and rise of the order.

"Some citizens of Amalfi, in Italy, who traded to the East,

had [some time before the first crusade], with the permission

of the Egyptian khaleefeh, built a convent near the church of

the Resurrection [at Jerusalem], which was dedicated to the

Virgin, and named Santa Maria de Latina, whose abbot and monks

were to receive and entertain pilgrims from the West. A

nunnery was afterwards added, and as the confluence of

pilgrims increased, a new 'hospitium' was erected, dedicated

to St. John Eleëmon ('compassionate'), a former patriarch of

Alexandria, or, as is asserted, with perhaps more probability,

to St. John the Baptist. This hospital was supported by the

bounty of the abbot of Sta. Maria and the alms of the

faithful, and the sick and poor of the pilgrims here met with

attention and kindness. At the time of the taking of

Jerusalem, Gerhard, a native of Provence, presided over the

hospital; and the care taken by him and his brethren of the

sick and wounded of the crusaders won them universal favour.

Godfrey bestowed on them his domain of Monboire, in Brabant;

his example was followed by others, and the brethren of the

Hospital soon found themselves rich enough to separate from

the monastery.

{1663}

They adopted the rule of the Augustinian canons, and assumed

for their habit a black mantle, with a white cross of eight

points on the left breast. Many knights who had come to Asia

to combat the Infidels now laid aside their swords, and, as

brethren of the Hospital, devoted themselves to the tending of

the sick and relieving of the poor. Among these was a knight

of Dauphiné, named Raymond Dupuy, who, on the death of

Gerhard, was chosen to be his successor in office. Raymond, in

the year 1118, gave the order its first regular organization."

T. Keightley,

The Crusaders,

chapter 2.

To Raymond Dupuy "the Order owed its distinctly military

character, and that wonderful organization, combining the care

of the sick and poor with the profession of arms, which

characterized the Knights of St. John during all their

subsequent history. … A new and revised constitution was

drawn up, by which it was provided that there should be three

classes of members. First, the Knights, who should bear arms

and form a military body for service in the field against the

enemies of Christ in general, and of the kingdom of Jerusalem

in particular. These were to be of necessity men of noble or

gentle birth. Secondly, the Clergy, or Chaplains. … Thirdly,

the Serving Brethren, who were not required to be men of rank,

and who acted as Esquires to the Knights, and assisted in the

care of the hospitals. All persons of these three classes were

considered alike members of the Order, and took the usual

three monastic vows, and wore the armorial bearings of the

Order, and enjoyed its rights and privileges. As the Order

spread and the number of its members and convents increased,

it was found desirable to divide it further into nations or

'Langes' [tongues, or languages], of which there were

ultimately seven, viz., those of Provence, Auvergne, France,

Italy, Aragon, Germany, and England. The habit was a black

robe with a cowl, having a cross of white linen of eight

points upon the left breast. This was at first worn by all

Hospitallers, to whichever of the three classes they belonged;

but Pope Alexander IV. afterwards ordered that the Knights

should be distinguished by a white cross upon a red ground.

… It was not long before the new Order found a field for the

exercise of its arms. … From this time the Hospitallers were

always found in the ranks of the Christian army in every

battle that was fought with the Moslems, and the fame of their

gallantry and bravery soon spread far and wide, and attracted

fresh recruits to their ranks from the noblest families of

every country of Europe. They became the right hand of the

King of Jerusalem," sharing the fortunes of the nominal

kingdom for nearly two centuries, and almost sharing its

ultimate fate. The handful who escaped from Acre in 1291 (see

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291) took refuge in Cyprus and rallied there

the Knights scattered in other lands. Rebuilding and

fortifying the town of Limisso, they made that their citadel

and capital for a few years, finding a new vocation for their

pious valor. They now took up war upon the naval side, and

turned their arms specially against the Moslem pirates of the

Mediterranean. They fitted out armed ships "which began to

cruise between Palestine and European ports, conveying

pilgrims, rescuing captives, and engaging and capturing the

enemy's galleys." But not finding in Cyprus the independence

they desired, the Knights, ere long, established themselves in

a more satisfactory home on the island of Rhodes.

F. C. Woodhouse,

Military Religious Orders of the Middle Ages,

part 1, chapter 3-6.

ALSO IN:

Abbe de Vertot,

History of the Knights Hospitallers,

books 1-3 (volume 1).

A. Sutherland,

Achievements of the Knights of Malta,

chapters 1-9 (volume 1).

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1310.

Conquest and occupation of Rhodes.

"The most important conquest of the time … was that of

Rhodes, by the Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem,

both from its durability and from the renown of the

conquerors. The knights had settled in Cyprus after they had

been expelled from Acre, but they were soon discontented to

remain as vassals of the King of Cyprus. They aspired to form

a sovereign state, but it was not easy to make any conquests

from the Infidels in a position which they could hope to

maintain for any length of time. They therefore solicited

permission from the Pope to turn their arms against the

Greeks. His Holiness applauded their Christian zeal, and

bestowed on them innumerable blessings and indulgences,

besides nine thousand ducats to aid their enterprise. Under

the pretext of a crusade for the recovery of Christ's tomb,

the knights collected a force with which they besieged Rhodes.

So great was their contempt for the Greek emperor that they

sent an embassy to Constantinople, requiring Adronicus to

withdraw his garrisons, and cede the island and its

dependencies to them as feudatories, offering to supply him

with a subsidiary force of three hundred cavalry. Adronicus

dismissed the ambassadors, and sent an army to raise the

siege; but his troops were defeated, and the knights took the

city of Rhodes on the 15th August, 1310. As sovereigns of this

beautiful island, they were long the bulwark of Christian

Europe against the Turkish power; and the memory of the

chivalrous youth who for successive ages found an early tomb

at this verge of the Christian world, will long shed a

romantic colouring on the history of Rhodes. They sustained

the declining glory of a state of society that was hastening

to become a vision of the past; they were the heroes of a

class of which the Norse sea-kings had been the demigods. The

little realm they governed as an independent state consisted

of Rhodes, with the neighbouring islands of Kos, Kalymnos,

Syme, Leros, Nisyros, Telos, and Chalke; on the opposite

continent they possessed the classic city of Halicarnassus,

and several strong forts, of which the picturesque ruins still

overhang the sea."

G. Finlay,

History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,

book 4, chapter 2 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

W. Porter,

History of the Knights of Malta,

chapters 7-10 (volume 1).

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1482.

Treatment of the Turkish Prince Jemshid or Zizim.

See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1522.

Siege and surrender of Rhodes to the Turks

In 1522, the Turkish sultan, Solyman the Magnificent, "turned

his victorious arms against the island of Rhodes, the seat at

that time of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. This small

state he attacked with such a numerous army as the lords of

Asia have been accustomed, in every age, to bring into the

field. Two hundred thousand men, and a fleet of 400 sail,

appeared against a town defended by a garrison consisting of

5,000 soldiers and 600 knights, under the command of Villiers

de L'Isle Adam, the grand-master, whose wisdom and valour

rendered him worthy of that station at such a dangerous

juncture.

{1664}

No sooner did he begin to suspect the destination of Solyman's

vast armaments than he despatched messengers to all the

Christian courts, imploring their aid against the common

enemy. But though every prince in that age acknowledged Rhodes

to be the great bulwark of Christendom in the East, and

trusted to the gallantry of its knights as the best security

against the progress of the Ottoman arms,—though Adrian,

with a zeal which became the head and father of the Church,

exhorted the contending powers to forget their private

quarrels, and, by uniting their arms, to prevent the infidels

from destroying a society which did honour to the Christian

name,—yet so violent and implacable was the animosity of both

parties [in the wars of the Emperor Charles V. and Francis I.

of France], that, regardless of the danger to which they

exposed all Europe, … they suffered Solyman to carry on his

operations against Rhodes without disturbance. The

grand-master, after incredible efforts of courage, of

patience, and of military conduct, during a siege of six

months,—after sustaining many assaults, and disputing every

post with amazing obstinacy,—was obliged at last to yield to

numbers; and, having obtained an honourable capitulation from

the sultan, who admired and respected his virtue, he

surrendered the town, which was reduced to a heap of rubbish,

and destitute of every resource. Charles and Francis, ashamed

of having occasioned such a loss to Christendom by their

ambitious contests, endeavoured to throw the blame of it on

each other, while all Europe, with greater justice, imputed it

equally to both. The emperor, by way of reparation, granted

the Knights of St. John the small island of Malta, in which

they fixed their residence, retaining, though with less power

and splendour, their ancient spirit and implacable enmity to

the infidels."

W. Robertson,

History of the Reign of Charles V.,

book 2 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

C. Torr,

Rhodes in Modern Times,

chapter 1.

J. S. Brewer,

The Reign of Henry VIII.,

chapter 10 (volume 1).

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1530-1565.

Occupation of Malta.

Improvement and fortification of the island.

The great siege.

The Turks repelled.

"Malta, which had been annexed by Charles [the Fifth's]

predecessors to Sicily, had descended to that monarch as part

of the dominions of the crown of Aragon. In … ceding it to

the Knights of St. John, the politic prince consulted his own

interests quite as much as those of the order. He drew no

revenue from the rocky isle, but, on the contrary, was charged

with its defence against the Moorish corsairs, who made

frequent descents on the spot, wasting the country, and

dragging off the miserable people into slavery. By this

transfer of the island to the military order of St. John, he

not only relieved himself of all further expense on its

account, but secured a permanent bulwark for the protection of

his own dominions. … In October, 1530, L'Isle Adam and his

brave associates took possession of their new domain. … It

was not very long before the wilderness before them was to

blossom like the rose, under their diligent culture. Earth was

brought in large quantities, and at great cost, from Sicily.

Terraces to receive it were hewn in the steep sides of the

rock; and the soil, quickened by the ardent sun of Malta, was

soon clothed with the glowing vegetation of the South. … In

a short time, too, the island bristled with fortifications,

which, combined with its natural defences, enabled its

garrison to defy the attacks of the corsair. To these works

was added the construction of suitable dwellings for the

accommodation of the order. But it was long after, and not

until the land had been desolated by the siege on which we are

now to enter, that it was crowned with the stately edifices

that eclipsed those of Rhodes itself, and made Malta the pride

of the Mediterranean. … Again their galleys sailed forth to

battle with the corsairs, and returned laden with the spoils

of victory. … It was not long before the name of the Knights

of Malta became as formidable on the southern shores of the

Mediterranean as that of the Knights of Rhodes had been in the

East." At length the Turkish sultan, Solyman the Magnificent,

"resolved to signalize the close of his reign by driving the

knights from Malta, as he had the commencement of it by

driving them from Rhodes," and he made his preparations on a

formidable scale. The grand-master of Malta, Jean Parisot de

la Valette, had his spies at Constantinople, and was not long

in ignorance of the Turkish project. He, too, prepared himself

for the encounter with prodigious energy and forethought. He

addressed appeals for help to all the Christian powers. "He

summoned the knights absent in foreign lands to return to

Malta, and take part with their brethren in the coming

struggle. He imported large supplies of provisions and

military stores from Sicily and Spain. He drilled the militia

of the island, and formed an effective body of more than 3,000

men; to which was added a still greater number of Spanish and

Italian troops. … The fortifications were put in repair,

strengthened with outworks, and placed in the best condition

for resisting the enemy. … The whole force which La Valette

could muster in defence of the island amounted to about 9,000

men. This included 700 knights, of whom about 600 had already

arrived [when the siege began]. The remainder were on their

way; and joined him at a later period of the siege." The

Turkish fleet made its appearance on the 18th of May, 1565. It

comprised 130 royal galleys, with fifty of lesser size, and a

number of transports. "The number of soldiers on board,

independently of the mariners, and including 6,000 janizaries,

was about 30,000,—the flower of the Ottoman army. … The

command of the expedition was intrusted to two officers. One

of these, Piali, was the same admiral who defeated the

Spaniards at Gelves.

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

He had the direction of the naval operations. The land forces

were given to Mustapha, a veteran nearly 70 years of age. …

The Turkish armada steered for the southeastern quarter of the

island, and cast anchor in the port of St. Thomas. The troops

speedily disembarked, and spread themselves in detached bodies

over the land, devastating the country. … It was decided, in

the Turkish council of war, to begin operations with the siege

of the castle of St. Elmo"—a small but strong fort, built at

the point of a promontory which separates Port Musiette, on

the west, from what is now known as Valetta harbor, then

called the Great Port. The heroic defense of St. Elmo, where a

mere handful of knights and soldiers withstood the whole army

and navy of the Turks for an entire month, is one of the grand

episodes of war in the 16th century.

{1665}

The few surviving defenders were overwhelmed in the final

assault, which took place on the 23d of June. "The number of

Christians who fell in this siege amounted to about 1,500. Of

these 123 were members of the order, and among them several of

its most illustrious warriors. The Turkish loss is estimated

at 8,000, at the head of whom stood Dragut," the famous pasha

of Tripoli, who had joined the besiegers, with ships and men,

and who had received a mortal wound in one of the assaults.

After the loss of St. Elmo, "the strength of the order was …

concentrated on the two narrow slips of land which run out

from the eastern side of the Great Port. … The northern

peninsula, occupied by the town of Il Borgo, and at the

extreme point by the castle of St. Angelo, was defended by

works stronger and in better condition than the fortifications

of St. Elmo. … The parallel slip of land was crowned by the

fort of St. Michael." Early in July, the Turks opened their

batteries on both St. Angelo and St. Michael, and on the 15th

they attempted the storming of the latter, but were bloodily

repulsed, losing 3,000 or 4,000 men, according to the

Christian account. Two weeks later they made a general assault

and were again repelled. On the 25th of August, the valiant

knights, wasted and worn with watching and fighting, were

relieved by long-promised re-enforcements from Sicily, and the

disheartened Turks at once raised the siege. "The arms of

Solyman II., during his long and glorious reign, met with no

reverse so humiliating as his failure in the siege of Malta.

… The waste of life was prodigious, amounting to more than

30,000 men. … Yet the loss in this siege fell most

grievously on the Christians. Full 200 knights, 2,500

soldiers, and more than 7,000 inhabitants,—men, women, and

children,—are said to have perished."

W. H. Prescott,

History of the Reign of Philip II.,

book 4, chapters 2-5.

ALSO IN:

W. Porter,

History of the Knights of Malta,

chapters 15-18 (volume 2).

S. Lane-Poole,

Story of the Barbary Corsairs,

chapter 13.

HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM: A. D. 1565-1879.

Decline and practical disappearance of the order.

"The Great Siege of 1565 was the last eminent exploit of the

Order of St. John. From that time their fame rested rather on

the laurels of the past than the deeds of the present. Rest

and affluence produced gradually their usual

consequences—diminished vigour and lessened independence. The

'esprit de corps' of the Knights became weaker after long

years, in which there were no events to bind them together in

united sympathies and common struggles. Many of them had

become susceptible of bribery and petty jealousies. In 1789

the French Revolution burst out and aroused all European

nations to some decided policy. The Order of St. John had

received special favours from Louis XVI., and now showed their

grateful appreciation of his kindness by cheerfully

contributing a large portion of their revenue to assist him in

his terrible emergencies. For this they suffered the

confiscation of all the property of the Order in France, when

the revolutionists obtained supreme power."

W. Tallack,

Malta,

section 8.

"In September, 1792, a decree was passed, by which the estates

and property of the Order of St. John in France were annexed

to the state. Many of the knights were seized, imprisoned, and

executed as aristocrats. The principal house of the Order in

Paris, called the Temple, was converted into a prison, and

there the unfortunate Louis XVI. and his family were

incarcerated. The Directory also did its best to destroy the

Order in Germany and Italy. … All this time the Directory

had agents in Malta, who were propagating revolutionary

doctrines, and stirring up the lowest of the people to

rebellion and violence. There were in the island 332 knights

(of whom many, however, were aged and infirm), and about 6,000

troops. On June 9, 1798, the French fleet appeared before

Malta, with Napoleon himself on board, and a few days after

troops were landed, and began pillaging the country. They were

at first successfully opposed by the soldiers of the Grand

Master, but the seeds of sedition, which had been so freely

sown, began to bear fruit, and the soldiers mutinied, and

refused to obey their officers. All the outlying forts were

taken, and the knights who commanded them, who were all

French, were dragged before Napoleon. He accused them of

taking up arms against their country, and declared that he

would have them shot as traitors. Meanwhile sedition was

rampant within the city. The people rose and attacked the

palace of the Grand Master, and murdered several of the

knights. They demanded that the island should be given up to

the French, and finally opened the gates, and admitted

Napoleon and his troops. After some delay, articles of

capitulation were agreed upon, Malta was declared part of

France, and all the knights were required to quit the island

within three days. Napoleon sailed for Egypt on June 19,

taking with him all the silver, gold, and jewels that could be

collected from the churches and the treasury. … In the

following September, 1798, Nelson besieged, and quickly

obtained possession of the island, which has ever since

remained in the hands of the English. In this way the ancient

Order of St. John ceased to be a sovereign power, and

practically its history came to an end. The last Grand Master,

Baron Ferdinand von Hompesch, after the loss of Malta, retired

to Trieste, and shortly afterwards abdicated and died at

Montpelier, in 1805. Many of the knights, however, had in the

mean time gone to Russia, and before the abdication of

Hompesch, they elected the Emperor Paul Grand Master, who had

for some time been protector of the Order. This election was

undoubtedly irregular and void. By the terms of the Treaty of

Amiens, in 1802, it was stipulated that Malta should be

restored to the Order, but that there should be neither French

nor English knights. But before the treaty could be carried

into effect Napoleon returned from Elba, and war broke out

again. By the treaty of Paris, in 1814, Malta was ceded to

England. … In 1801, the assembly of the Knights at St.

Petersburg … petitioned Pope Pius VII. to select a Grand

Master from certain names which they sent. This he declined to

do, but, some time afterwards, at the request of the Emperor

Alexander, and the King of Naples, and without consulting the

knights, the Pope appointed Count Giovanni di Tommasi Grand

Master. He died in 1805, and no Grand Master has been since

appointed. On his death-bed, Tommasi nominated the bailiff,

Guevara Suardo, Lieutenant Master. …

{1666}

[Such] lieutenants have presided over an association of

titular knights at Rome, which is styled 'the Sacred Council.'

In 1814, the French knights assembled at Paris and elected a

capitulary commission for the government of the Order. … In

or about the year 1826, the English 'Lange' of the Order of

the Knights of Malta was revived. … A regular succession of

Priors has been continued to the present time [1879], and the

Duke of Manchester is the present Prior. The members of the

Order devote themselves to relieving the poor, and assisting

hospitals."

F. C. Woodhouse,

Military Religious Orders of the Middle Ages,

part 1, chapter 20.

----------HOSPITALLERS: End--------

HOSPODAR.

"A title of Slavonic or Russian origin (Russian, Gospodin =

Lord)."

J. Samuelson, Roumania,

page 209, foot-note.

HOSTIS.

See PEREGRINI.

HOTTENTOTS, The.

See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS,

and A. D. 1486-1806;

also, AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH;

and KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.

HOUSE OF KEYS, The.

See MANX KINGDOM.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

See LORDS, HOUSE OF.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

HOUSECARLS.

"No English King or Ealdorman had hitherto kept a permanent

military force in his pay. But Cnut [or Canute, A. D.

1018-1035] now organized a regular paid force, kept constantly

under arms, and ready to march at a moment's notice. These

were the famous Thingmen, the Housecarls, of whom we hear so

much under Cnut and under his successors. … The Housecarls

were in fact a standing army, and a standing army was an

institution which later Kings and great Earls, English as well

as Danish, found it to be their interest to continue. Under

Cnut they formed a sort of military guild with the king at

their head."

E. A. Freeman,

Norman Conquest,

chapter 6, section 2,

and appendix, note kkk (volume 1).

HOUSEHOLD FRANCHISE.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

HOUSTON, Sam, and the independence of Texas.

See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

HOVAS, The.

See MALAYAN RACE.

HOWE, George Augustus, Lord, Death at Ticonderoga.

See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

HOWE, Richard, Admiral Lord,

and the War of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1776 (AUGUST)

Naval Victory (1794).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

HOWE, General Sir William, and the War of the American

Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY), (JUNE);

1776 (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);

1776-1777; 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER); 1778 (JUNE).

HRINGS OF THE AVARS.

See AVARS, RINGS OF THE.

HUAMABOYA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

HUANCAS, The.

See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

HUASTECS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS.

HUAYNA CAPAC, The Inca.

See PERU: THE EMPIRE OF THE INCAS.

HUBERTSBURG, The Peace of.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY.

See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

HUDSON'S BAY TERRITORY,

Relinquished by France to Great Britain (1713).

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

HUDSON'S VOYAGES, Explorations and Discoveries.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1607-1608, and 1609.

HUECOS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

HUGH CAPET, King of France, A. D. 987-996.

----------HUGUENOTS: Start--------

HUGUENOTS.

First appearance and disputed origin of the name.

Quick formation of the Calvinistic Protestant Party in France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1528-1562.

Ascendancy in Navarre.

See NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1554-1565.

Attempted colonization in Brazil and in Florida.

The Massacre at Fort Caroline.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563, to 1567-1568.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1560-1598.

The Wars of Religion in France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563, to 1593-1598.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1598-1599.

The Edict of Nantes.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1598-1599.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1620-1622.

Their formidable organization and political pretensions.

Continued desertion of nobles.

Leadership of the clergy.

Revolt and unfavorable Treaty of Montpellier.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1625-1626.

Renewed revolt.

Second Treaty of Montpellier.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1627-1628.

Revolt in alliance with England.

Richelieu's siege and capture of La Rochelle.

End of political Huguenotism in France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1661-1680.

Revived persecution under Louis XIV.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1680.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1681-1698.

The climax of persecution in France.

The Dragonnades.

The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.

The great exodus.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.

HUGUENOTS: A. D. 1702-1710.

The Camisard uprising in the Cévennes.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.

----------HUGUENOTS: End--------

HULL, Commodore Isaac.—Naval exploits.

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

HULL, General William, and the surrender of Detroit.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

HULL: Siege by the Royalists.

Hull, occupied by the Parliamentary forces under Lord Fairfax,

after their defeat at Adwalton Moor, was besieged by the

Royalists under the Earl of Newcastle, from September 2 until

October 11, 1643, when they were driven off.

C. R. Markham,

Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,

chapter 12.

See, also,

WINCEBY FIGHT.

HÜLSEMANN LETTER, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-1851.

HULST, Battle of (1642).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

HUMANISM.

See RENAISSANCE.

HUMAS, OR OUMAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

{1667}

HUMAYUN, Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1530-1556.

HUMBERT, King of Italy, A. D. 1878-.

HUMBLE PETITION AND ADVICE, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1654-1658.

HUMBLEDON, Battle of.

See HOMILDON HILL, BATTLE OF.

HUNDRED, The.

"The union of a number of townships for the purpose of

judicial administration, peace, and defence, formed what is

known as the 'hundred,' or 'wapentake'; a district answering

to the 'pagus' of Tacitus, the 'hærred' of Scandinavia, the

'huntari' or 'gau' of Germany. … The name of the hundred,

which, like the wapentake, first appears in the laws of Edgar,

has its origin far back in the remotest antiquity, but the use

of it as a geographical expression is discoverable only in

comparatively late evidences. The 'pagus' of the Germania sent

its hundred warriors to the host, and appeared by its hundred

judges in the court of the 'princeps.' The Lex Salica contains

abundant evidence that in the fifth century the administration

of the hundred was the chief, if not the only, machinery of

the Frank judicial system; and the word in one form or other

enters into the constitution of all the German nations. It may

be regarded then as a certain vestige of primitive

organisation. But the exact relation of the territorial

hundred to the hundred of the Germania is a point which is

capable of, and has received, much discussion. It has been

regarded as denoting simply a division of a hundred hides of

land; as the district which furnished a hundred warriors to

the host; as representing the original settlement of the

hundred warriors; or as composed of a hundred hides, each of

which furnished a single warrior. The question is not peculiar

to English history, and the same result may have followed from

very different causes as probably as from the same causes,

here and on the continent. It is very probable, as already

stated, that the colonists of Britain arranged themselves in

hundreds of warriors; it is not probable that the country was

carved into equal districts. The only conclusion that seems

reasonable is that, under the name of geographical hundreds,

we have the variously sized pagi or districts in which the

hundred warriors settled. … The hundred-gemot, or wapentake

court, was held every month; it was called six days before the

day of meeting, and could not be held on Sunday. It was

attended by the lords of lands within the hundred, or their

stewards representing them, and by the parish priest, the

reeve, and four best men of each township. … The criminal

jurisdiction of the hundred is perpetuated in the manorial

court leet."

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 5, section 45 (volume 1).

"By the 13th century the importance of the hundred had much

diminished. The need for any such body, intermediate between

township and county, ceased to be felt, and the functions of

the hundred were gradually absorbed by the county. Almost

everywhere in England, by the reign of Elizabeth, the hundred

had fallen into decay. It is curious that its name and some of

its peculiarities should have been brought to America, and

should in one state have remained to the present day. Some of

the early settlements in Virginia were called hundreds, but

they were practically nothing more than parishes, and the name

soon became obsolete, except upon the map, where we still see,

for example, Bermuda Hundred. But in Maryland the hundred

flourished and became the political unit, like the township in

New England. The hundred was the militia district, and the

district for the assessment of taxes. In the earliest times it

was also the representative district. … The hundred had also

its assembly of all the people, which was in many respects

like the New England town-meeting. These hundred-meetings

enacted by-laws, levied taxes, appointed committees, and often

exhibited a vigorous political life. But after the Revolution

they fell into disuse, and in 1824 the hundred became extinct

in Maryland; its organization was swallowed up in that of the

county. In Delaware, however, the hundred remains to this

day."

J. Fiske,

Civil Government in the United States,

chapter 4, section 1.

HUNDRED DAYS, The.

The period of Napoleon's recovery of power in France, on his

return from the Isle of Elba, and until his overthrow at

Waterloo and final abdication, is often referred to as The

Hundred Days.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815, to 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).

HUNDRED YEARS WAR, The

See FRANCE: A. D.1337-1360.

----------HUNGARIANS: Start--------

HUNGARIANS, The.

"Gibbon is correct in connecting the language of the

Hungarians with that of the Finnish or Tschudish race. The

original abode of the Hungarians was in the country called

Ugria or Jugoria, in the southern part of the Uralian

mountains, which is now inhabited by the Voguls and Ostiaks,

who are the eastern branches of the Finnish race, while the

most important of the western branches are the Finns and

Lappes. Ugria is called Great Hungary by the Franciscan monk

Piano Carpini, who travelled in 1426 to the court of the Great

Khan. From Ugria the Hungarians were expelled by the Turkish

tribes of Petcheneges and Chazars, and sought refuge in the

plains of the Lower Danube, where they first appeared in the

reign of the Greek Emperor Theophilus, between 829 and 842.

They called themselves Magyars, but the Russians gave them the

name of Ugri, as originating from Ugria; and this name has

been corrupted into Ungri and Hungarians. Although it is

difficult to believe that the present Magyars, who are the

foremost people in Eastern Europe, are of the same race as the

degraded Voguls and Ostiaks, this fact is not only attested by

historical authority, and the unerring affinity of language;

but, when they first appeared in the central parts of Europe,

the description given of them by an old chronicler of the

ninth century (quoted by Zeuss, page 746) accords precisely

with that of the Voguls and Ostiaks."

Dr. W. Smith,

Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 55.

"That a Majiar female ever made her way from the Ural

Mountains to Hungary is more than I can find; the presumptions

being against it. Hence it is just possible that a

whole-blooded Majiar was never born on the banks of the

Danube. Whether the other elements are most Turk or most

Slavonic is more than I venture to guess."

R. G. Latham,

Ethnology of Europe,

chapter 11.

"According to their own primitive traditions, the ruling

caste, the main body of the nation, were the children of Mogor

the son of Magog. The Hebrew name Mogor signifies 'Terror';

and slightly varied by the Orientals into Magyar became the

rallying cry of the once-splendid Hungarian nationality."

Sir F. Palgrave,

History of Normandy and England,

book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

A. J. Patterson,

The Magyars,

volume 1, chapter 1.

{1668}

HUNGARIANS:

Ravages in Europe and settlement in Hungary.

"The Magyars (the idiomatic synonym for Hungarians, and

probably the proper name of one of their tribes), driven by

internal dissensions from their native deserts, found a home

for centuries around the Caucasus and along the barren shores

of the Wolga. About the end of the 9th century they suddenly

struck their tents, and pressed irresistibly forward to the

very heart of Europe. … Immediately after crossing the

eastern frontier (A. D. 889), the Magyars elected for their

chief Arpad, the son of Almos, who conducted them to the

frontiers of Hungary. The latter did not survive to see the

conquest. The whole body under Arpad's guidance consisted of

about a million, numbering among them about 200,000 warriors,

and divided into seven tribes, each having its chief. The

country which they prepared to take possession of, and the

central part of which was then called Pannonia, was broken up

into small parts, and inhabited by races dissimilar in origin

and language; as Sclavonians, Wallachians, a few Huns and

Avars, as well as some Germans. … Arpad soon descended with

his followers on those wide plains, whence Attila, four

centuries before, swayed two parts of the globe. Most

dexterous horsemen, armed with light spears and almost

unerring bows, these invaders followed their leader from

victory to victory, soon rendering themselves masters of the

land lying between the Theiss and the Danube, carrying at the

same time their devastations, on the one hand, to the

Adriatic, and, on the other, towards the German frontiers.

Having achieved the conquest, Arpad took up his residence on

the Danubian isle, Csepel, though the seat of the court was

Buda or Attelburg. … The love of their new dominion was far

from curbing the passion of the Magyars for distant bloody

adventure and plunder. The most daring deeds were undertaken

by single chiefs, during the reign of Zoltan and his successor

Taksony, which filled up the first part of the tenth century.

The enervated and superstitious population of Europe thought

the Magyars to be the scourge of God, directly dropped down

from heaven; the very report of their approach was sufficient

to drive thousands into the recesses of mountains and depths

of forests, while the priests increased the common panic by

mingling in their litanies the words, 'God preserve us from

the Magyars.' … The irruptions of the Magyars were

simultaneously felt on the shores of the Baltic, among the

inhabitants of the Alps, and at the very gates of

Constantinople. The emperors of the East and of Germany were

repeatedly obliged to purchase momentary peace by heavy

tributes; but Germany, as may be conceived from her

geographical position, was chiefly exposed to the ravages of

these new neighbours."

E. Szabad,

Hungary, Past and Present,

part 1, chapter 1.

See GERMANY: A. D. 911-936.

HUNGARIANS: A. D. 900-924.

Ravages in Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 900-924.

HUNGARIANS: A. D. 934-955.

Repulse from Germany.

"The deliverance of Germany and Christendom was achieved by

the Saxon princes, Henry the Fowler and Otho the Great, who,

in two memorable battles, forever broke the power of the

Hungarians." Twenty years after their defeat by Henry the

Fowler (A. D. 934) the Hungarians invaded the empire of his

son (A. D. 955), "and their force is defined, in the lowest

estimate, at 100,000 horse. They were invited by domestic

faction; the gates of Germany were treacherously unlocked, and

they spread, far beyond the Rhine and the Meuse, into the

heart of Flanders. But the vigour and prudence of Otho

dispelled the conspiracy; the princes were made sensible that,

unless they were true to each other, their religion and

country were irrecoverably lost; and the national powers were

reviewed in the plains of Augsburg. They marched and fought in

eight legions, according to the division of provinces and

tribes [Bavarians, Franconians, Saxons, Swabians, Bohemians].

… The Hungarians were expected in the front; they secretly

passed the Lech, a river of Bavaria that falls into the

Danube, turned the rear of the Christian army, plundered the

baggage, and disordered the legions of Bohemia and Swabia. The

battle [near Augsburg, August 10, 955] was restored by the

Franconians, whose duke, the valiant Conrad, was pierced with

an arrow as he rested from his fatigues; the Saxons fought

under the eyes of their king, and his victory surpassed, in

merit and importance, the triumphs of the last two hundred

years. The loss of the Hungarians was still greater in the

flight than in the action; they were encompassed by the rivers

of Bavaria; and their past cruelties excluded them from the

hope of mercy."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

chapter 55.

ALSO IN:

W. Menzel,

History of Germany,

chapter 135 (volume 1).

Sir F. Palgrave,

History of Normandy and England,

volume 2, pages 656-665.

A. W. Grube,

Heroes of History and Legend,

chapter 8.

----------HUNGARIANS: End--------

HUNGARY:

Ancient.

See DACIA, and PANNONIA.

HUNGARY:

The Huns in possession.

See HUNS.

HUNGARY:

The Avars in possession.

See AVARS.

HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.

Christianization of the Magyars.

Kingship conferred on the Duke by the Pope.

Annexation of Croatia and conquest of Dalmatia.

"King Geiza [of the house of Arpad—see HUNGARIANS: RAVAGES IN

EUROPE] (972-997) was the first pacific ruler of pagan

Hungary. … Hungary was enclosed within limits which she was

never again able to cross, and even within these limits the

Magyars were not the only inhabitants; in almost every part

they were surrounded by Slavs, whose language and laws were to

exercise over them a lasting influence, and on the southeast

they touched on that Romance or Wallachian element which, from

the time of the Roman colonies of Trajan, had continued to

develop there. Numerous marriages with these neighbours

gradually modified the primitive type of the Magyars. …

Geiza I. had married as his second wife a sister of the duke

of Poland, Mieczyslaw. She had been converted to Christianity,

and, like Clotilde of France, this princess knew how to use her

influence in favour of her religion.

{1669}

She persuaded her husband to receive the missionaries who came

to preach the Gospel in the country of the Magyars, and

Pilgrim, archbishop of Lorch, undertook the systematic

conversion of the nation. The mention of him in the

'Nibelungen Lied' in connection with Etzel (Attila), king of

the Huns, is doubtless due to the memory of this mission. He

sent priests from his diocese into Hungary, and in 974 he was

able to announce to the pope 5,000 conversions. … The great

Chekh apostle, St. Adalbert or Vojtech, bishop of Prague,

continued the work begun by Pilgrim. About 994, he went to

Gran (Esztergom), where the duke of Hungary then dwelt, and

solemnly baptized the son of Geiza, to whom he gave the name

of Stephen. Henceforth the court of the duke became the resort

of knights from all the neighbouring countries, but especially

from Germany, and these knights, entering into intimate

relations with the native nobility, drew Hungary and the

empire into still closer union. Prince Stephen, heir

presumptive to the throne, married the princess Gisella,

daughter of the duke of Bavaria, while one of the daughters of

Geiza became the wife of the Polish duke Boleslaw, and another

married Urseolus, doge of Venice. Through these alliances,

Hungary obtained for itself a recognized place among European

states, and the work begun so well by Geiza was completed by

Stephen, to whom was reserved the honour of establishing the

position of his kingdom in Europe and of completing its

conversion. … 'Hungary became Catholic,' says a Magyar

historian, 'not through apostolic teaching, nor through the

invitation of the Holy See, but through the laws of king

Stephen' (Verböczy). He was not always content to use

persuasion alone to lead his subjects to the new faith; he

hesitated not to use threats also. … Stephen sent an

ambassador to Rome, to treat directly with pope Sylvester, who

graciously received the homage done by him for his kingdom,

and, by a letter dated the 27th of March, 1000, announced that

he took the people of Hungary under the protection of the

Church. By the same brief he granted the royal crown to

Stephen. … Besides this, he conferred on him the privilege

of having the cross always borne before him, as a symbol of

the apostolic power which he granted to him. The authenticity

of this pontifical letter has indeed been disputed; but,

however that may be, the emperor of Austria, king of Hungary,

still bears the title of Apostolic Majesty. … Under this

great king, Hungary became a completely independent kingdom

between the two empires of the East and West. … The laws of

Stephen are contained in 56 articles divided into two books.

His ideas on all matters of government are also to be found in

the counsels which he wrote, or caused to be written, for his

son Emerich. … The son for whom the great king had written

his maxims died before his father, in 1031, and is honoured as

a saint by the Church. The last years of king Stephen were

harassed by rivalries and plots. He died on the 15th of

August, 1038. … Stephen had chosen as his successor his

nephew Peter, the son of the doge Urseolus." But Peter was

driven out and sought help in Germany, bringing war into the

country. The Hungarians chose for their king, Samuel Ala, a

tribal chief; but soon deposed him and elected Andrew, son of

Ladislas the Bald (1046). Andrew was dethroned by his brother

Bela, in 1061. Both Andrew and Bela had bitter struggles with

revived paganism, which was finally suppressed. Bela died in

1063. "According to the Asiatic custom, which still prevails

in Turkey, he was succeeded by his nephew Solomon. … This

prince was only twelve years of age, and the emperor, Henry

IV., took advantage of his youth to place him in a humiliating

position of tutelage. … The enemies of Solomon accused him

of being the creature of the Germans, and reproached him for

having done homage to the emperor for a state which belonged

to St. Peter. Pope Gregory VII., who was then struggling

against the emperor [see PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122], encouraged

the rebels. 'The kingdom of Hungary,' he said, owes obedience

to none but the Church.' Prince Geiza was proclaimed king in

the place of Solomon, but he died without having reigned. He

was succeeded by Ladislas the Holy (1077), who was able to

make himself equally independent of emperor and pope. … The

dying Ladislas chose his nephew Koloman as his successor. …

The most important act of this reign [Koloman's, 1095-1114]

was the annexation of Croatia. In 1090, St. Ladislas had been

elected to the throne of Croatia, and he, on his death, left

the government of it to his nephew Almos, who very soon made

himself unpopular. Koloman drove him out of Croatia, and had

himself proclaimed king. He next set about the conquest of

Dalmatia from the Venetians, seized the principal towns,

Spalato (Spljet), Zara (Zadir), and Trogir (Trau), and granted

them full power of self-government. Then (1102) he had himself

crowned, at Belgrade, king of Croatia and Dalmatia. From this

time the position of Croatia, as regarded Hungary, was very

much the same as the position of Hungary in regard to Austria

in later times."

L. Leger,

History of Austro-Hungary,

chapters 5-6.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,

9TH-16TH CENTURIES (BOSNIA, SERVIA, ETC.).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1096.

Hostilities with the first Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

The Golden Bull of King Bela.

Invasion and frightful devastation by the Tartars.

The end of the Arpad dynasty.

"Coloman was succeeded on the throne by his son Stephen, who,

after a short reign, was succeeded by Bela the Blind. The most

important event of these reigns was the war with Venice about

the possession of Dalmatia, and the annexation to the

Hungarian crown of Rama, a part of Servia. In 1141, Geisa II.

ascended the throne of St. Stephen. His reign was marked by

several important events. Having entirely reduced

Transylvania, he invited many Saxons and Flemish into his

kingdom, some of whom settled in the Banat, in the south of

Hungary, and others in Transylvania. In this principality the

German settlers received from the king a separate district,

being, besides, exempted from many taxes and endowed with

particular privileges. … The following years of the 12th

century, filled up by the reigns of Stephen III., Bela III.,

and Emerick, are marked by the continuance of the Venetian

war, but present no incidents deserving of particular notice.

More important was the reign of Andrew II., who ascended the

throne in 1205. …

{1670}

Andrew, by the advice of the Pope, set out with a large army

to the Holy Land [1216—see CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229],

nominating the Ban, called Banko, viceroy of Hungary. While

the Hungarian king spent his time in Constantinople, and

afterwards in operations round Mount Tabor, Hungary became a

scene of violence and rapine, aggravated by the careless and

unconstitutional administration of the queen's foreign

favourites, as well as by the extortions committed by the

oligarchy on their inferiors. Receiving no support from the

king of Jerusalem, Andrew resolved on returning home. On his

arrival in Hungary, he had the mortification of finding, in

addition to a disaffected nobility, a rival to the throne in

the person of his son Bela. As the complaints of the nobles

became daily louder, … the king resolved to confirm the

privileges of the country by a new charter, called The Golden

Bull. This took place in the year 1222. The chief provisions

of this charter were as follows:

1st, That the states were henceforth to be annually convoked

either under the presidency of the king or the palatine;

2d, That no nobleman was to be arrested without being

previously tried and legally sentenced;

3d, That no contribution or tax was to be levied on the

property of the nobles;

4th, That if called to military service beyond the frontiers

of the country, they were to be paid by the king;

5th, That high offices should neither be made hereditary nor

given to foreigners without the consent of the Diet.

The most important point, however, was article 31st, which

conferred on the nobles the right of appealing to arms in case

of any violation of the laws by the crown. Other provisions

contained in this charter refer to the exemption of the lower

clergy from the payment of taxes and tolls, and to the

determination of the tithes to be paid by the cultivators of

the soil. … Andrew died soon after the promulgation of the

charter, and was succeeded by his son Bela IV. The beginning

of this prince's reign was troubled with internal dissensions

caused by the Cumans [an Eastern tribe which invaded Hungary

in the later half of the 11th century—see COSSACKS], who,

after having been vanquished by St. Ladislaus, settled in

Hungary between the banks of the Theiss and Marosch. But a

greater and quite unexpected danger, which threatened Hungary

with utter destruction, arose from the invasion of the

Tartars. Their leader Batu, after having laid waste Poland and

Silesia, poured with his innumerable bands into the heart of

Hungary [see MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294]. Internal dissensions

facilitated the triumph of the foe, and the battle fought on

the banks of the river Sajo (A. D. 1241) terminated in the

total defeat of the Hungarians. The Tartar hordes spread with

astonishing rapidity throughout the whole country, which in a

few weeks was converted into a chaos of blood and flames. Not

contented with wholesale massacre, the Tartar leader devised

snares to destroy the lives of those who succeeded in making

their escape into the recesses of the mountains and the depths

of the forests. Among those who perished in the battle of Sajo

was the Hungarian chancellor, who carried with him the seal of

state. Batu having got possession of the seal, caused a

proclamation to be made in the name of the Hungarian king

[calling the people back to their homes], to which he affixed

the royal stamp. … Trusting to this appeal, the miserable

people issued from their hiding-places, and returned to their

homes. The cunning barbarian first caused them to do the work

of harvest in order to supply his hordes with provisions, and

then put them to an indiscriminate death. The king Bela, in

the meantime, succeeded in making his way through the

Carpathian Mountains into Austria; but instead of receiving

assistance from the arch-duke Frederick, he was retained as a

prisoner. Having pledged three counties of Hungary to

Frederick, Bela was allowed to depart. … In the meantime

Batu was as prompt in leaving Hungary, in consequence of the

death of the Tartar khan. … Bela was succeeded on the throne

by his son Stephen, in the year 1270." The reign of Stephen

was short. He was followed by Ladislaus IV., who allied

himself with Rudolph of Hapsburg in the war which overthrew

and destroyed Ottoacer or Ottocar, king of Bohemia (see

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282). "The reign of this prince, called

the Cuman, was, besides, troubled by most devastating internal

dissensions, caused by the Cumans, whose numbers were

continually augmented by fresh arrivals … from their own

tribe as well as from the Tartars." Ladislaus, dying in 1290,

was succeeded by Andrew III., the last Hungarian king of the

house of Arpad. "This prince had to dispute his throne with

Rudolph of Hapsburg, who coveted the crown of Hungary for his

son Albert. The appearance, however, of the Hungarian troops

before the gates of Vienna compelled the Austrian emperor to

sue for peace, which was cemented by a family alliance, Andrew

having espoused Agnes, daughter of Albert. … Nor did this

matrimonial alliance with Austria secure peace to Hungary.

Pope Nicholas IV. was bent upon gaining the crown of St.

Stephen for Charles Martel, son of Charles d'Anjou of Naples,

who put forward his claims to the Hungarian crown in virtue of

his mother, Mary, daughter of king Stephen V.," transferring

them at his death to Charles Robert, nephew of the king of

Naples. Andrew III., the last Arpad, died in 1301.

E. Szabad,

Hungary, Past and Present,

part 1, chapter 2.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1285.

Wallachian struggle for independence.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,

14TH-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, etc.).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

The House of Anjou and the House of Luxembourg.

Conquests of Louis the Great.

Beginning of wars with the Turks.

The House of Austria and the disputed crown.

On the extinction of the ancient race of kings, in the male

line of descent, by the death of Andrew III., in 1301, the

crown was "contested by several competitors, and at length

fell into the hands of the House of Anjou, the reigning family

of Naples [see ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389]. Charles

Robert, grandson of Charles II. King of Naples, by Mary of

Hungary, outstripped his rivals (1310), and transmitted the

crown to his son LOUIS, surnamed the Great [1342]. This

prince, characterized by his eminent qualities, made a

distinguished figure among the Kings of Hungary. He conquered

from the Venetians the whole of Dalmatia from the frontiers of

Istria, as far as Durazzo; he reduced the princes of Moldavia,

Wallachia, Bosnia and Bulgaria to a state of dependence; and

at length mounted the throne of Poland, on the death of his

uncle, Casimir the Great. Mary, his eldest daughter, succeeded

him in the kingdom of Hungary (1382).

{1671}

This princess married Sigismund of Luxembourg [afterwards

Emperor, 1411-1437-see GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493], who thus

united the monarchy of Hungary to the Imperial crown. The

reign of Sigismund in Hungary was most unfortunate. … He had

to sustain the first war against the Ottoman Turks; and, with

the Emperor of Constantinople as his ally, he assembled a

formidable army, with which he undertook the siege of

Nicopolis in Bulgaria [see TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D.

1389-1403]. In his retreat he was compelled to embark on the

Danube, and directed his flight towards Constantinople. This

disaster was followed by new misfortunes. The male contents of

Hungary offered their crown to Ladislaus, called the

Magnanimous, King of Naples, who took possession of Dalmatia,

which he afterwards surrendered to the Venetians. Desirous to

provide for the defence and security of his kingdom, Sigismund

acquired, by treaty with the Prince of Servia, the fortress of

Belgrade (1425), which, by its situation at the confluence of

the Danube and the Save, seemed to him a proper bulwark to

protect Hungary against the Turks. He transmitted the crown of

Hungary [in 1437, when he died] to his son-in-law, Albert of

Austria, who reigned only two years."

C. W. Koch,

The Revolutions of Europe, period 5.

"Albert, afterwards the Emperor Albert II., was the first

prince of the House of Habsburg that enjoyed the crowns of

Hungary and Bohemia, which he owed to his father-in-law, the

Emperor Sigismund, whose only daughter, Elizabeth, he had

married. Elizabeth was the child of Barbara von Cilly,

Sigismund's second wife, whose notorious vices had procured

for her the odious epithets of the 'Bad,' and the 'German

Messalina.' Barbara had determined to supplant her daughter,

to claim the two crowns as her dowry, and to give them, with

her hand, to Wladislaus, the young King of Poland, who, though

40 years her junior, she had marked out for her future

husband. With this view she was courting the Hussite party in

Bohemia: but Sigismund, a little before his death, caused her

to be arrested; and, assembling the Hungarian and Bohemian

nobles at Znaym, in Moravia, persuaded them, almost with his

dying breath, to elect Albert as his successor. Sigismund

expired the next day (December 9th, 1437). Albert was soon

after recognised as king by the Hungarian diet, and

immediately released his mother-in-law Barbara, upon her

agreeing to restore some fortresses which she held in Hungary.

He did not so easily obtain possession of the Bohemian crown.

… The short reign of Albert in Hungary was disastrous both

to himself and to the country. Previously to his fatal

expedition against the Turks in 1439, … the Hungarian diet,

before it would agree to settle the succession to the throne,

forced him to accept a constitution which destroyed all unity

and strength of government. By the famous 'Decretum Alberti

Regis,' he reduced himself to be the mere shadow of a king;

while by exalting the Palatine [a magistrate next to the king

in rank, who presided over the legal tribunals, and discharged

the functions of the king in the absence of the latter], the

clergy, and the nobles, he perpetuated all the evils of the

feudal system. … The most absurd and pernicious regulations

were now adopted respecting the military system of the

kingdom, and such as rendered it almost impossible effectually

to resist the Turks. … On the death of Albert, Wladislaus

[Ladislaus] III., King of Poland [the second Polish king of

the dynasty of Jagellon], was … elected to the throne of

Hungary. … Albert, besides two daughters, had left his wife

Elizabeth pregnant; and the Hungarians, dreading a long

minority in case she should give birth to a son, compelled her

to offer her hand to Wladislaus, agreeing that the crown

should descend to their issue; but at the same time engaging

that if Elizabeth's child should prove a male, they would

endeavour to procure for him the kingdom of Bohemia and the

duchy of Austria; and that he should moreover succeed to the

Hungarian throne in case Wladislaus had no issue by Elizabeth.

… Scarcely had the Hungarian ambassador set off for the

court of Wladislaus with these proposals, when Elizabeth

brought forth a son, who, from the circumstances of his birth,

was christened Ladislaus Posthumus. Elizabeth now repented of

the arrangement that had been made; and the news having

arrived that the archduke Frederick had been elected Emperor

of Germany, she was induced to withdraw her consent to marry

the King of Poland. Messengers were despatched to recall the

Hungarian ambassadors; but it was too late—Wladislaus had

accepted her hand, and prepared to enter Hungary with an army.

… The party of the King of Poland, especially as it was

headed by John of Hunyad, proved the stronger. Elizabeth was

compelled to abandon Lower Hungary and take refuge at Vienna,

carrying with her the crown of St. Stephen, which, with her

infant son, she intrusted to the care of the Emperor Frederick

III. (August 3rd, 1440). … In November 1442, Elizabeth and

Wladislaus had an interview at Raab, when a peace was agreed

upon, the terms of which are unknown; but it is probable that

one of the chief conditions was a marriage between the

contracting parties. The sudden death of Elizabeth, Dec. 24th,

1442, not without suspicion of poison, prevented the

ratification of a treaty which had never been agreeable to the

great party led by John of Hunyad, whose recent victories over

the Turks gave him enormous influence."

T. H. Dyer,

History of Modern Europe,

introduction (volume 1).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1364.

Reversion of the Crown guaranteed to the House of Austria.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1381-1386.

Expedition of Charles of Durazzo to Naples.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1444.

Wars of Huniades with the Turks.

See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458.

The minority of Ladislaus Posthumus.

Regency of Huniades.

His defeat of the Turks and his death.

His son Matthias chosen king on the death of Ladislaus.

Peace between the factions was brought about by an agreement

that "the Polish king should retain the government of Hungary

until Ladislaus attained his majority; that he should be

possessed of the throne in case the young prince died without

issue; and the compact was sealed by affiancing the two

daughters of Elizabeth to the King of Poland and his brother

Casimir.

{1672}

The young Ladislaus was also acknowledged as King of Bohemia;

and the administration during his minority vested in two

Regents: Mainard, Count of Neuhaus, chosen on the part of the

Catholics; and Henry Ptarsko, and after his death George

Podiebrad, on that of the Hussites. The death of Uladislaus in

the memorable battle of Warna again left Hungary without a

ruler; and as Frederic III. persisted in retaining the young

Ladislaus and the crown of St. Stephen, the Hungarians

entrusted the government to John Corvinus Huniades, the

redoubted defender of their country." In 1452, when the

Emperor Frederic returned from Italy into Germany, "he found

himself involved in a dispute with the Austrians, the

Bohemians, and the Hungarians, in respect to the custody of

the young Ladislaus. … As Ladislaus had now arrived at the

age of thirteen, his subjects, but more particularly the

Austrians, grew impatient of the detention of their sovereign

at the imperial court. Whilst Podiebrad continued regent of

Bohemia, and Huniades of Hungary, the affairs of Austria were

directed by Frederic; and the unpopularity of his government

caused a general anxiety for a change. But to give up the

custody of his ward was contrary to the policy of the Emperor,

and in the hope of silencing the Austrians he marched with a

force against them. His enemies, however, proved too numerous;

he was himself endangered by a siege in Neustadt; and

compelled to purchase his deliverance by resigning the person

of Ladislaus. The states of Austria, Bohemia, and Hungary then

assembled at Vienna; Podiebrad and Huniades were confirmed in

their regencies; and the administration of Austria, together

with the custody of Ladislaus, was confided to his maternal

great-uncle, Ulric, Count of Cilli. The resentment of Frederic

does not appear to have been vehement; for in the following

year [1453] he raised Austria to an archdutchy, and by a grant

of especial privileges placed the Duke of the province on a

level with the Electors. After being crowned King of Bohemia

at Prague, Ladislaus was invited by his Hungarian subjects to

visit that kingdom. But the Count of Cilli, jealous of the

power of Huniades, so far worked upon the young king's mind as

to create in him suspicions of the regent's integrity. An

attempt was made to seize Huniades by enticing him to Vienna;

but he eluded the snare, exposed the treachery of Ulric, and

prevailed on Ladislaus to visit his people. At Buda, an

apparent reconciliation took place between the count and the

regent; but Ulric still persisted in his design of ruining the

credit of a man whom he regarded as a dangerous rival. In the

moment of danger, the brave spirit of Huniades triumphed over

his insidious traducer; the siege of Belgrade by the Turks

[1456], under Mahomed II., threw Hungary into consternation;

the royal pupil and his crafty guardian abandoned the

Hungarians to their fate and precipitately fled to Vienna;

whilst Huniades was left to encounter the fury of the storm.

… The undaunted resistance of that renowned captain

preserved Belgrade; the Turks, after a desperate struggle,

were compelled to abandon the siege; their loss amounted to

30,000 men; and the Sultan himself was severely wounded [see

TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481]. The great defender did not long

survive his triumph; dying, soon after the retreat of the

enemy, of a fever occasioned by his extraordinary exertions.

Huniades left two sons, Ladislaus and Matthias Corvinus, who

were as much the idols of their country as they were objects

of jealousy to Ulric and the King. The latter, indeed, took

care to treat them with every mark of external respect; but

the injurious behaviour of the count provoked Ladislaus

Corvinus to open violence; and, in a personal rencounter,

Ulric received a mortal wound. Enraged at the death of his

favourite yet dreading the vengeance of the people, King

Ladislaus resorted to treachery; and the brothers being lured

into his power, the younger was beheaded as a murderer [1457].

Matthias was preserved from death by the menaces of the

indignant Hungarians; the terrified monarch fled with his

prisoner to Prague; and being there attacked by a malignant

disease, was consigned to a premature grave after suffering

for only a few hours. The death of Ladislaus Posthumus plunged

the Emperor into new difficulties. His succession to the

Austrian territory was opposed by his brother Albert VI.,

whose hostility had long troubled his repose. The Bohemians

rejected his claim to their throne, and conferred the crown on

the more deserving Podiebrad [1458]. The Hungarians testified

their regard for the memory of Huniades Corvinus by electing

his son Matthias, who purchased his liberty from Podiebrad for

40,000 ducats. Thus baffled in his views, Frederic consoled

himself with his retention of the crown of St. Stephen; and

his pertinacity in respect to this sacred relique involved him

in a war with the new King of Hungary."

Sir R. Comyn,

History of the Western Empire,

chapter 28 (volume 2).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1444.

Wallachia taken from the Turks.

See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1468-1471.

King Matthias joins the crusade against George Podiebrad of

Bohemia and claims the Bohemian crown.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.

The wars of Matthias with Bohemia, Poland, the emperor and the

Turks.

Conquest and occupation of Austria.

Ladislaus, elected to the throne of Bohemia on the death of

George Podiebrad, was supported by all the forces of his

father, the king of Poland, and Matthias of Hungary was now

involved in war with both. Meanwhile, "his whole kingdom was

agitated by intestine commotions, and a strong party of nobles

breaking out into insurrection, had offered the crown to

Casimir, prince of Poland. At the same time, the Turks having

subdued Transylvania, and ravaged Dalmatia and Croatia, built

the fortress of Szabatch on the Save, and from thence harassed

Hungary with perpetual inroads. From these impending dangers,

Matthias extricated himself by his courage, activity, and

prudence. While he carried the war into Bohemia and Silesia,

he awed, by his presence, his rebellious subjects, conciliated

by degrees the disaffected nobles, expelled the Poles, and, by

an important victory in the vicinity of Breslau, over the

united armies of Poles and Bohemians, forced the two

sovereigns, in 1474, to conclude an armistice for three years

and a half. He availed himself of the suspension of arms to

repel the Turks. He supported Stephen Bathori, hospodar of

Wallachia, who had shaken off the Ottoman yoke, by a

reinforcement of troops, enabled him to defeat Mahomet himself

[on the plain of Kenyer-Mesö, October, 1479], at the head of

100,000 men, and soon afterwards secured his frontiers on the

side of the Danube by the capture of Szabatch.

{1673}

Having in consequence of these successes delivered his

dominions from the aggressions of the Turks, he hastened to

gratify his vengeance against the emperor, whose conduct had

afforded so many causes of complaint. After instigating

Matthias to make war on George Podiebrad, Frederic had

abandoned him in the midst of the contest, had refused to

fulfil his promise of investing him with the kingdom of

Bohemia, had concluded an alliance with the kings of Poland

and Bohemia, and, on the 10th of June, 1477, formally

conferred on Ladislaus the investiture of the crown."

Matthias, as soon as he had freed himself from the Turks

(1479), declared war against the emperor and invaded Austria.

"Frederic, left without a single ally, was unable to make the

smallest resistance, and in less than a month Matthias overran

the greater part of Lower Austria, invested the capital, and

either besieged or captured all the fortresses of the Danube,

as far as Krems and Stein. Frederic fled in dismay to Lintz,

and, to save his capital, was reduced to accept the conditions

imposed by the conqueror," which included a promised payment

of 100,000 ducats. This payment the shifty emperor evaded,

when Matthias became involved anew, as he presently did, in

hostilities with Bohemia and Poland. "Matthias, irritated by

his conduct, concluded a peace with Ladislaus, by which he

acknowledged him as king of Bohemia, and agreed that Moravia,

Silesia, and Lusatia [which had been surrendered to him in

1475] should revert to the crown of Bohemia, in ease of his

death without issue. He then again invaded Austria; but his

arms were not attended with the same rapid success as on the

former invasion. … It was not till after a contest of four

years, which called forth all the skill and perseverance of

the warlike monarch and his most experienced generals, that

they obtained possession of the capital [1485] and the

neighbouring fortresses, and completed the subjugation of

Lower Austria, by the capture of Newstadt, the favourite

residence of the emperor. Frederic, driven from his hereditary

dominions, at first took refuge at Gratz; and, on the approach

of danger, wandered from city to city, and from convent to

convent." After many appeals, he persuaded Albert, duke of

Saxony, to take the field in his behalf; but Albert, with the

small force at his command, could only retard the progress of

the invader, and he soon concluded an armistice with him. "In

consequence of this agreement, he [Albert of Saxony], in

November, 1487, abandoned Austria, and Matthias was permitted

to retain possession of the conquered territories, until

Frederic had discharged his former engagement, and reimbursed

the expenses of the war; should Matthias die before that

period, these states were to revert to their sovereign."

W. Coxe,

History of the House of Austria,

chapter 18 (volume 1).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.

Death of Matthias.

Election of Wladislaw, or Ladislaus, of the Polish house of

Jagellon.

Union of the crowns of Hungary and Bohemia.

Loss of the Austrian provinces.

Treaty of Succession with Maximilian.

Insurrection of the Kurucs.

Loss of Belgrade.

Great Turkish invasion and ruinous battle of Mohacs.

The end of Hungarian independence.

"When once the archduchy of Austria was conquered, Mathias,

who was already master of Moravia and Silesia, had in his

power a state almost as large as the Austria of the present

time, if we except from it Galicia and Bohemia. But his power

had no solid foundation. While the influence of the house of

Austria had been increased by marriage, Mathias Corvinus had

no legitimate heir. He made several attempts to have his

natural son, John Corvinus, born in Silesia, recognized as his

successor; but he died suddenly (1490) at the age of 50,

without having arranged anything definitely for the future of

his kingdom. … Hungary reached her highest point in the

reign of Mathias Corvinus, and from this time we shall have to

watch her hopeless decay. The diet, divided by the ambition of

rival barons, could decide on no national king, and so turned

to a foreigner. Wladyslaw II., of the [Polish] house of

Jagellon, was elected, and thus a king of Bohemia, and an old

rival of Mathias, united the two crowns of St. Vacslav and St.

Stephen—a union which had been so ardently hoped for by

Mathias, and for which he had waged the miserable war against

Bohemia. … The beginning of the new reign was not fortunate.

Maximilian [son of the Emperor Frederic] recovered the

Austrian provinces, and John of Poland declared war against

his brother, Wladyslaw, and obliged him to cede part of

Silesia to him. Maximilian invaded the west of Hungary, …

whence he only consented to retire after Wladyslaw had agreed

to a treaty, which secured Hungary to the house of Austria, in

case of Wladyslaw dying without children. This treaty, in

which the king disposed of the country without consulting the

diet, roused universal indignation. … Meanwhile, the Turks

thronged round the southern frontier of the kingdom. Bajazet

II. had failed to capture Belgrade in 1492, but he could not

be prevented from forcing his way into the valley of the Save,

and beating the Hungarian army, which was badly paid and badly

disciplined. … Wladyslaw had one son, Louis. Surrounded by

the net of Austrian diplomacy, he had affianced this son in

his cradle to Mary of Austria, the sister of Charles V., and

later on he undertook, in defiance of public opinion, to leave

the crown to his daughter Anne, who was, betrothed to

Ferdinand of Austria, if Louis should die without heirs. …

To add to the miseries of his reign, a peasant rising, a

terrible Jacquerie, took place. … In 1513, Cardinal Bacracz

came from Rome, bringing with him the papal bull for a crusade

against the infidels; whereupon the peasants armed themselves,

as if they were about to march against the Turks, and then

turned their arms against the nobles. This terrible

insurrection is called in Hungarian history the insurrection

of the Kurucs (Kouroutses, cruciati) crusaders. … The chief

leader of the insurrection, the peasant Dosza, was one of the

Szeklers of Transylvania. … Dosza was beaten in a battle

near Temesvar, and fell into the hands of his enemies. Their

vengeance was terrible. The king of the peasants was seated on

a throne of fire, and crowned by the executioner with a

red-hot crown. He bore his frightful sufferings with a courage

that astonished his adversaries. … The feeble Wladyslaw died

in 1515, and the reign of the child-king, Louis II., may be

summed up in two catastrophes, the loss of Belgrade and the

defeat at Mohacs. The young king, married in his cradle, was

corrupt and dissolute, and quite incapable of governing, and

his guardians could not rise to the height of the occasion.

{1674}

The finances of the kingdom were in great disorder, and the

leading barons quarrelled continually over the shreds of

sovereignty still left. … This state of things was of the

greatest use to the Turks, for while Hungary was sinking ever

deeper into anarchy, Turkey was ruled by the great sovereign

who was called Soliman the Magnificent. It was not long before

he found a pretext for war in the arrest of one of his

subjects as a spy, and assembled his troops at Sophia,

captured Shabats [Szabatch], laid siege to Belgrade and took

it, making it thenceforward a Mussulman fortress (1521). The

key of the Danube was now in the hands of the Turks. … King

Louis begged for help on every side. … The Austrian princes

were ready to help him from interested motives; but even when

joined with Hungary they were too feeble to conquer the armies

of 'the Magnificent.' On the 25th of April, 1526, Soliman

quitted Constantinople, bringing with him 100,000 men and 300

cannon, taking up arms not only against Hungary, but against

the empire. One of the pretexts for his expedition was the

captivity of Francis I.; he wished, he said, to save 'the bey

of France' from the hands of the Germans and their allies the

Hungarians. He crossed the Save near Osiek (Essek), captured

Petervardin, and came up with the Hungarians at Mohacs, on the

right bank of the Danube (August 26, 1526). The Magyar army

was commanded by the king in person, assisted by Paul Tomory,

archbishop of Kalocsa, one of the warlike bishops of whom

Hungary gives us so many examples; by George Szapolyai, and by

Peter Perenyi, bishop of Nagy-Varad (Great Varadin). Perenyi

wished to treat with the Turks, in order to gain time for help

to reach them from Croatia and Transylvania, but the

impetuosity of Tomory decided on immediate battle. … At

first, it seemed as if the battle was in favour of the

Magyars; but Soliman had commanded that the front ranks of his

army should give way before the Hungarian cavalry, and that

then the main body of his troops should close around them.

When the Magyars were thus easily within reach, they were

overwhelmed by the Turkish artillery and forced to retreat.

They took refuge in some marshy land, in which many of them

lost their lives. The king had disappeared; Tomory was slain;

seven bishops, 22 barons, and 22,000 men were left upon the

field. The road to Buda lay open before the invaders, and

after having laid waste the whole country on their way, they

reached the capital, where the treasures which Mathias

Corvinus had collected in his palace and his library were

either carried off or committed to the flames. … Then the

tide of invasion gradually retired, leaving behind it a land

covered with ruins. The independent existence of Hungary ended

with Louis II."

L. Leger,

History of Austro-Hungary,

chapter 15.

ALSO IN:

L. Felbermann,

Hungary and its People,

chapter 3.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

Election of John Zapolya to the throne.

Rival candidacy and election of Ferdinand of Austria.

Zapolya's appeal to the Turks.

Great invasion by Soliman.

Siege of Vienna.

The sultan master of the greater part of the country.

Progress of the Reformation.

Soliman's last invasion.

"No sooner was the corpse of Louis II. found lying in a marsh,

under his mangled steed, than the necessity of speedily

electing a new monarch was powerfully felt. Louis left no heir

to the throne, while his wife Mary, archduchess of Austria,

far from trying to possess herself of the helm of the state,

was already on her way to Vienna, even before the results of

the battle of Mohacs had become fully known. The vacant throne

found thus an aspirant in John Zapolya, waivod of Transylvania

and count of the Zips, who lay encamped with a mighty army at

Szegedin, on his march to the plain of Mohacs. … The Diet,

which met on the plain of Rakos (1526), proclaimed Zapolya

king. … The day of coronation was soon fixed, the waivod

receiving his royal unction at Weisenburg. Stephen Batory, the

palatine, however, actuated by envy rather than ambition,

first attempted to oppose to the new king the interests of the

widow of Louis II. But the Austrian archduchess, unwilling to

enter the field as a competitor for the crown, handed over her

role to her brother Ferdinand I. of Austria, who was married

to Anne, sister of the late Hungarian king. Ferdinand soon

repaired to Presburg, a town beyond the reach of Zapolya's

arms, where he was elected king of Hungary by an aristocratic

party, headed by the palatine Batory, Francis Batthany, Ban of

Croatia, and Nadasdy." After a fruitless conference between

representatives of the rival kings, they proceeded to war.

Zapolya was "master of the whole country, except some parts

beyond the Danube," but he remained inactive at Buda until the

Austrians surprised him there and forced him to evacuate the

capital. "Not able to make head against the foreign

mercenaries of Ferdinand, Zapolya was soon obliged to confine

himself to the northern frontiers, till he left the kingdom

for Poland, there to solicit help and concert measures for the

renewal of the war (1528)." Receiving no encouragement from

the king of Poland, Zapolya at length addressed himself to the

great enemy of Hungary, the sultan Soliman, and there he met

no rebuff. The Ottoman conqueror made instant preparations to

enter Hungary as the champion of its native king. Thereupon

"Zapolya organized a small army, and crossed the frontiers.

His army was soon swelled to thousands, and he had possessed

himself of the greatest part of Upper, before Soliman began to

pour down on Lower Hungary. … Proclaiming to the people that

his army was not come to conquer, but to assist their elected

native king, Soliman marched onwards, took Buda, Gran, and

Raab, all of them shamelessly given up by Ferdinand's

mercenaries, and moved on unopposed to the walls of Vienna

[1529]. Ferdinand, in his distress, Invoked the assistance of

Germany; but his brother [the] emperor, as well as the Diet of

Spires, engrossed with Luther and his followers, … were not

forward to render their assistance. Vienna, however, though

neglected by the German emperor, was momentarily saved by the

advanced state of the season; for winter being at hand, the

Turks, according to their usage at that season, took their

way home. [The besieging army of Turks is said to have

numbered 250,000 men; while the river swarmed with 400 Turkish

boats. Twenty fierce assaults were made upon the defenses of

the city, in as many days. The suburbs were destroyed and the

surrounding country terribly ravaged.

{1675}

Before raising the siege, the baffled Turk massacred thousands

of captives, under the walls, only carrying away into slavery

the young and fair of both sexes. The repulse of Soliman is

"an epoch in the history of the world."]

Sir E. S. Creasy,

History of the Ottoman Turks,

chapter 9.

… Zapolya, having taken up his position in Buda, ruled over

the greatest part of Hungary; while Croatia submitted to

Ferdinand. … A useless war was thus for a while carried on

between the two rival sovereigns, in the midst of which Buda

had to sustain a heavy siege conducted by General Roggendorf;

but the garrison, though reduced so far as to be obliged to

eat horseflesh, succeeded in repelling and routing the

Austrian besiegers (1530)." Ferdinand now humbled himself to

the sultan, beseeching his friendship and support, but in

vain. The war of the rival kings went on until 1538, when it

was suspended by what is known as the Treaty of Grosswardein,

which conceded to each party possession of the parts of the

country which he then occupied; which gave the whole to

Zapolya if Ferdinand died without male issue, and the whole to

Ferdinand if Zapolya died before him, even though Zapolya

should leave an heir—but the heir, in this latter case, was

to marry Ferdinand's daughter. This treaty produced immense

indignation in the country. "That the never-despairing and

ambitious Zapolya meant that step rather as a means of

momentary repose, may safely be assumed; but the development

of his schemes was arrested by the hand of death (1540), which

removed the weary warrior from these scenes of blood, at the

very moment when his ears were gladdened by the news that he

had become the father of a son." Ferdinand now claimed the

undivided sovereignty, according to the terms of the Treaty of

Grosswardein; but the queen-dowager Isabella, wife of John

Zapolya, maintained the rights of her infant son. She was

supported by a strong party, animated and led by one George

Martinussius, a priest of extraordinary powers. Both Ferdinand

and Isabella appealed to the sultan, as to an acknowledged

suzerain. He declared for young Zapolya, and sent an army to

Buda to establish his authority, while another Turkish army

occupied Transylvania. "Soliman soon followed in person, made

his entry into Buda [1541], which he determined to keep

permanently occupied during the minority of Sigismund; and

assuring Isabella of his affection to the son of John, bade

her retire with the child to Transylvania; a piece of advice

which she followed not without some reluctance and distrust.

Buda was thus henceforward governed by a pasha; the army of

Ferdinand was ruined, and Soliman, under the title of an ally,

became absolute lord of the country." After a few years "new

complications and difficulties arose in Transylvania, when

Martinussius, who was confirmed by Soliman in his capacity of

guardian to the young Sigismund and regent of that country,

began to excite the suspicion of queen Isabella. Ferdinand,

aware of these circumstances, marched an army into

Transylvania, headed by Costaldo, who was instructed to gain

over the monk-tutor." Martinussius was won by the promise of a

cardinal's hat; with his help the queen-dowager was coerced

into abdicating in behalf of her son. Having brought this

about, Ferdinand basely procured the assassination of the monk

Martinussius. "'Far from gaining by an act that stamped his

own name with eternal shame, Ferdinand was soon driven by the

Turks from Transylvania, and lost even the places occupied by

his troops in Hungary.' … Transylvania owned the sway of

Sigismund Zapolya, while Ferdinand, in spite of the crown of

the German empire, recently conferred upon him, … was fain

to preserve in Hungary some small districts, contiguous to his

Austrian dominions. … In the year 1563, Ferdinand convoked

his party at Presburg," and prevailed upon them to go through

the form of electing his son Maximilian to the Hungarian

throne. "Ferdinand soon after died (1564), leaving three sons.

Of these, Maximilian succeeded his father in Austria;

Ferdinand inherited the Tyrol; and Charles, the youngest son,

got possession of Styria. Maximilian, who, in addition to his

Austrian dominions, succeeded to the throne of Bohemia and to

that of the German empire, proved as impotent in Hungary as

his father had been. The Pasha of Buda ruled the greater part

of Hungary proper; Sigismund Zapolya continued to maintain his

authority in Transylvania. … His [Maximilian's] reign left

Hungary much the same as it was under his predecessor,

although much credit is due to the neutral line of conduct he

observed in regard to religious affairs. Unlike the rise and

progress of the Reformation in the rest of Europe, religious

reform in Hungary was rather an additional element in the

political conflict than its originator. … By the battle of

Mohacs, the Reformation was freed from a bigoted king and many

persecuting prelates; while Ferdinand, conniving at the

Protestant party in Germany, was withheld from persecuting it

in Hungary, the more so from the dread that his rival might

win the Protestant party to his interest. The Protestants thus

increased in number amid the din of arms. … The sectarian

spirit, though somewhat later than elsewhere, found also its

way into this land of blood, and Hungary was soon possessed of

considerable bodies of Lutherans and Calvinists, besides a

smaller number of Anabaptists and Socinians. … Calvin's

followers were mostly Magyars, while Lutheranism found its

centre point in the German population of Transylvania." In

1566, Maximilian, encouraged by some subsidies obtained from

his German subjects, began hostilities against the Turks and

against Sigismund in Transylvania. This provoked another

formidable invasion by the great sultan Soliman. The progress

of the Turk was stopped, however, at the fortress of Szigeth,

by a small garrison of 3,000 men, commanded by Nicholas Zriny.

These devoted men resisted the whole army of the Moslems for

nearly an entire month, and perished, everyone, without

surrendering their trust. Soliman, furious at the loss of

20,000 men, and the long delay which their obstinate valor

caused him, died of apoplexy while the siege went on. This

brought the expedition to an end, and Maximilian "bought a new

peace at the hands of Selim II., son of Soliman, for a tribute

of 30,000 ducats (1567). Shortly after, Maximilian was also

relieved of his rival, John Sigismund Zapolya, who died a

sudden death."

E. Szabad,

Hungary, Past and Present,

part 2, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

R. W. Fraser,

Turkey, Ancient and Modern,

chapters 12-13.

{1676}

HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.

Successive disturbances in Transylvania.

Cession of the principality to the House of Austria, and

consequent revolt.

Religious persecutions of Rodolph.

Successful rebellion of Botskai.

Continued war with the Turks.

John Sigismond Zapolya refused at first to be included in the

peace which Maximilian arranged with the Turks, and endeavored

to stir up an insurrection in Hungary; but his scheme failed,

and "he had no resource but to accept the terms of peace

offered by Maximilian, which were advantageous to both

parties. He engaged not to assume the title of king of

Hungary, except in his correspondence with the Turks, and to

acknowledge the emperor as king, his superior and master; in

addition to Transylvania, as an hereditary principality, he

was to retain for life the counties of Bihar and Marmarosch,

with Crasna and Zolnok, and whatever territories he could

recover from the Turks. In return, the emperor promised to

confer on him one of his nieces in marriage, and to cede to

him Oppelen in Silesia, if expelled from Transylvania. On the

death of John Sigismond without issue male, Transylvania was

to be considered as an elective principality, dependent on the

crown of Hungary. The intended marriage did not take place,

for John Sigismond dying on the 16th of March, 1571, soon

after the peace, all his possessions in Hungary reverted to

Maximilian. The diet of Transylvania chose Stephen Bathori,

who had acted with great reputation as the general and

minister of John Sigismond; and Maximilian, although he had

recommended another person, prudently confirmed the choice.

… The new waivode was accordingly confirmed, both by

Maximilian and the Turks, took the oath of fidelity to the

crown of Hungary, and continued to live on terms of friendship

and concord with the emperor. … Maximilian being of a

delicate constitution, and declining in health, employed the

last years of his reign in taking precautions to secure his

dignities and possessions for his descendants. Having first

obtained the consent of the Hungarian states, his eldest son

Rhodolph was, in 1572, crowned king of Hungary, in a diet at

Presburgh." Subsequently, the election of Rhodolph by the

Bohemian diet was likewise procured, and he was crowned king

of Bohemia on the 22d of September, 1575. A few weeks later,

the same son was chosen and crowned king of the Romans, which

secured his succession to the imperial dignity. This latter

crown fell to him the following year, when his father died.

Educated in Spain and by the Jesuits, the new emperor was

easily persuaded to reverse the tolerant policy of his father,

and to adopt measures of repression and persecution against

the Protestants, in the Austrian provinces, in Hungary and in

Bohemia, which could not long be endured without resistance.

"The first object of Rhodolph had been to secure his dominions

in Hungary against the Turks. In order to diminish the

enormous expense of defending the distant fortresses on the

side of Croatia, he transferred that country, as a fief of the

empire, to his uncle Charles, duke of Styria, who, from the

contiguity of his dominions, was better able to provide for

its security. Charles accordingly constructed the fortress of

Carlstadt, on the Kulpa, which afterwards became the capital

of Croatia, and a military station of the highest importance.

He also divided the ceded territory into numerous tenures,

which he conferred on freebooters and adventurers of every

nation, and thus formed a singular species of military colony.

This feudal establishment gradually extended along the

frontiers of Sclavonia and Croatia, and not only contributed,

at the time, to check the incursions of the Turks, but

afterwards supplied that lawless and irregular, though

formidable military force … who, under the names of Croats,

Pandours, and other barbarous appellations, spread such terror

among the enemies of Austria on the side of Europe. …

Notwithstanding the armistice concluded with the Sultan by

Maximilian, and its renewal by Rhodolph in 1584 and 1591, a

predatory warfare had never ceased along the frontiers." The

truce of 1591 was quickly broken in a more positive way by

Sultan Amurath, whose forces invaded Croatia and laid siege to

Siseek. They were attacked there and driven from their lines,

with a loss of 12,000 men. "Irritated by this defeat, …

Amurath published a formal declaration of war, and poured his

numerous hordes into Hungary and Croatia. The two following

years were passed in various sieges and engagements, attended

with alternate success and defeat; but the advantage

ultimately rested on the side of the Turks, by the capture of

Siseck and Raab. In 1595, a more favourable though temporary

turn was given to the Austrian affairs, by the defection of

the prince of Transylvania from the Turks. On the elevation of

Stephen Bathori to the throne of Poland, his brother

Christopher succeeded him as waivode of Transylvania, and,

dying in 1582, left an infant son, Sigismond, under the

protection of the Porte. Sigismond, who possessed the high

spirit and talents of his family, had scarcely assumed the

reins of government before he liberated himself from the

galling yoke of the Turks, and in 1595 concluded an offensive

alliance with the house of Austria. … He was to retain

Transylvania as an independent principality, the part of

Hungary which he still held, and Moldavia and Wallachia. …

The conquests of both parties were to be equally divided. …

By this important alliance the house of Austria was delivered

from an enemy who had always divided its efforts, and made a

powerful diversion in favour of the Turks. Sigismond

signalised himself by his heroic courage and military skill;

uniting with the waivodes of Moldavia and Wallachia, he

defeated the grand vizir, Sinan, took Turgovitch by storm, and

drove the Turks back in disgrace towards Constantinople.

Assisted by this diversion, the Austrians in Hungary were

likewise successful, and not only checked the progress of the

Turks, but distinguished their arms by the recovery of Gran

and Vissegrad. This turn of success roused the sultan Mahomet,

the son and successor of Amurath. … He put himself, in 1596,

at the head of his forces, led them into Hungary, took Erlau,

and defeating the Austrians under the archduke Maximilian, the

lateness of the season alone prevented him from carrying his

arms into Austria and Upper Hungary, which were exposed by the

loss of Raab and Erlau. As Mahomet could not a second time

tear himself from the seraglio, the war was carried on without

vigour, and the season passed rather in truces than in action.

But this year, though little distinguished by military events,

was memorable for the cession of Transylvania to Rhodolph, by

the brave yet fickle Sigismond, in exchange for the lordships

of Ratibor and Oppelen in Silesia, with an annual pension."

{1677}

The capricious Sigismond, however, soon repenting of his

bargain, reclaimed and recovered his Transylvanian dominion,

but only to resign it again, in 1599, to his uncle, and again

to repossess it. Not until 1602, after much fighting and

disorder, was the fickle-minded and troublesome prince sent

finally to retirement, in Bohemia. Transylvania was then

placed under the government of the imperial general Basta.

"His cruel and despotic administration driving the natives to

despair, they found a chief in Moses Tzekeli, who, with other

magnates, after ineffectually opposing the establishment of

the Austrian government, had sought a refuge among the Turks.

Tzekeli, at the head of his fellow exiles, assisted by bodies

of Turks and Tartars, entered the country, was joined by

numerous adherents, and, having obtained possession of the

capital and the adjacent fortresses, was elected and

inaugurated prince of Transylvania. His reign, however, was

scarcely more permanent than that of his predecessor; for,

before he could expel the Germans, he was, in 1603, defeated

by the new waivode of Wallachia, and killed in the confusion

of the battle. In consequence of this disaster, his followers

dispersed, and Basta again recovered possession of the

principality. During these revolutions in Transylvania,

Hungary had been the scene of incessant warfare between the

Austrians and the Turks, which exhausted both parties with

little advantage to either. … Rhodolph had long lost the

confidence of his Hungarian subjects. … He treated the

complaints and remonstrances of his subjects with contempt and

indifference; and the German troops being free from control,

filled the country with devastation and pillage. While,

however, he abandoned the civil and military affairs to

chance, or to the will of his officers, he laboured to fetter

his subjects with religious restrictions, and the most

intolerant edicts were issued against the Protestants, in

various parts of the kingdom. … The disaffected increasing

in numbers, soon found a leader in Stephen Botskai, the

principal magnate of Upper Hungary, uncle of Sigismond

Bathori. … The discontents in Transylvania, arising from the

same causes as the rebellion in Hungary, greatly contributed

to the success of Botskai. … Being in 1604 assisted by a

Turkish army, which the new sultan, Achmet, despatched into

Transylvania, he soon expelled the Austrians, and was formally

inaugurated sovereign. … But Botskai was too disinterested

or too prudent to accept the regal dignity [as king of

Hungary, which the grand vizier of the sultan proclaimed him].

… He acted, however, with the same vigour and activity as if

he had a crown to acquire; before the close of the campaign he

conquered all Upper Hungary, almost to the walls of Presburgh;

at the same time the Turks reduced Gran, Vissegrad and

Novigrad."

W. Coxe

History of the House of Austria,

chapters 38-42 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

J. H. Merle D'Aubigne,

History of the Protestant Church in Hungary,

chapters 12-20.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.

The Turkish war.

Great defeat at Cerestes.

The Peace of Sitvatorok.

'The disasters which the Turkish arms were now experiencing in

Wallachia and Hungary made the Sultan's best statesmen anxious

that the sovereign should, after the manner of his great

ancestors, head his troops in person, and endeavour to give an

auspicious change to the fortune of the war. … The

Imperialists, under the Archduke Maximilian and the Hungarian

Count Pfalfy, aided by the revolted princes of the Danubian

Principalities, dealt defeat and discouragement among the

Ottoman ranks, and wrung numerous fortresses and districts

from the empire. The cities of Gran, Wissgrad, and Babocsa,

had fallen; and messengers in speedy succession announced the

loss of Ibrail, Varna, Kilic, Ismail, Silistria, Rustchuk,

Bucharest, and Akerman. These tidings at last roused the

monarch in his harem. … Mahomet III. left his capital for

the frontier in the June of 1596. … The display of the

sacred standard of the Prophet, which now for the first time

was unfurled over a Turkish army, excited … the zeal of the

True Believers. … The Grand Vizier, Ibrahim Pacha, Hassan

Sokolli Pacha, and Cicala Pacha, were the principal commanders

under the Sultan. … The Archduke Maximilian, who commanded

the Imperialists, retired at first before the superior numbers

of the great Ottoman army; and the Sultan besieged and

captured Erlau. The Imperialists now having effected a

junction with the Transylvanian troops under Prince Sigismund,

advanced again, though too late to save Erlau; and on October

23rd, 1596, the two armies were in presence of each other on

the marshy plain of Cerestes, through which the waters of the

Cincia ooze towards the river Theiss. There were three days of

battle at Cerestes." Repeatedly, the effeminate Sultan wished

to order a retreat, or to betake himself to flight; but was

persuaded by his counsellors to remain on the field, though

safely removed from the conflict. On the third day the battle

was decided in favor of the Turks by a charge of their cavalry

under Cicala. "Terror and flight spread through every division

of the Imperialists; and in less than half an hour from the

time when Cicala began his charge, Maximilian and Sigismund

were flying for their lives, without a single Christian

regiment keeping their ranks, or making an endeavour to rally

and cover the retreat. 50,000 Germans and Transylvanians

perished in the marshes or beneath the Ottoman sabre. …

Mahomet III. eagerly returned after the battle to

Constantinople, to receive felicitations and adulation for his

victory, and to resume his usual life of voluptuous indolence.

The war in Hungary was prolonged for several years, until the

peace of Sitvatorok [November 11, 1606] in the reign of

Mahomet's successor. … No change of importance was made in

the territorial possessions of either party, except that the

Prince of Transylvania was admitted as party to the treaty,

and that province became to some extent, though not entirely,

independent of the Ottoman Empire."

Sir E. S. Creasy,

History of the Ottoman Turks,

chapter 12.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1606-1660.

The Pacification of Vienna.

Gabriel Bethlem of Transylvania and the Bohemian revolt.

Participation and experience in the Thirty Years War.

In 1606, the Archduke Mathias—who had lately been appointed

to the Governorship of Hungary, and who had been acknowledged,

by a secret compact among the members of the Hapsburg family as

the head of their House—arranged the terms of a peace with

Botskai. This treaty, called the "Pacification of Vienna,"

restored the religious toleration that had been practised by

Ferdinand and Maximilian; provided that Mathias should be

lieutenant-general of the kingdom; gave to Botskai the title

of Prince of Transylvania and part of Hungary; and stipulated

that on the failure of his male issue these territories should

revert to the House of Austria.

{1678}

"This treaty, at last, restored peace to Hungary, but at the

expense of her unity and independence. Some idea may be formed

of the state of weakness and lassitude to which these long

wars had reduced the country … by a statement of the

divisions into which it had been split up by the various

factions. Hungary, with Croatia, Sclavonia, and the frontiers,

was then reckoned to cover an area of 4,427 square miles, and

Transylvania one of 736. Of these 5,163 miles, Turkey

possessed 1,859; Botskai in Hungary 1,346, in Transylvania

736=2,082; [sic] and Austria only 1,222. Botskai died in 1606,

and was succeeded by Sigismond Rakoczi, who, however, soon

abdicated in favour of Gabriel Bathori." At this time the

plans of the Austrian family for taking the reins of power out

of the feeble and careless hands of the Emperor Rodolph, and

giving them to his more energetic brother, the Archduke

Mathias, came to a head.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1556-1609.

Mathias "marched into Bohemia: and Rodolph, after a feeble

resistance, found himself abandoned by all his supporters, and

compelled to resign into the hands of Mathias Hungary, Austria

and Moravia, and to guarantee to him the succession to the

crown of Bohemia; Mathias in the meantime bearing the title of

king elect of that kingdom, with the consent of the states.

Rodolph at the same time delivered up the Hungarian regalia,

which for some time past had been kept at Prague." Before his

coronation, Mathias was required by the Hungarian diet to sign

a compact, guaranteeing religious liberty; stipulating that

the Hungarian Chamber of Finances should be independent of

that of Austria, that all offices and employments should be

filled by natives, and that the Jesuits should possess no real

property in the country. The peace of the country was soon

disturbed by another revolution in Transylvania. "Gabriel

Bathori, who had succeeded Sigismond Bathori on the throne of

the principality, had suffered his licentiousness to tempt him

into insulting the wives of some of the nobles, who instantly

fell upon him and murdered him; and in his place Gabriel

Bethlem, a brave warrior and an able statesman, was

unanimously elected, with the consent and approbation of the

sultan. Under his government his dominions enjoyed a full

measure of peace and tranquillity, and began to recover from

the horrible devastations of preceding years. He did not,

however, assume his dignity without dispute. Transylvania had

been secured to the house of Austria on the death of Botskai,

by the Pacification of Vienna, and Mathias was, of course, now

anxious to enforce his rights, and he considered the present

opportunity (1617) favourable, as the Turks were engaged in

wars on the side of Asia and Poland. He therefore summoned a

diet of the empire, to the throne of which he had succeeded in

1612 by the death of Rodolph. … But the diet refused all

aid," and he was forced to conclude a peace with the sultan

for the further period of twenty years. "No mention being made

in it of Transylvania, the rights of Gabriel Bethlem were thus

tacitly recognised. Mathias died soon after, in 1619, leaving

his crown to his cousin, Ferdinand II." Then followed the

renewed attempt of an imperial bigot to crush Protestantism in

his dominions, and the Bohemian revolt (see BOHEMIA: A. D.

1611-1618) which kindled the flames of the "Thirty Years'

War." Hungary and Transylvania were in sympathy with Bohemia.

"Gabriel Bethlem entered Hungary, in answer to the call of the

Protestants of that country, at the head of a large army—took

Cassau, Tiernan, Newhasel, dispersed the imperial forces under

Homonai, sent 18,000 men to enforce Count Thurn, got

possession of Presburg by treachery, and seized upon the

regalia." The cause of the Bohemians was lost at the battle of

the White Mountain, before Prague; but "Gabriel Bethlem for a

long time supported the prestige acquired by his earlier

successes. He was proclaimed king of Hungary, and obtained

considerable advantages over two generals of ability and

reputation." But a treaty of peace was concluded at length,

according to which Gabriel surrendered the crown and royal

title, receiving the duchies of Oppelen and Ratibor in

Silesia, and seven counties of Hungary, together with Cassau,

Tokay, and other towns. Ferdinand promised complete toleration

to the Protestants, but was not faithful to his promise, and

war was soon resumed. Bethlem "collected an army of 45,000

men, joined his forces with those of Mansfeldt, the general of

the confederacy [the Protestant Union], after his victory over

the imperialists at Presburg; and at the same time the Bashaw

of Buda entered Lower Hungary at the head of a large force,

captured various fortresses in the district of Gran, and laid

siege to Novigrad. They were opposed by two able generals, the

famous Wallenstein and Swartzemberg, but without checking

their progress. Wallenstein, however, followed Mansfeldt into

Hungary, where the two armies remained for some time inactive

in the presence of one another; but famine, disease, and the

approach of winter at last brought the contest to, a close.

The king of Denmark had been defeated, and Gabriel Bethlem

began to fear that the whole force of the Austrians would now

be directed against him, and concluded a truce. The bashaw of

Buda feared the winter, and followed his example; and

Mansfeldt, finding himself thus abandoned, disbanded his

soldiers.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.

… The treaty of peace was again renewed, the truce with the

Turks prolonged." Gabriel Bethlem, or Bethlem Gabor, died in

1629. "The Transylvanians elected George Rakotski to fill his

place, and during nearly four years Hungary and Transylvania

enjoyed the blessings of peace." Then they were again

disturbed by attempts of Ferdinand to reduce Transylvania to

the state of an Austrian province, and by hostile measures

against the Protestants. The latter continued after the death

of Ferdinand II. (1637), and under his son Ferdinand III.

Rakotski inspired an insurrection of the Hungarians which

became formidable, and which, joining in alliance with the

Swedes, then warring in Germany, extorted from the emperor a

very favorable treaty of peace (1647). "At the same time

Ferdinand caused his son of the same name, and elder brother

of Leopold, to be elected and crowned king. During his short

reign, the country was tranquil; but in 1654 he died, leaving

his rights to Leopold. The reign of Leopold [1655-1697] was a

period which witnessed events more important to Hungary than

any which preceded it, or have followed it, save only the

revolutionary years, 1848 and 1849.

{1679}

No monarch of the house of Austria had ever made so determined

attacks upon Hungarian liberty, and to none did the Hungarians

oppose a braver and more strenuous resistance. Nothing was

left untried on the one side to overthrow the constitution;

nothing was left untried on the other to uphold and defend

it."

E. L. Godkin,

History of Hungary,

chapters 15-17.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.

Turkish attacks on Upper Hungary.

The battle of St. Gothard.

Liberation of Transylvania.

A twenty years truce.

"Hostilities had recommenced, in 1660, between the Ottoman

empire and Austria, on account of Transylvania. The Turk was

suzerain of Transylvania, and directly held Buda and the part

of Hungary on the west and south of the Danube, projecting

like a wedge between Upper Hungary, Styria, and Vienna. George

Rakoczi, Prince of Transylvania, having perished in combat

against the Sultan, his suzerain, the Turks had pursued the

House of Rakoczi into the domains which it possessed in Upper

Hungary. The Rakoczis, and the new prince elected by the

Transvlvanians, Kemeni, invoked the aid of the emperor. The

Italian, Montecuculi, the greatest military chieftain in the

service of the House of Austria, expelled the Turks from a

part of Transylvania, but could not maintain himself there;

Kemeni was killed in a skirmish. The Turks installed their

protégé, Michael Abaffi, in his place, and renewed their

attacks against Upper Hungary (1661-1662). The secret of these

alternations lay in the state of feeling of the Hungarians and

Transylvanians, who, continually divided between two

oppressors, the Turk and the Austrian, and too weak to rid

themselves of either, always preferred the absent to the

present master. … Religious distrust also complicated

political distrust; Protestantism, crushed in Bohemia,

remained powerful and irritated in Hungary. The emperor

demanded the assistance of the Germanic Diet and all the

Christian states against the enemy of Christianity. … Louis

XIV., at the first request of Leopold, supported by the Pope,

replied by offers so magnificent that they appalled the

Emperor. Louis proposed not less than 60,000 auxiliaries, half

to be furnished by France, half by the Alliance of the Rhine;

that is, by the confederates of France in Germany. … The

Emperor … would have gladly been able to dispense with the

aid of France and his confederates; but the more pressing

danger prevailed over the more remote. The Turks had made a

great effort during the summer of 1663. The second of the

Kiouprouglis, the Vizier Achmet, taking Austrian Hungary in

the rear, had crossed the Danube at Buda with 100,000 fighting

men, invaded the country between the Danube and the

Carpathians, and hurled his Tartars to the doors of Presburg

and Olmütz. Montecuculi had with great difficulty been able to

maintain himself on the island of Schütt, a species of vast

intrenched camp formed by nature in front of Presburg and

Vienna. The fortified towns of Upper Hungary fell one after

another, and the Germanic Diet, which Leopold had gone to

Ratisbon to meet, replied with maddening dilatoriness to the

urgent entreaties of the head of the Empire. The Diet voted no

effective aid until February, 1664; but the Alliance of the

Rhine, in particular, had already accorded 6,500 soldiers, on

condition that the Diet should decide, before separating,

certain questions relative to the interpretation of the Treaty

of Westphalia. The Pope, Spain, and the Italian States

furnished subsidies. Louis persisted in offering nothing but

soldiers, and Leopold resigned himself to accept 6,000

Frenchmen. He had no reason to repent it. … When the

junction was effected [July, 1664], the position of the

Imperialists was one of great peril. They had resumed the

offensive on the south of the Danube in the beginning of the

year; but this diversion, contrary to the advice of

Montecuculi, had succeeded ill. The Grand Vizier had repulsed

them, and, after carrying back his principal forces to the

right bank of the Danube, threatened to force the passage of

the Raab and invade Styria and Austria. The Confederate army

was in a condition to stand the shock just at the decisive

moment. An attempt of the Turks to cross the Raab at the

bridge of Kerment was repulsed by Coligni [commanding the

French], July 26, 1664. The Grand Vizier reascended the Raab

to St. Gothard, where were the headquarters of the

Confederates, and, on August 1, the attack was made by all the

Mussulman forces. The janizaries and spahis crossed the river

and overthrew the troops of the Diet and a part of the

Imperial regiments; the Germans rallied, but the Turks were

continually reinforced, and the whole Mussulman army was soon

found united on the other side of the Raab. The battle seemed

lost, when the French moved. It is said that Achmet

Kiouprougli, on seeing the young noblemen pour forth, with

their uniforms decked with ribbons, and their blond perukes,

asked, 'Who are these maidens?' The 'maidens' broke the

terrible janizaries at the first shock; the mass of the

Turkish army paused and recoiled on itself; the Confederate

army, reanimated by the example of the French, rushed forward

and charged on the whole line; the Turks fell back, at first

slowly, their faces towards the enemy, then lost footing and

fled precipitately to the river to recross it under the fire

of the Christians; they filled it with their corpses. The

fatigue of the troops, the night that supervened, the waters

of the Raab, swelled the next day by a storm, and above all

the lack of harmony among the generals, prevented the

immediate pursuit of the Turks, who had rallied on the

opposite bank of the river and had preserved the best part of

their cavalry. It was expected, nevertheless, to see them

expelled from all Hungary, when it was learned with

astonishment that Leopold had hastened to treat, without the

approbation of the Hungarian Diet, on conditions such that he

seemed the conquered rather than the conqueror. A twenty

years' truce was signed, August 10, in the camp of the Grand

Vizier. Transylvania became again independent under its

elective princes, but the protégé of the Turks, Abaffi, kept

his principality; the Turks retained the two chief towns which

they had conquered in Upper Hungary, and the Emperor made the

Sultan a 'present,' that is, he paid him 200,000 florins

tribute."

H. Martin,

History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,

volume 1, chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

W. Coxe,

History of the House of Austria,

chapter 62 (volume 2).

{1680}

HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.

Increased religious persecution and Austrian oppression.

Tekeli's revolt.

The Turks again called in.

Kara Mustapha's great invasion and siege of Vienna.

Deliverance of the city by John Sobieski.

In Hungary, "the discontent caused by the oppressive

Government and the fanatical persecution of Protestantism by

the Austrian Cabinet had gone on increasing. At length, the

Austrian domination had rendered itself thoroughly odious to

the Hungarians. To hinder the progress of Protestantism, the

Emperor Leopold, in the excess of his Catholic zeal, sent to

the galleys a great number of preachers and ministers; and to

all the evils of religious persecution were added the violence

and devastations of the generals and the German

administrators, who treated Hungary as a conquered province.

The Hungarians in vain invoked the charters which consecrated

their national liberties. To their most legitimate complaints

Leopold replied by the infliction of punishments; he spared

not even the families of the most illustrious; several

magnates perished by the hands of the executioner. Such

oppression was certain to bring about a revolt. In 1668 a

conspiracy had been formed against Leopold by certain

Hungarian leaders, which, however, was discovered and

frustrated; and it was not till 1677, when the young Count

Emmerich Tekeli, having escaped from prison, placed himself at

the head of the malcontents, that these disturbances assumed

any formidable importance. … Tekeli, who possessed much

military talent, and was an uncompromising enemy of the House

of Austria, having entered Upper Hungary with 12,000 men,

defeated the Imperial forces, captured several towns, occupied

the whole district of the Carpathian Mountains, and compelled

the Austrian generals, Counts Wurmb and Leslie, to accept the

truce he offered." In 1681 the Emperor made some concessions,

which weakened the party of independence, while, at the same

time, the Peace of Nimeguen, with France, allowed the House of

Austria to employ all its forces against the rebels. "In this

conjuncture Tekeli turned for aid towards the Turks, making an

appeal to Mahomet IV.; and after the conclusion of the Turkish

and Russian war in 1681, Kara Mustapha [the Grand Vizier]

determined to assist the insurgents openly, their leader

offering, in exchange, to acknowledge the suzerainty of the

Porte. Tekeli sought also succour from France. Louis XIV. gave

him subsidies, solicited the Sultan to send an army into

Hungary, and caused an alliance between the Hungarians,

Transylvanians, and Wallachians to be concluded against

Austria (1682). The truce concluded in 1665 between Austria

and Turkey had not yet expired," but the Sultan was persuaded

to break it. "The Governor of Buda received orders to support

Tekeli, who took the title of King. … Early in the spring of

1683 Sultan Mahomet marched forth from his capital with a

large army, which at Belgrade he transferred to the command of

Kara Mustapha. Tekeli formed a junction with the Turks at Essek."

S. Menzies,

Turkey, Old and New,

book 2, chapter 9, section 3 (volume 1).

"The strength of the regular forces, which Kara Mustapha led

to Vienna, is known from the muster-roll which was found in

his tent after the siege. It amounted to 275,000 men. The

attendants and camp-followers cannot be reckoned; nor can any

but an approximate speculation be made as to the number of the

Tartar and other irregular troops that joined the Vizier. It

is probable that not less than half a million of men were set

in motion in this last great aggressive effort of the Ottomans

against Christendom. The Emperor Leopold had neither men nor

money sufficient to enable him to confront such a deluge of

invasion; and, after many abject entreaties, he obtained a

promise of help from King Sobieski of Poland, whom he had

previously treated with contumely and neglect. … The Turkish

army proceeded along the western side of the Danube from

Belgrade, and reached Vienna without experiencing any serious

check, though a gallant resistance was made by some of the

strong places which it besieged during its advance. The city

of Vienna was garrisoned by 11,000 men under Count

Stahremberg, who proved himself a worthy successor of the

Count Salm, who had fulfilled the same duty when the city was

besieged by Sultan Solyman. The second siege of Vienna lasted

from the 15th July to the 12th September, 1683, during which

the most devoted heroism was displayed by both the garrison

and the inhabitants. … The garrison was gradually wasted by

the numerous assaults which it was called on to repulse, and

in the frequent sorties, by which the Austrian commander

sought to impede the progress of the besiegers. Kara Mustapha,

at the end of August, had it in his power to carry the city by

storm, if he had thought fit to employ his vast forces in a

general assault, and to continue it from day to day, as

Amurath IV. had done when Bagdad fell. But the Vizier kept the

Turkish troops back out of avarice, in the hope that the city

would come into his power by capitulation; in which case he

would himself be enriched by the wealth of Vienna, which, if

the city were taken by storm, would become the booty of the

soldiery. … Sobieski had been unable to assemble his troops

before the end of August; and, even then, they only amounted

to 20,000 men. But he was joined by the Duke of Lorraine and

some of the German commanders, who were at the head of a

considerable army, and the Polish King crossed the Danube at

Tulm, above Vienna, with about 70,000 men. He then wheeled

round behind the Kalemberg Mountains to the north-west of

Vienna, with the design of taking the besiegers in the rear.

The Vizier took no heed of him; nor was any opposition made to

the progress of the relieving army through the difficult

country which it was obliged to traverse. On the 11th of

September the Poles were on the summit of the Mount

Kalemberg," overlooking the vast encampment of the besiegers.

Sobieski "saw instantly the Vizier's want of military skill,

and the exposure of the long lines of the Ottoman camp to a

sudden and fatal attack. 'This man,' said he, 'is badly

encamped: he knows nothing of war; we shall certainly beat

him.' … The ground through which Sobieski had to move down

from the Kalemberg was broken by ravines; and was so difficult

for the passage of the troops that Kara Mustapha might, by an

able disposition of part of his forces, have long kept the

Poles in check, especially as Sobieski, in his hasty march,

had brought but a small part of his artillery to the scene of

action. But the Vizier displayed the same infatuation and

imbecility that had marked his conduct throughout the

campaign. … Unwilling to resign Vienna, Mustapha left the

chief part of his Janissary force in the trenches before the

city, and led the rest of his army towards the hills, down

which Sobieski and his troops were advancing.

{1691}

In some parts of the field, where the Turks had partially

intrenched the roads, their resistance to the Christians was

obstinate; but Sobieski led on his best troops in person in a

direct line for the Ottoman centre, where the Vizier's tent

was conspicuous; and the terrible presence of the victor of

Khoczim was soon recognised. 'By Allah! the King is really

among us,' exclaimed the Khan of the Crimea, Selim Ghirai; and

turned his horse's head for flight. The mass of the Ottoman

army broke and fled in hopeless rout, hurrying Kara Mustapha

with them from the field. The Janissaries, who had been left

in the trenches before the city, were now attacked both by the

garrison and the Poles and were cut to pieces. The camp, the

whole artillery, and the military stores of the Ottomans

became the spoil of the conquerors; and never was there a

victory more complete, or signalised by more splendid

trophies. The Turks continued their panic flight as far as

Raab. … The great destruction of the Turks before Vienna was

rapturously hailed throughout Christendom as the announcement

of the approaching downfall of the Mahometan Empire in

Europe."

Sir E. S. Creasy,

History of the Ottoman Turks,

chapter 16.

"It was cold comfort to the inhabitants of Vienna, or to the

King of Poland, to know that even if St. Stephen's had shared

the fate of St. Sophia and become a mosque of Allah, and if

the Polish standards had been borne in triumph to the

Bosphorus, yet that, nevertheless, the undisciplined Ottomans

would infallibly have been scattered by French, German and

Swedish armies on the fields of Bavaria or of Saxony. Vienna

would have been sacked; Poland would have been a prey to

internal anarchy and to Tartar invasion. The ultimate triumph

of their cause would have consoled few for their individual

destruction. … So cool and experienced a diplomatist as Sir

William Temple did indeed believe, at the time, that the fall

of Vienna would have been followed by a great and permanent

increase of Turkish power. Putting this aside, however, there

were other results likely to spring from Turkish success. The

Turks constantly made a powerful diversion in favour of France

and her ambitious designs. Turkish victories upon the one side

of Germany meant successful French aggressions upon the other,

and Turkish schemes were promoted with that object by the

French. … 'If France would but stand neutral, the

controversy between Turks and Christians might soon be

decided,' says the Duke of Lorraine. But France would not

stand neutral."

H. E. Malden,

Vienna, 1683,

chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

G. B. Malleson,

The Battle-Fields of Germany,

chapter 9.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1687.

End of the insurrection of Tekeli.

Bloody vengeance of the Austrian.

The crown made hereditary in the House of Hapsburg.

The defeat of the Turks was likewise a defeat for the

insurgent Tekeli, or Tököli, "whom they called the king of the

Kurucz, and after it he found himself reduced to guerilla

warfare. The victory over the Turks was followed by the

capture of some of the chief Magyar towns … and in the end

[1686] Buda itself, which was at last recovered after so long

an occupation. … Kara Mustapha attributed his defeat to

Tököli, and had his former ally arrested and imprisoned in

Belgrade. His captivity put an end to the party of the king of

the Kurucz. … An amnesty was proclaimed and immediately

afterwards violated, the Italian general, Caraffa, becoming

the merciless executioner of imperial vengeance. He

established a court at Éperjes, and the horrors of this

tribunal recall the most atrocious deeds of the Spaniards in

the Low Countries. … After having terrorized Hungary,

Leopold thought he had the right to expect every sort of

concession. Notwithstanding persecution, up to this date the

monarchy had remained elective. He was determined it should

now become hereditary; and the diet of 1687, in conformity

with the wishes of the sovereign, made the crown hereditary in

the male line of the house of Habsburg."

L. Leger,

History of Austro-Hungary,

chapter 20.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

Expulsion of the Turks.

Battle of Zenta.

Peace of Carlowitz.

After the great defeat of the Turks before Vienna, their

expulsion from Hungary was only a question of time. It began

the same autumn, in October, by the taking of Gran. In 1684,

the Imperialists under the Duke of Lorraine captured Visegrad

and Waitzen, but failed in a siege of Ofen, although they

defeated a Turkish army sent to its relief in July. In 1685

they took Neuhäusel by storm, and drove the Turks from Gran,

which these latter had undertaken to recover. Next year they

laid siege again to Ofen, investing the city on the 21st of

June and carrying it by a final assault on the 2d of

September. "Ofen, after having been held by the Porte, and

regarded as the third city in the Ottoman Empire, for 145

years, was restored to the sway of the Habsburgs." Before the

year closed the Austrians had acquired Szegedin, and several

lesser towns. The great event of the campaign of 1687 was a

battle on the field of Mohacs, where, in 1526, the Turks

became actual masters of Hungary, for the most part, while the

House of Austria acquired nominally the right to its crown. On

this occasion the fortune of 1526 was reversed. "The defeat

became a rout as decisive against the Turks as the earlier

battle on the same spot had proved to the Jagellons."

Transylvania and Slavonia were occupied as the consequence,

and Erlau surrendered before the close of the year. In 1688,

what seemed the crowning achievement of these campaigns was

reached in the recovery of Belgrade, after a siege of less

than a month. A Turkish army in Bosnia was destroyed; another

was defeated near Nissa, and that city occupied; and at the

end of 1689 the Turks held nothing north of the Danube except

Temeswar and Grosswardein (Great Waradein); while the

Austrians had made extensive advances, on the south of the

river, into Bosnia and Servia. Then occurred a great rally of

Ottoman energies, under an able Grand Vizier. In 1690, both

Nissa and Belgrade were retaken, and the Austrians were

expelled from Servia. But next year fortune favored the

Austrians once more and the Turks were severely beaten, by

Louis of Baden, on the field of Salankament. They still held

Belgrade, however, and the Austrians suffered heavily in

another attempt to regain that stronghold. For several years

little progress in the war was made on either side; until

Prince Eugene of Savoy received the command, in 1697, and

wrought a speedy change in the military situation.

{1682}

The Sultan, Mustapha II., had taken the Turkish command in

person, "with the finest army the Osmanli had raised since

their defeat at Mohacs." Prince Eugene attacked him, September

11, at Zenta, on the Theiss, and destroyed his army almost

literally. "When the battle ceased about 20,000 Osmanli lay on

the ground; some 10,000 had been drowned; scarcely 1,000 had

reached the opposite bank. There were but few prisoners.

Amongst the slain were the Grand Vizier and four other

Viziers. … By 10 o'clock at night not a single living

Osmanli remained on the right bank of the Theiss. … The

booty found in the camp surpassed all … expectations.

Everything had been left by the terror-stricken Sultan. There

was the treasury-chest, containing 3,000,000 piastres. … The

cost of these spoils had been to the victors only 300 killed

and 200 wounded. … The battle of Zenta, … regarded as part

of the warfare which had raged for 200 years between the

Osmanli and the Imperialists, … was the last, the most

telling, the decisive blow." It was followed by a period of

inaction, during which England and Holland undertook to

mediate between the Porte and its several Christian enemies.

Their mediation resulted in the meeting of a Congress at

Carlowitz, or Karlowitz, on the Danube, which was attended by

representatives of the Sultan, the Emperor, the Czar of

Russia, the King of Poland, and the republic of Venice. "Here,

after much negotiation, lasting seventy-two days, was

concluded, the 26th January, 1699, the famous Peace of

Carlowitz. The condition that each party should possess the

territories occupied by each at the moment of the meeting of

the congress formed its basis. By the treaty, then, the

frontier of Hungary, which, when the war broke out, extended

only to within a short distance of the then Turkish towns of

Gran and Neuhäusel, was pushed forward to within a short

distance of Temeswar and Belgrade. Transylvania and the

country of Bacska, between the Danube and the Theiss, were

yielded to the Emperor. To Poland were restored Kaminietz,

Podolia, and the supremacy over the lands watered by the

Ukraine, the Porte receiving from her in exchange, Soczava,

Nemos, and Soroka; to Venice, who renounced the conquests she

had made in the gulfs of Corinth and Ægina, part of the Morea,

and almost all Dalmatia, including the towns of Castelnuovo

and Cattaro; to Russia, the fortress and sea of Azof." By the

Peace of Carlowitz "the Ottoman Power lost nearly one-half of

its European dominions, and ceased to be dangerous to

Christendom. Never more would the discontented magnates of

Hungary be able to find a solid supporter in the sultan."

G. B. Malleson,

Prince Eugene of Savoy,

chapters 2 and 4.

ALSO IN:

Sir E. S. Creasy,

History of the Ottoman Turks,

chapter 17.

See, also, on the "Holy War," or "War of the "Holy League"

against the Turks, of which the war in Hungary formed only

a part, the TURKS: A. D. 1684—1696.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.

The revolt of Rakoczy and its suppression.

The Treaty of Szathmar.

Recovery of Belgrade and final expulsion of the Turks.

Peace of Passarowitz.

"The peace of Carlowitz, which disposed of the Hungarian

territory without the will or knowledge of the Hungarian

States, in utter contempt of repeatedly confirmed laws, was in

itself a deep source of new discontent,—which was

considerably increased by the general policy continually

pursued by the Court of Vienna. Even after the coronation of

Joseph I., a prince who; if left to himself, might have

perhaps followed a less provoking line of conduct, Leopold,

the real master of Hungary, did not relinquish his design of

entirely demolishing its institutions. … The high clergy

were ready to second any measure of the government, provided

they were allowed full scope in their persecutions of the

Protestants. … Scarcely had three years passed since the

peace of Carlowitz was signed, when Leopold, just embarking in

the war of the Spanish succession, saw the Hungarians suddenly

rise up as one man in arms. … The head and soul of this new

struggle in Hungary was Francis Rakoczy II., the son of Helen

Zriny, by her first husband, after the death of whom she

became the wife of Tököli." Rakoczy entered the country from

Poland, with a few hundred men, in 1703, and issued a

proclamation which brought large numbers to his support. The

Austrian forces had been mostly drawn away, by the war of the

Spanish succession, into Italy and to the Rhine, and during

the first year of the insurrection the Hungarian patriot

became master of the greater part of the country. Then there

occurred a suspension of hostilities, while the English

government made a fruitless effort at mediation. On the

reopening of warfare, the Austrians were better prepared and

more encouraged by the circumstances of the larger contest in

which they were engaged; while the Hungarians were

correspondingly discouraged. They had promises of help from

France, and France failed them; they had expectations from

Russia, but nothing came of them. "The fortune of war

decidedly turned in favour of the imperialists, in consequence

of which numerous families, to escape their fury, left their

abodes to seek shelter in the national camp; a circumstance

which, besides clogging the military movements, contributed to

discourage the army and spread general consternation." In 1710

Rakoczy went to Poland, where he was long absent, soliciting

help which he did not get. "Before his departure, the chief

command of the troops was entrusted to Karoly, who, tired of

Rakoczy's prolonged and useless absence in Poland, assembled

the nobles at Szathmar, and concluded, in 1711, a peace known

as the Treaty of Szathmar. By this treaty the emperor engaged

to redress all grievances, civil and religious, promising,

besides, amnesty to all the adherents of Rakoczy, as well as

the restitution of many properties illegally confiscated.

Rakoczy protested from Poland against the peace concluded by

Karoly; but of what effect could be the censure and

remonstrance of a leader who, in the most critical emergency,

had left the scene of action in quest of foreign assistance,

which, he might have foreseen, would never be accorded. …

After the peace of Szathmar, Hungarian history assumes a quite

different character." Revolts are at an end for more than a

century, and "Hungary, without producing a single man of note,

lay in a state of deep lethargy." In 1714, the Emperor Charles

VI. (who, as King of Hungary, was Charles III.) began a new

war against the Porte, with Prince Eugene again commanding in

Hungary. "The sultan Achmet III., anticipating the design of

the imperial general [to concentrate his troops on the

Danube], marched his army across the Save, and, as will be

seen, to his own destruction.

{1683}

After a small success gained by Palfy, Eugene routed the Turks

at Petervardein [August 13, 1716], and captured besides nearly

all their artillery. Profiting by the general consternation of

the Turks, Eugene sent Palfy and the Prince of Wurtemberg to

lay siege to the fortress of Temesvar, which commands the

whole Banat, and which was surrendered by the Turks after a

heavy siege. By these repeated disasters the Mussulmans lost

all confidence in the success of their arms; and in the year

1717 they opened the gates of Belgrade to the imperial army.

The present campaign paved the way for the peace of

Passarowitz, a little town in Servia,—a peace concluded

between the Porte and the Emperor in 1718. In virtue of the

provisions of this treaty, the Porte abandoned the Banat, the

fortress of Belgrade, and a part of Bosnia, on the hither side

of the Unna, promising besides the free navigation of the

Danube to the people of the Austrian empire."

E. Szabad,

Hungary, Past and Present,

part 2, chapter 5-6.

ALSO in:

L. Felbermann,

Hungary and its People,

chapter 4.

See, also,

TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1739:

Belgrade restored to the Turks.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1740.

The question of the Austrian Succession.

The Pragmatic Sanction.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1740-1741.

Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession:

Faithlessness of Frederick the Great.

His seizure of Silesia.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1741.

The War of the Austrian Succession:

Maria Theresa's appeal and the Magyar response.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

HUNGARY: A. D. 1780-1790.

Irritations of the reign of Joseph II.

Illiberality of the Hungarian nobles.

"The reign of Joseph II. is described by the historians of

Hungary and Bohemia as a disastrous time for the two

countries. Directly he ascended the throne he began to carry

out a series of measures which deeply irritated the Magyars.

With his philosophical ideas, the crown of Hungary was to him

nothing more than a Gothic bauble, and the privileges of the

nation only the miserable remains of an age of barbarism; the

political opinions of the Hungarians were as distasteful to

him as their customs, and he amused himself with ridiculing

the long beards and the soft boots of the great nobles. He

never would be crowned. He annoyed the bishops by his laws

against convents, while his tyrannical tolerance never

succeeded in contenting the Protestants. … On the 7th of

April, 1784, he ordered that the holy crown should be brought

to him in Vienna and placed in the imperial treasury. To

confiscate this symbol of Hungarian independence was, in the

eyes of the Magyars, an attempt at the suppression of the

nation itself, and the affront was deeply resented. Up to this

time the official language of the kingdom had been Latin, a

neutral tongue among the many languages in use in the various

parts of Hungary. Joseph believed he was proving his liberal

principles in substituting German, and that language took the

place of Latin. … Joseph II. soon learned that it is not

wise to attack the dearest prejudices of a nation. The edict

which introduced a foreign language was the signal for the new

birth of Magyar. … At the time of the death of Joseph II.

Hungary was in a state of violent disturbance. The 'comitat'

of Pesth proclaimed that the rule of the Hapsburgs was at an

end, and others threatened to do the same unless the national

liberties were restored by the new sovereign. All united in

demanding the convocation of the diet in order that the

long-suppressed wishes of the people might be heard. The

revolutionary wind which had passed over France had been felt

even by the Magyars, but there was this great difference in

its effect upon France and Hungary—in France, ideas of

equality had guided the revolution; in Hungary, the great

nobles and the squirearchy who formed the only political

element claimed, under the name of liberties, privileges which

were for the most part absolutely opposed to the ideas of the

Revolution of 1789. … Among the late reforms only one had

found favour in the eyes of the Magyars, and that was

toleration towards Protestants, and the reason of this was to

be found in the fact that the small landowners of Hungary were

themselves to a large extent Protestant; yet a democratic

party was gradually coming into existence which appealed to

the masses. … When France declared war against Francis II.

the Magyar nobles showed themselves quite ready to support

their sovereign; they asked for nothing better than to fight

the revolutionary democrats of Paris. Francis was crowned very

soon after his accession, and was able to obtain both men and

money from the diet; but before long, the reactionary measures

carried by Thugut his minister, lost him all the popularity

which had greeted him at the beginning of his reign. The

censorship of the press, the employment of spies, and the

persecution of the Protestants—a persecution, however, in

which the Hungarian Catholics themselves took an active

part—all helped to create discontent."

L. Leger,

History of Austro-Hungary,

chapters 23 and 28.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1787-1791.

War with the Turks.

Treaty of Sistova.

See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1815-1844.

The wakening of the national spirit.

Patriotic labors of Szechenyi and Kossuth.

"The battle of Waterloo, in 1815, put an end to the terrible

struggle by which every country in Europe had for twenty years

been agitated. The sovereigns of the continent now breathed

freely … and their first act was to enter into a league

against their deliverers, to revoke all their concessions, and

break all their promises. … The most audacious of all those

who joined in framing the Holy Alliance was the emperor of

Austria. The Hungarians reminded him, in 1815, of his repeated

promises to redress their grievances, while they were voting

him men and money to defend his capital against the assaults

of Napoleon. He could not deny the promises, but he

emphatically declined to fulfil them. They asked him to

convoke the diet, but he … determined to dispense with it

for the future. … At last the popular ferment reached such a

pitch, that the government found it absolutely necessary to

yield the point in dispute. In 1825, Francis I. convoked the

diet, and from that moment the old struggle, which the wars

with France had suspended, was renewed. … The session was

… rendered for ever memorable by an incident, in itself of

trifling importance, but of vast significance when viewed in

connexion with subsequent events.

{1684}

It was in it that Count Stephen Szechenyi made his first

speech in the Magyar language. The life of this extraordinary

man is more remarkable as an instance of what may be achieved

by well-directed energy, labouring in obedience to the

dictates of patriotism, than for any brilliant triumphs of

eloquence or diplomacy. … He was no great orator; so that

his influence over the Magyars—an influence such as no

private individual has ever acquired over a people, except,

perhaps, Kossuth and O'Connell—must be looked upon rather as

the triumph of practical good sense and good intentions than

of rhetorical appeals to prejudices or passion. … The first

object to which his attention was directed was the restoration

of the Magyar language, which, under the Germanizing efforts

of Austria, had fallen into almost total disuse amongst the

higher classes. He knew how intimately the use of the national

language is connected with the feeling of nationality. … But

the Magyar was now totally neglected by the Magyar gentlemen.

Latin was the language of the diet, and of all legal and

official documents, and German and French were alone used in

good society. Szechenyi, as the first step in his scheme of

reformation, set about rescuing it from the degradation and

disuse into which it had fallen; and as the best of all ways

to induce others to do a thing is to do it oneself first, he

rose in the diet of 1825, and, contrary to previous usage,

made a speech in Magyar. His colleagues were surprised; the

magnates were shocked; the nation was electrified. … The

diet sat for two years, and during the whole of that period

Szechenyi continued his use of the native language, in which

he strenuously opposed the designs of the court, and was soon

considered the leader of the opposition or liberal party,

which speedily grew up around him. His efforts were so

successful, that before the close of the session, Francis was

compelled to acknowledge the illegality of his previous acts,

formally to recognize the independence of the country, and

promise to convoke the diet at least once in every three

years. … He [Szechenyi] soon had the satisfaction of seeing

the Hungarian language growing to general use, but he was

still vexed to see the total want of unity, co-operation, and

communion which prevailed amongst the nobles, owing to the

want of a newspaper press, or of any place of re-union where

political subjects could be discussed amongst men of the same

party with freedom and confidence. This he remedied by the

establishment of the casino, at Pesth, upon the plan of the

London clubs. He next turned his attention to the

establishment of steam navigation on the Danube. … He …

rigged out a boat, sailed down the Danube right to the Black

Sea, explored it thoroughly, found it navigable in every part,

went over to England, studied the principles of the

steam-engine as applied to navigation, brought back English

engineers, formed a company, and at last confounded the

multitude of sceptics, who scoffed at his efforts, by the

sight of a steam-boat on the river in full work. This feat was

accomplished in October, 1830. … In the interval which

followed the dissolution of the diet, Szechenyi still followed

up his plan of reform with unwearied diligence, and owing to

his exertions, a party was now formed which sought not merely

the strict observance of the existing laws, but the reform of

them, the abolition of the unjust privileges of the nobles,

the emancipation of the peasantry, the establishment of a

system of education, the equal distribution of the taxes, the

equality of all religious sects, the improvement of the

commercial code and of internal communication, and though

last, not least, the freedom of the press. These projects were

all strenuously debated, but on this occasion without any

practical result. The next meeting was for a long time

delayed, upon one pretext or another. At last it was convened

in 1832, and proved in many respects one of the most important

that had ever assembled. … The man who in future struggles

was destined to play so prominent a part, during the whole of

these … proceedings, was merely an intent and diligent

looker-on. … He was a gentleman of noble origin, of course,

but his whole fortune lay in his talents, which at that period

were devoted to journalism—a profession which the Hungarians

had not yet learned to estimate at its full value. He was

still but thirty years of age, and within the diet he was

known as a promising young man, although, amongst the world

without, his name—the name of Louis Kossuth, which has since

become a household word in two hemispheres—had never yet been

heard. … Whether from the jealousy of the government or the

apathy of the Magyars, no printed reports of the parliamentary

proceedings had ever yet been published. … To supply this

defect, Kossuth resolved to devote the time, which would

otherwise have been wasted in idle listening, to carefully

reporting everything that took place, and circulated it all

over the country on a small printed sheet. The importance of

the proceedings which then occupied the attention of the diet

caused it to be read with extraordinary eagerness, and Kossuth

rendered it still more attractive by amplifying, and often

even embellishing, the speeches. The cabinet, however, soon

took the alarm, and although the censorship was unknown to the

Hungarian law, prohibited the printing and publication of the

reports. This was a heavy blow, but Kossuth was not baffled.

He instantly gathered round him a great number of young men to

act as secretaries, who wrote out a great number of copies of

the journal, which were then circulated in manuscript

throughout Hungary. The government was completely foiled, and

new ardour was infused into the liberal party. When the

session was at an end he resolved to follow up his plan by

reporting the meetings of the county assemblies, which were

then the scenes of fiery debates. … The government stopped

his journal in the post-office. He then established a staff of

messengers and carriers, who circulated it from village to

village. The enthusiasm of the people was fast rising to a

flame. A crisis was imminent. It was resolved to arrest

Kossuth. … He was seized, and shut up in the Neuhaus, a

prison built at Pesth by Joseph II. He was, however, not

brought to trial till 1839, and was then sentenced to four

years' imprisonment. The charge brought against him was, that

he had circulated false and inaccurate reports; but the real

ground of offence was, as everyone knew, that he had

circulated any reports at all. … Kossuth, after his

liberation from prison, had taken up his abode for a short

period at a watering place called Parad, for the purpose of

recruiting his shattered health, and for a time wholly

abstained from taking any part in public affairs.

{1685}

On the first of January, 1841, however, a printer in Pesth,

named Landerer, obtained permission to publish a journal

entitled 'Pesthi Hirlap,' or the Pesth Gazette. He offered the

editorship to Kossuth, who accepted it, but only on condition

that he should be perfectly untrammelled in the expression of

his opinions. … Kossuth … soon raised the circulation of

his paper to 10,000 copies—an immense number in a country

where the newspaper press had hitherto hardly had a footing.

He made vigorous onslaughts upon the privileges of the

noblesse, and pleaded the cause of the middle and lower

classes unanswerably. … In 1844, owing to a change of

ministry which threw the liberals out of office, he lost the

editorship of the Gazette; but he had kindled a flame which

now blazed fiercely enough of itself."

E. L. Godkin,

History of Hungary,

chapter 21.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1847-1849.

The struggle for National Independence and its failure.

"A strong spirit of nationality had been growing up for many

years, greatly fostered by Louis Kossuth, a newspaper editor.

The old Magyar language, which had been treated as barbarous,

was cultivated. Books and papers were printed in the tongue,

all with the spirit of independence as a country and a race

apart from that of the Austrians. In November, 1847, Ferdinand

V. had opened the Diet in person, and proposed reforms in the

Constitution were put before him. Count Batthyani, Prince

Esterhazy, Kossuth, and others, drew up a scheme which was

laid before the Emperor in the April of 1848, amid the crash

of revolutions, and was assented to by him. But the other

tribes within the kingdom of Hungary, the Rascians and Croats,

began to make separate demands, and to show themselves

stronger than the Magyars and Germans scattered among them. It

was strongly suspected that they were encouraged by the

Austrian powers in order to break down the new Hungarian

constitution. The Hungarian council applied to have their

national troops recalled from Lombardy, where, under Radetzky,

they were preserving the Emperor's power; but this could not

be granted, and only a few foreign regiments, whom they

distrusted, were sent them. Disturbances broke out, and at the

same time the Wallachians in Transylvania rose, and committed

ravages on the property of Hungarians. The confusion was

great, for these insurgents called the constitutional

government of Hungary rebels, and professed to be upholding

the rights of the Emperor, and, on the other hand, the

Hungarian government viewed them as rebels. … Meantime a

high-spirited Croatian officer, Baron Jellachich, had been

appointed Ban of Croatia, and collected forces from among his

wild countrymen to put down the Hungarian rule. … Jellachich

advanced upon Pesth, and thus showed the Government there that

in Ferdinand's eyes they were the rebels. Batthyani resigned,

and Kossuth set himself to raise the people. Jellachich was

defeated, and entered the Austrian states, appearing to menace

Vienna. The effect of this was a tremendous insurrection of

the Viennese, who seized Latour, the minister at war, savagely

murdered him, and hung his body, stripped naked, to a

lamp-post. The Viennese, under the command of the Polish

General Bern, now prepared for a siege, while Windischgrätz

and Jellachich collected a large army of Austrians and

Croatians, besieged the city, stormed it on the 30th of

October, and made an entrance, when all the ringleaders of the

rebellion were treated with great severity. Jellachich then

prepared to lead his Croats into Hungary, which was a very

different matter, since the constitutional government there

had been formed under the sanction and encouragement of

Ferdinand. Kossuth and the rest of the ministry therefore

thought themselves justified in naming a committee of public

safety, and voting the raising of an army of 200,000 men.

Ferdinand V., now an old man, felt himself no longer capable

of coping with all the discordant forces of the empire; a

family council was held at Olmütz, whither the Court had

retired, and it was decided that he should abdicate, and that

his next brother, Francis Charles, should waive his right in

favour of his son, Francis Joseph, a promising and amiable

young man of twenty, who, it was hoped, would conciliate

matters. On December 2d, 1848, the change was made, and the

new Emperor put forth a proclamation, promising constitutional

government, liberty of the press, and all that could conduce

to true freedom, but called on all faithful subjects to

repress the rebellions that were raging in the provinces. Both

in Lombardy and in Hungary this was taken as defiance; indeed,

the Magyars considered that neither the abdication of

Ferdinand, nor the accession of Francis Joseph to their

throne, was valid without the consent of the Diet. Prince

Windischgrätz was sent to reduce them with a considerable

army, while Kossuth showed remarkable ability in getting

together supplies for the Hungarian force, which was commanded

by Generals Bem and Görgei. The difficulties of passing the

mountains in the winter told much against the Austrians,

though a corps of Russians was sent to their assistance. Five

considerable battles were fought in the early spring of 1849,

and in April Windischgrätz was fairly driven across the Danube

out of the country."

C. M. Yonge,

Landmarks of Recent History,

chapter 3, part 5.

"On the 4th of March [1849] a new Imperial Charter was

promulgated at Olmütz, containing many excellent provisions,

but having this fatal defect, that in it Hungary was merged

completely in the Austrian Empire, and all its ancient

institutions obliterated. On the 14th of April the Imperial

Decree was answered by the Declaration of Independence, in

which the Hapsburg dynasty was proclaimed to have forfeited

all right to the Hungarian throne, and to be banished for ever

from the country. Kossuth was appointed Governor, and a new

Ministry was chosen, under the Premiership of M. Szemere, the

late Minister for Home Affairs in the Batthyány Government.

For a while the national army was victorious. … But the

despotic princes of Europe were now recovering from the panic

that had demoralised them and their principles in 1848; the

time had come for absolutism to rally its forces and reassert

itself after the old fashion. Acting on the maxim that 'La

raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure,' the Emperor of

Austria, after previous arrangement with his imperial brother

in St. Petersburg, felt at liberty to disavow and ignore the

arguments for constitutional government which had seemed so

cogent to his predecessor. … In July the Czar's troops a

second time entered Hungary, this time with no disavowal of

political motives, but on the ground that His majesty, having

always reserved to himself entire freedom of action whenever

revolutions in neighboring States should place his own in

danger, was now convinced that the internal security of his

empire was menaced by what was passing and preparing in

Hungary.'

{1686}

… In August, Gorgei, the commander-in-chief of the national

army, who had been nominated Dictator in the place of Kossuth,

was invested with full powers to treat for a peace, and

instructed to act according to the best of his ability to save

the national existence of Hungary. At Vilagós, on the 13th of

August, the Hungarian army, by order of the new Dictator, laid

down their arms, and surrendered—not to the Austrians, but to

the Russian general Rudiger. Thanks to the united efforts of

300,000 of the flower of the Austrian and Russian troops, the

Hungarian rebellion was at an end. … General Haynau presided

over the Bloody Assizes of Pesth and Arad, and the long roll

of Hungarian patriots condemned to death at the hands of the

Austrian hangman was headed by such names as Count Batthyány

and General Damyanics, the wounded leader of the 'Redcaps,'

the famous student brigade. Those who escaped death found a

refuge in England, America, or Turkey, whither they carried

with them bitter memories of wrong and suffering inflicted,

and an undying 'love for the country of their birth. Those

bitter memories have happily died away, under the healing

influence of time, and still more of that great work of

reconciliation which a wise generosity on both sides has

effected between the two countries."

Francis Deak,

Hungarian Statesman: a memoir,

chapter 14.

See, also,

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1849-1850.

Contemplated recognition of the revolutionary government by

the United States.

The Hülsemann Letter of Daniel Webster.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-1851.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1849-1859.

Completed Emancipation of the peasantry.

Restoration of pure absolutism.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1859.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1856-1868.

Recovery of nationality.

Formation of the dual Austro-Hungarian empire.

In 1856, the Emperor, Francis Joseph, "proclaimed an amnesty

against the political offenders, and in the following year he

decreed the restoration of their estates, and further steps

were taken to study the wishes of the Hungarians. In 1859

other concessions were made, notably as to provincial

Governments in Hungary, and they were given free

administration as to their educational and religious rites in

the Magyar tongue. In 1860 the 'Curia Regia' were reinstated,

and finally, in 1861, the whole Constitution was restored to

Hungary and its dependencies, Transylvania, Croatia, and

Slavonia. The Hungarian Parliament, which had been closed for

so many years, reopened its gates. These concessions, however,

did not satisfy the Magyars, who wanted perfect autonomy for

their country. … The Hungarians refused to pay taxes, which

therefore had to be collected by military aid. In 1865 the

Hungarian Parliament was opened by the Emperor in person, who

gave his assent to the Self-Government of Hungary, but further

details had still to be arranged, and the war which broke out

between Austria, Prussia and Italy in 1866 prevented these

from being carried out. On the strength of the Emperor's

promise to accede to the wishes of his Hungarian subjects, the

Hungarians fought most bravely in Germany and in Italy for the

Austrian cause, but the disorganized system that then existed

in the Austrian army was the cause of their defeat, and the

dissolution of the German confederation, over which Austria

presided for so many years. The final result of this was that

a perfect autonomy for Hungary was reinstated in 1867, and the

Dual System was introduced, by which Hungary received perfect

freedom and independence as to the administration of its

affairs without any interference from Austria, and became, so

to say, a partner in the newly-formed Austro-Hungarian

Monarchy. The Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy, as also

described in the able 'Memoir' on Francis Deák, to which Sir

Mountstuart E. Grant-Duff wrote a preface, is constituted as

follows:

I. The Common Ministry for the Austro-Hungarian monarchy

consists of a Minister for Foreign Affairs, for War, and for

Finance.

II. In each half of the monarchy there is a separate Ministry

of Worship, of Finance, Commerce, Justice, Agriculture, and

National Defence, headed respectively by a Minister-President

of the Council.

III. The Lower House in the Austrian Reichsrath consists of

353 members, in the Hungarian Diet of 444, now chosen in both

cases by direct election.

IV. The Delegations, composed respectively of sixty members

from each half of the monarchy, are elected annually from

amongst their parliamentary representatives of the majority in

each province by the members of the two Houses of the Austrian

and Hungarian Legislatures.

V. The two Delegations, who meet alternately at Vienna and

Budapest, deliberate separately, their discussions being

confined strictly to affairs of common interest, with regard

to which the Delegations have the right to interpellate the

Common Minister and to propose laws or amendments. In case of

disagreement between the two Delegations the question of

policy at issue is discussed by an interchange of written

messages; drawn up in the official language—German or

Hungarian—of the Delegation sending the message, and

accompanied by an authorized translation in the language of

the Delegation to which it is addressed.

VI. If, after the interchange of three successive notes, an

agreement between the two bodies is not arrived at, the

question is put to the vote by ballot without further debate.

The Delegates, of whom in a plenary session there must be an

equal number present from each Delegation, vote individually,

the Emperor-King having the casting vote.

VII. By virtue of the present definition of common affairs,

the cost of the diplomatic service and the army, except the

Honvéds (militia), is defrayed out of the Imperial revenues,

to which Hungary contributes a proportion of 30 per 100.

VIII. With reference to the former, it is stipulated that all

international treaties be submitted to the two Legislatures by

their respective Ministries; with reference to the latter,

that whilst the appointment to the military command of the

whole army, as also to that of the national force of Hungary,

is in the hands of the Sovereign, the settlement of matters

affecting the recruiting, length of service, mobilization, and

pay of the Honvéd army (the militia) remains with the

Hungarian Legislature.

{1687}

IX. Those matters which it is desirable should be subject to

the same legislation, such as customs, indirect taxation,

currency, etc., etc., are regulated by means of treaties,

subject to the approval of the two Legislatures. In cases

where the two parties are unable to come to an agreement, each

retains the right to decide such questions in accordance with

their own special interests.

X. In common affairs, the decisions arrived at by the

Delegations (within the scope of their powers), and sanctioned

by the Sovereign, become thenceforth fundamental laws; each

Ministry is bound to announce them to its respective National

Legislature, and is responsible for their execution.

It should be here mentioned that the late great and lamented

Hungarian statesman, Deák, and also the late Count Beust, have

by their personal efforts contributed a great deal to these

concessions being granted. The Hungarian Parliament was

reopened in 1867, and the late Count Julius Andrássy, … who

escaped to England from the noose of the hangman, became its

Prime Minister. … In 1868 the Emperor and Empress entered in

great state the town of Buda, and were crowned with the

greatest pomp with the Apostolic crown of St. Stephen."

L. Felbermann,

Hungary and its People,

chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

Francis Deak: a memoir,

chapters 26-31.

Count von Beust,

Memoirs,

volume 2, chapter 38.

See, also,

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867,

and FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS: MODERN FEDERATIONS.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1866-1887.

Difficulties and promises of the Austro-Hungarian empire.

Its ambitions in southeastern Europe.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1887.

HUNGARY: A. D. 1894.

Death of Kossuth.

Louis Kossuth, the leader of the revolutionary movement of

1848, died at Turin on the 20th of March, 1894, aged

ninety-two years. He had refused to the end of his life to be

reconciled to the Austro-Hungarian government, or to

countenance the acceptance by the Hungarians of the dual

nationality established by the constitution of 1867, and

remained an exile in Italy. After his death his remains were

brought to Budapest, and their burial, which took place on

Sunday, April 1st, was made the occasion of a great national

demonstration of respect.

----------HUNGARY: End--------

HUNIADES AND THE HUNGARIAN WARS WITH THE TURKS.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458;

and TURKS (OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

HUNINGEN, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

HUNKERS.

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

----------HUNS: Start--------

HUNS, Gothic account of the.

"We have ascertained that the nation of the Huns, who

surpassed all others in atrocity, came thus into being. When

Filimer, fifth king of the Goths after their departure from

Sweden, was entering Scythia, with his people, as we have

before described, he found among them certain sorcerer-women,

whom they call in their native tongue Aliorumnas (or

Al-runas), whom he suspected and drove forth from the midst of

his army into the wilderness. The unclean spirits that wander

up and down in desert places, seeing these women, made

concubines of them; and from this union sprang that most

fierce people (of the Huns) who were at first little, foul,

emaciated creatures, dwelling among the swamps, and possessing

only the shadow of human speech by way of language. …

Nations whom they would never have vanquished in fair fight

fled horrified from those frightful—faces I can hardly call

them, but rather—shapeless black collops of flesh, with

little points instead of eyes. No hair on their cheeks or

chins gives grace to adolescence or dignity to age, but deep

furrowed scars instead, down the sides of their faces, show

the impress of the iron which with characteristic ferocity

they apply to every male child that is born among them. …

They are little in stature, but lithe and active in their

motions, and especially skilful in riding, broad-shouldered,

good at the use of the bow and arrows, with sinewy necks, and

always holding their heads high in their pride."

Jornandes,

De Rebus Geticis,

translated by T. Hodgkin in Italy and Her Invaders,

book 1, chapter 1.

HUNS:

First appearance in Europe.

See GOTHS: A. D. 376.

HUNS: A. D. 433-453.

The empire of Attila.

After driving the Goths from Dacia, the terrible Huns had

halted in their march westward for something more than a

generation. They were hovering, meantime, on the eastern

frontiers of the empire "taking part like other barbarians in

its disturbances and alliances. Emperors paid them tribute,

and Roman generals kept up a politic or a questionable

correspondence with them. Stilicho had detachments of Huns in

the armies which fought against Alaric; the greatest Roman

soldier after Stilicho,—and, like Stilicho, of barbarian

parentage,—Aetius, who was to be their most formidable

antagonist, had been a hostage and a messmate in their camps.

… About 433, Attila, the son of Mundzukh, like Charles the

Great, equally famous in history and legend, became their

king. Attila was the exact prototype and forerunner of the

Turkish chiefs of the house of Othman. In his profound hatred

of civilized men, in his scorn of their knowledge, their arts,

their habits and religion, and, in spite of this, in his

systematic use of them as his secretaries and officers, in his

rapacity combined with personal simplicity of life, in his

insatiate and indiscriminate destructiveness, in the cunning

which veiled itself under rudeness, in his extravagant

arrogance, and audacious pretensions, in his sensuality, in

his unscrupulous and far-reaching designs, in his ruthless

cruelty joined with capricious displays of generosity, mercy,

and good faith, we see the image of the irreclaimable Turkish

barbarians who ten centuries later were to extinguish the

civilization of [eastern?] Europe. The attraction of Attila's

daring character, and his genius for the war which nomadic

tribes delight in, gave him absolute ascendency over his

nation, and over the Teutonic and Slavonic tribes near him.

Like other conquerors of his race, he imagined and attempted

an empire of ravage and desolation, a vast hunting ground and

preserve, in which men and their works should supply the

objects and zest of the chase."

R. W. Church,

Beginning of the Middle Ages,

chapter 1.

{1688}

"He [Attila] was truly the king of kings; for his court was

formed of chiefs, who, in offices of command, had learned the

art of obedience. There were three brothers of the race of the

Amales, all of them kings of the Ostrogoths; Ardaric, king of

the Gepidæ, his principal confidant; a king of the Merovingian

Franks; kings of the Burgundians, Thuringians, Rugians, and

Heruli, who commanded that part of their nation which had

remained at home, when the other part crossed the Rhine half a

century before."

J. C. L. de Sismondi,

Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 7 (volume 1).

"The amount of abject, slavish fear which this little swarthy

Kalmuck succeeded in instilling into millions of human hearts

is not to be easily matched in the history of our race.

Whether he had much military talent may be doubted, since the

only great battle in which he figured was a complete defeat.

The impression left upon us by what history records of him is

that of a gigantic bully, holding in his hands powers

unequalled in the world for ravage and spoliation. … Some

doubt has recently been thrown on the received accounts of the

wide extent of Attila's power. … The prince who felt China

on his left, who threatened Persepolis, Byzantium, Ravenna in

front, who ruled Denmark and its islands in his rear, and who

ultimately appeared in arms on the soil of Champagne on his

right, was no minor monarch, and had his empire been as deep

as it was widespread, he might worthily have taken rank with

Cyrus and Alexander. At the same time it is well to remember

that over far the larger part of this territory Attila's can

have been only an over-lordship, Teutonic, Slavonic, and

Tartar chieftains of every name bearing rule under him. His

own personal government, if government it can be called, may

very likely have been confined nearly within the limits of the

modern Hungary and Transylvania."

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 2, chapter 2 (volume 2).

"As far as we may ascertain the vague and obscure geography of

Priscus, this [Attila's] capital appears to have been seated

between the Danube, the Theiss [Teyss] and the Carpathian

hills, in the plains of Upper Hungary, and most probably in

the neighbourhood of Jazberin, Agria, or Tokay. In its origin

it could be no more than an accidental camp, which, by the

long and frequent residence of Attila, had insensibly swelled

into a huge village."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 34.

HUNS: A. D. 441-446.

Attila's attack on the Eastern Empire.

Attila's first assault upon the Roman power was directed

against the Eastern Empire. The court at Constantinople had

been duly obsequious to him, but he found a pretext for war.

"It was pretended that the Roman bishop of Margus had

surreptitiously introduced himself into the sepulchre of the

Hunnic kings and stolen from it the buried treasure. The Huns

immediately fell upon a Roman town during the time of a fair,

and pillaged everything before them, slaying the men and

carrying off the women. To all complaints from Constantinople

the answer was, "The bishop, or your lives.' The emperor

thought, and with reason, that to give up an innocent man to

be massacred would be displeasing to Heaven, would alienate

the clergy, and only appease for a moment the demands of his

merciless enemy. He refused, though timidly and in vague

terms. The Huns replied by scouring Pannonia, laying Sirmium,

its capital, in ruins, and extending their ravages far south

of the Danube to the cities of Naissa and Sardica, upon both

of which they wrought the extremity of their vengeance. A

truce of four years only increased their fury and aggravated

its effects. The war was suddenly recommenced. This time they

reached Thessaly, and renewed with a somewhat similar result

the far-famed passage of Thermopylæ by the hordes of Xerxes.

Two Roman armies were put to complete rout, and seventy cities

levelled to the ground. Theodosius purchased the redemption of

his capital by the cession of territory extending for fifteen

days' journey south of the Danube, by an immediate payment of

6,000 pounds of gold, and the promise of 2,000 more as an

annual tribute."

J. G. Sheppard,

Fall of Rome,

lecture 4.

HUNS: A. D. 451.

Attila's invasion of Gaul.

In the spring of the year 451 Attila moved the great host

which he had assembled in the Hungarian plains westward toward

the Rhine and the provinces of Gaul. He hesitated, it was

said, between the Eastern and Western Empires as the objects

of his attack. But the East had found an emperor, at last, in

Marcian, who put some courage into the state,—who refused

tribute to the insolent Hun and showed a willingness for war.

The West, under Valentinian III. and his mother Placidia, with

the Goths, Vandals, Burgundians and Franks in the heart of its

provinces, seemed to offer the most inviting field of

conquest. Hence Attila turned his horses and their savage

riders to the West. "The kings and nations of Germany and

Scythia, from the Volga perhaps to the Danube, obeyed the

warlike summons of Attila. From the royal village in the

plains of Hungary his standard moved towards the West, and

after a march of seven or eight hundred miles he reached the

conflux of the Rhine and the Neckar, where he was joined by

the Franks who adhered to his ally, the elder of the sons of

Clodion. … The Hercynian forest supplied materials for a

bridge of boats, and the hostile myriads were poured with

resistless violence into the Belgic provinces." At Metz, the

Huns "involved in a promiscuous massacre the priests who

served at the altar and the infants who, in the hour of

danger, had been providently baptized by the bishop; the

flourishing city was delivered to the flames, and a solitary

chapel of St. Stephen marked the place where it formerly

stood. From the Rhine and the Moselle, Attila advanced into

the heart of Gaul, crossed the Seine at Auxerre, and, after a

long and laborious march, fixed his camp under the walls of

Orleans."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 35.

Meantime the energy of the unscrupulous but able Count Aetius,

who ruled the court and commanded the resources of the Western

Empire, had brought about a general combination of the

barbarian forces in Gaul with those of the Romans. It

included, first in importance, the Goths of the kingdom of

Toulouse, under their king Theodoric, and with them the

Burgundians, the Alans, a part of the Franks, and detachments

of Saxons, Armoricans and other tribes. There were Goths, too,

and Franks and Burgundians in the host of the Hun king. The

latter laid siege to Orleans and the walls of the brave city

were already crumbling under his battering rams when the

banners of Aetius and Theodoric came in sight. Attila

retreated beyond the Seine and took a position somewhere

within the wide extent of what were anciently called the

Catalaunian fields, now known as the Champagn country

surrounding Chalons. There, in the early days of July, A. D.

451, was fought the great and terrible battle which rescued

Europe from the all-conquering Tartar.

{1689}

The number of the slain, according to one chronicler, was 162,000;

according to others 300,000. Neither army could claim a

victory; both feared to renew the engagement. The Goths, whose

king Theodoric was slain, withdrew in one direction, to their

own territory; the Huns retreated in the other direction and

quitted Gaul forever. The wily Roman, Aetins, was probably

best satisfied with a result which crippled both Goth and Hun.

As for the battle, its latest historian says: "Posterity has

chosen to call it the battle of Chalons, but there is good

reason to think that it was fought fifty miles distant from

Chalons-sur-Marne, and that it would be more correctly named

the battle of Troyes, or, to speak with complete accuracy, the

battle of Mery-sur-Seine."

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 2, chapter 3 (volume 2).

"It was during the retreat from Orleans that a Christian

hermit is reported to have approached the Hunnish king, and

said to him, 'Thou art the Scourge of God for the chastisement

of Christians.' Attila instantly assumed this new title of

terror, which thenceforth became the appellation by which he

was most widely and most fearfully known."

Sir E. Creasy,

Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World,

chapter 6.

HUNS: A. D. 452.

Attila's invasion of Italy.

In the summer of 451 Attila, retreating from the bloody plain

of Chalons, recrossed the Rhine and returned to his quarters

in Hungary. There, through the following autumn and winter, he

nursed his chagrin and his wrath, and in the spring of 452 he

set his host in motion again, directing its march to the

Julian Alps and through their passes into Italy. The city of

Aquileia, then prominent in commerce, and prosperous and rich,

was the first to obstruct the savage invasion. The defence of

the city proved so obstinate that Attila was at the point of

abandoning his siege, when a flight of storks, which his

shrewdness construed favorably as an omen, encouraged the Huns

to one more irresistible assault and the doomed town was

carried by storm. "In proportion to the stubbornness of the

defence was the severity of the punishment meted out to

Aquileia. The Roman soldiers were, no doubt, all slain. Attila

was not a man to encumber himself with prisoners. The town was

absolutely given up to the rage, the lust, and the greed of

the Tartar horde who had so long chafed around its walls. …

When the barbarians could plunder no more, they probably used

fire, for the very buildings of Aquileia perished, so that, as

Jornandes tells us, in his time, a century later than the

siege, scarcely the vestiges of it yet remained. A few houses

may have been left standing, and others must have slowly

gathered round them, for the Patriarch of Aquileia retained

all through the middle ages considerable remains of his old

ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and a large and somewhat stately

cathedral was reared there in the eleventh century. But the

City of the North Wind never really recovered from the blow.

… The terrible invaders, made more wrathful and more

terrible by the resistance of Aquileia, streamed on through

the trembling cities of Venetia." Patavium (modern Padua),

Altinum and Julia Concordia, were blotted out of existence. At

Vicenza, Verona, Brescia, Bergamo, Pavia and Milan, the towns

were sacked, but spared destruction, and the inhabitants who

did not escape were carried away into captivity. Many of the

fugitives from these towns escaped the Huns by hiding in the

islands and fens of the neighboring Adriatic coast, and out of

the poor fishing villages that they formed there grew, in

time, the great commercial city and republic of Venice. "The

valley of the Po was now wasted to the heart's content of the

invaders. Should they cross the Appennines and blot out Rome

as they had blotted out Aquileia from among the cities of the

world? This was the great question that was being debated in

the Hunnish camp, and strange to say, the voices were not all

for war. Already Italy began to strike that strange awe into

the hearts of her northern conquerors which so often in later

ages has been her best defence. The remembrance of Alaric, cut

off by a mysterious death immediately after his capture of

Rome, was present in the mind of Attila, and was frequently

insisted upon by his counsellors." So, the grim Hun was

prepared by his superstitions to listen to the embassy from

Rome which met him at the Ticino, praying for peace. At the

head of the embassy was the venerable bishop of Rome, Leo

I.—the first of the great Popes. To his influence the pacific

disposition into which Attila was persuaded has been commonly

ascribed. At all events, the king of the Huns consented to

peace with the Romans, and withdrew beyond the Danube in

fulfilment of the treaty, leaving Italy a desert to the

Appennines, but not beyond.

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 2, chapter 4 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 35.

See, also,

VENICE: A. D. 452.

HUNS: A. D. 453.

Death of Attila and fall of his empire.

Attila died suddenly and mysteriously in his sleep, after a

drunken debauch, some time in the early months of the year

453, and his death was the end of the "reign of terror" under

which he had reduced half the world. "Immediately after his

death, the Germans refused to submit to the divided rule of

his sons. The army of Attila split up into two great camps; on

the one side were the Gepidæ and Ostrogoths, with the majority

of the Teutonic nations; on the other the Huns, the Alans, the

Sarmatians or Slavonians, and the few Germans who still owned

allegiance to the memory of Attila. A vast plain between the

Drave and the Danube was selected to decide this vital

struggle, known as the battle of Netad, which, though less

famous in history, may perhaps claim equal importance with

that of Chalons, as an arbiter of the destinies of

civilization. … Fortune at first seemed to favour the Huns;

but German steadfastness prevailed; Goths and Gepidæ scattered

the less-disciplined bands of Asia; and Ardaric, the king of

the latter tribe for the time, established himself in the

royal residence of Attila, and assumed the leading position in

the barbarian world."

J. G. Sheppard,

Fall of Rome,

lecture 4.

"Thirty thousand of the Huns and their confederates lay dead

upon the field, among them Ellak, Attila's first-born. … The

rest of his nation fled away across the Dacian plains, and

over the Carpathian mountains to those wide steppes of

Southern Russia in which at the commencement of our history we

saw the three Gothic nations taking up their abode. Ernak,

Attila's darling, ruled tranquilly under Roman protection in

the district between the lower Danube and the Black Sea, which

we now call the Dobrudscha, and which was then 'the lesser

Scythia.'

{1690}

Others of his family maintained a precarious footing higher up

the stream. … There is nothing in the after-history of these

fragments of the nation with which anyone need concern

himself. … Dacia, that part of Hungary which lies east and

north of the Danube, and which had been the heart of Attila's

domains, fell to the lot of the Gepidae, under the wise and

victorious Ardaric. Pannonia, that is the western portion of

Hungary, with Sclavonia, and parts of Croatia, Styria and

Lower Austria, was ruled over by the three Amal-descended

kings of the Ostrogoths."

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2).

HUNS:

Attila in Teutonic legend.

"Short as was the sway of Attila (from 434 to 453), the terror

it had inspired and the great commotion it had brought over

the whole Teuton and Roman world, were, not … soon

forgotten. … The memory of the great chieftain hovered for a

long time, like a bloody phantom, in the Roman annals and in

the German sagas. … When we compare the historical Attila,

before whose piercing glance Rome and Constantinople trembled,

with Etzel of the Nibelungen Lied, we find that the latter

bears but a slight resemblance to the former. It is true that

Attila's powerful sway is still reflected in the Nibelungen

Lied, as Kriemhild at her arrival in the land of the Huns is

surprised at seeing so many nations submitted to his sceptre.

Yet upon the whole Etzel plays in the German epic the part of

a weak and sometimes even contemptible king, while glimpses of

his real might can be detected only at rare intervals,

fluttering as it were in the far-distant background of a

by-gone time. … The Eddas and the Volsunga Saga bear the

impress of the early Teutonic era, when the king was little

more than the chosen leader in war; and the Northern people

for a long time had in their political institutions nothing by

which the conception of a great monarchy, or still less of a

far-stretching realm like that of Attila, could be expressed."

G. T. Dippold,

Great Epics of Mediæval Germany,

chapter 4.

----------HUNS: End--------

HUNS, The White.

"It was during the reign of this prince [Varahran V., king of

Persia, A. D. 420-440] that those terrible struggles commenced

between the Persians and their neighbours upon the north-east

which continued, from the early part of the fifth till the

middle of the sixth century, to endanger the very existence of

the empire. Various names are given to the people with whom

Persia waged her wars during this period. They are called

Turks, Huns, sometimes even Chinese; but these terms seem to

be used in a vague way, as 'Scythian' was by the ancients; and

the special ethnic designation of the people appears to be

quite a different name from any of them. It is a name the

Persian form of which is 'Haïthal,' or 'Haïtheleh,' the

Armenian 'Hephthagh,' and the Greek 'Ephthalites,' or

sometimes 'Nephthalites.' … All that we know of the

Ephthalites is, that they were established in force, during

the fifth and sixth centuries of our era, in the regions east

of the Caspian, especially in those beyond the Oxus river, and

that they were generally regarded as belonging to the Scythic

or Finno-Turkic population, which, at any rate from B. C. 200,

had become powerful in that region. They were called 'White

Huns' by some of the Greeks; but it is admitted that they were

quite distinct from the Huns who invaded Europe under Attila.

… They were a light-complexioned race, whereas the Huns were

decidedly swart; they were not ill-looking, whereas the Huns

were hideous; they were an agricultural people, while the Huns

were nomads; they had good laws, and were tolerably well

civilised, but the Huns were savages. It is probable that they

belonged to the Thibetic or Turkish stock."

G. Rawlinson,

Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 14.

"We are able to distinguish the two great divisions of these

formidable exiles [the Huns], which directed their march

towards the Oxus and towards the Volga. The first of these

colonies established their dominion in the fruitful and

extensive plains of Sogdiana, on the eastern side of the

Caspian, where they preserved the name of Huns, with the

epithet of Euthalites [Ephthalites], or Nephthalites. Their

manners were softened, and even their features were insensibly

improved, by the mildness of the climate and their long

residence in a flourishing province; which might still retain

a faint impression of the arts of Greece. The White Huns, a

name which they derived from the change of their complexion,

soon abandoned the pastoral life of Scythia. Gorgo, which,

under the appellation of Carizine, has since enjoyed a

temporary splendour, was the residence of the king, who

exercised a legal authority over an obedient people. Their

luxury was maintained by the labour of the Sogdians."

E. Gibbon.

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 26.

The White Huns were subjugated by the Turks.

See TURKS: SIXTH CENTURY.

HUNTER, General David.

Command in Kansas.

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

Emancipation Order.

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

Command in the Shenandoah.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D.1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

HUNTSVILLE, Capture of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: ALABAMA).

HUPAS, OR HOOPAHS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS.

----------HURON, Lake: Start--------

HURON, Lake:

Discovery.

See CANADA: A. D. 1611-1616; and 1634-1673.

HURON, Lake: A. D. 1679.

Navigated by La Salle.

See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

----------HURON, Lake: End--------

HURONS, OR WYANDOTS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS,

and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

HURST CASTLE, King Charles at.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

HUS AND THE REFORMATION IN BOHEMIA.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415.

HUSCARLS.

See HOUSECARLS.

HUSSARS.

Matthias, son of John Hunyadi, was elected king of Hungary in

1458. "The defence of the country chiefly engaged the

attention of Matthias at the commencement of his reign.

Measures of defence were accordingly carried on with the

utmost speed, the most important of which was the

establishment of regular cavalry; to levy which one man was

enrolled out of every 20 families. This was the origin of the

'Hussar,' meaning in Hungarian the price or due of twenty."

E. Szabad,

Hungary, Past and Present,

page 50.

HUSSEIN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1694-1722.

{1691}

HUSTINGS.

COURT OF HUSTING.

"The 'hygh and auncyent' Court of Husting of the City of

London is of Anglo-Saxon, or, to speak more accurately, of

Scandinavian origin, being a remarkable memorial of the sway

once exercised over England by the Danes and other Northmen.

The name of the Court is derived from [hus], 'a house,' and

[dhing], a thing, 'cause,' or 'council,' and signifies,

according to general acceptation, 'a court held in a house,'

in contradistinction to other 'things,' or courts, which in

Saxon times were usually held in the open air. … The term

'Husting' or, less correctly, 'Hustings' is commonly applied

at the present day to open-air assemblies or temporary courts,

usually held in some elevated position, for the purpose of

electing members of Parliament in counties and boroughs, its

strict etymological meaning, being lost sight of. … [The

Court of Husting] is the oldest court of record within the

City, and at one time constituted the sole court for settling

disputes between citizen and citizen."

R. R. Sharpe,

Introduction to Calendar of Wills,

Court of Husting, London.

HUTCHINSON, Mrs. Anne, and the Antinomian troubles.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638;

and RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

HUTCHINSON, Governor Thomas,

and the outbreak of Revolution in Massachusetts.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761;

and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765,

NEWS OF THE STAMP ACT; 1772-1773; 1774 (MAY-JUNE).

HWICCAS.

A name borne by the West Saxons who first settled in

Gloucestershire and Worcestershire when that region was

conquered. They led a revolt against the West Saxon king

Ceawlin, in which they were joined by the Britons, or Welsh.

The battle of Wanborough, fought A. D. 591, drove Ceawlin from

the throne.

J. R. Green,

The Making of England,

pages 129-208.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

HYACINTHIA, Feast of the.

"The feast of the Hyacinthia was held annually at Amyclæ

[Lacedæmonia], on the longest day of the Spartan month

Hecatombeus, corresponding to our June and July. …

Hyacinthus, the beautiful youth slain accidentally by Apollo,

was the chief object of the worship. He took his name from the

flower, which was an emblem of death; and the original feast

seems to have been altogether a mournful ceremony,—a

lamentation over the destruction of the flowers of spring by

the summer heat, passing on to a more general lament over

death itself.'

G. Rawlinson,

History of Herodotus,

Note, book 9, section 7.

ALSO IN:

E. Abbott,

History of Greece,

volume 1, page 222.

HYBLA.

"There was a Sikel goddess Hybla, whom the Greeks looked on as

the same with several goddesses of their own mythology, here

with one, there with another. Three towns in Sicily were

called after her, one in the southeastern part of the island,

now Ragusa, another on the coast north of Syracuse, near the

place where the Greek colony of Megara was afterwards planted.

This gave Its name to the Hyblaian hills not far off, famous

for their honey; but there is no hill strictly called Mount

Hybla. The third Hybla is inland, not far from Catania, and is

now called Paterno."

E. A. Freeman,

Story of Sicily,

page 33.

HYDASPES, The.

The ancient name of the river Jelum, or Jhelum, in the Punjab,

on the banks of which the Indian king Porus made a vain

attempt to oppose the invasion of Alexander.

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 53.

HYDER ALI AND TIPPOO SAIB,

English Wars with.

See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769; 1780-1783;

and 1785-1793.

HYDERABAD OR HAIDERABAD,

The Nizam of.

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

HY-IVAR, The.

See NORMANS.

NORTHMEN: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES, and 10TH-13TH CENTURIES.

HYKSOS, The.

See EGYPT: THE HYKSOS.

HYLLEANS, The.

"The Hylleans are never mentioned in any historical narrative,

but always in mythical [Greek] legends; and they appear to

have been known to the geographers only from mythological

writers. Yet they are generally placed in the islands of

Melita and Black-Corcyra, to the south of Liburnia."

C. O. Müller,

History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,

volume 1, introduction.

HYMETTUS.

One of the noted mountains of Attica, "celebrated for its

excellent honey, and the broad belt of flowers at its base,

which scented the air with their delicious perfume."

M. and R. P. Willson,

Mosaics of Grecian History,

page 9.

HY-NIALS AND EUGENIANS.

"As surnames were not generally used, either in Ireland or

anywhere else, till after the 10th century, the great families

are distinguishable at first only by their tribe or clan

names. Thus, at the north we have the Hy-Nial race; in the

south the Eugenian race, so called, from Nial and Eoghan,

their mutual ancestors."

T. D. McGee,

Popular History of Ireland,

book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

HYPATIA.

See ALEXANDRIA: A.D. 413-415.

HYPERBOREANS, The.

A mythical people, supposed by the ancients to dwell beyond

the north wind, and therefore to enjoy a perfect climate in

the extreme north.

HYPHASIS, The.

The ancient name of the river Sutlej, in the Punjab.

HYRCANIA.

HYRCANIAN SEA.

"The mountain-chain which skirts the Great Plateau [of Iran]

on the north, distinguished in these pages by the name of

Elburz, broadens out after it passes the south-eastern corner

of the Caspian Sea till it covers a space of nearly three

degrees (more than 200 miles). Instead of the single lofty

ridge which separates the Salt Desert from the low Caspian

region, we find between the 54th and 59th degrees of east

longitude three or four distinct ranges, all nearly parallel

to one another, having a general direction of east and west.

… Here in Persian times was settled a people called Hyrcani;

and from them the tract derived the name of Hyrcania

(Vehrkana), while the lake [Caspian Sea] on which it adjoined

came to be known as 'the Hyrcanian Sea.' The fertility of the

region, its broad plains, shady woods, and lofty mountains

were celebrated by the ancient writers."

G. Rawlinson,

Five Great Monarchies: Persia,

chapter 1.

"In the inscriptions of the Achæmenids their land [Hyrcania]

is known as Valkana; the modern name is Jorjan. Here,

according to the Greeks, the mountains were covered with

forests of oaks, where swarms of wild bees had their hives; in

the valleys vines and fig-trees flourished, and the soil down

to the sea was so luxuriant that corn grew from the fallen

grains without any special sowing."

M. Duncker,

History of Antiquity,

book 7, chapter 1.

See, also, PARTHIA.

{1692}

I.

IAPYGIANS, The.

See ITALY, ANCIENT;

also, ŒNOTRIANS.

IAZYGES, OR JAZYGES, The.

See LIMIGANTES.

IBERA, Battle at.

See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

IBERIANS, The eastern.

"The Sapeires [of Herodotus] appear to be the Iberians of

later writers. The name is found under the various forms of

Saspeires, Sapeires, Sabeires, or Sabeiri, and Abeires, whence

the transition to Iberes is easy. They are always represented

as adjoining on the Colchians to the east and southeast, so

that they must evidently have inhabited the greater part of

the modern province of Georgia. … There is reason to believe

that the modern Georgians—still called 'Virk' by their

neighbours—are their descendants, and preserve, in the

original seat of the nation, a name and a nationality which

have defied the destroying touch of time for more than

twenty-four centuries."

G. Rawlinson,

History of Herodotus,

book 7, appendix 1.

See, also, ALARODIANS.

If these Iberians of the east were connected in race or origin

of name with the Iberians of western Europe, the connection

does not seem to have been traced. Iberia was devastated and

subjugated by the Seljuk Turks in the 11th century.

See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1063-1073.

IBERIANS, The western.

"The numerous skulls obtained from Basque cemeteries possess

exactly those characters which have been remarked … in the

Neolithic tombs and caves in Britain and on the Continent, and

may therefore be taken to imply that the Basque-speaking

peoples are to be looked upon as a fragment of the race which

occupied the British isles, and the area west of the Rhine and

north of the Alps, in the Neolithic age. … Nor can there be

any reasonable doubt as to this small, dark-haired people

being identical with the ancient Iberians of history, who have

left their name in the Iberian peninsula [Spain] as a mark of

their former dominion in the west. … In ancient times they

were spread through Spain as far to the south as the Pillars

of Hercules, and as far to the north-east as Germany and

Denmark. The Iberic population of the British Isles was

apparently preserved from contact with other races throughout

the whole of the Neolithic age. On the Continent, however, it

is not so; a new set of men, differing in physical

characteristics from them, make their appearance. … The new

invader is identified by Thurnam and Huxley with the Celtæ of

history. … These two races were in possession of Spain

during the very earliest times recorded in history, the

Iberians occupying the north-western region, and the Celts, or

Gauls, extending in a broad band south of the Pyrenees along

the Mediterranean shore. … In the north the Vascones then,

as now, held the Basque provinces of Spain. The distribution

of these two races in Gaul is similar to that which we have

noted in Spain. … When Cæsar conquered Gaul, the Iberian

Aquitani possessed the region bounded by the river Garonne,

the Cevennes, and the Pyrenees. … An ethnological connection

also between Aquitaine and Brittany (Armorica) may be inferred

from the remark of Pliny, 'Aquitania Armorica ante dicta.' …

Just as the Celts pushed back the Iberian population of Gaul

as far south as Aquitania, and swept round it into Spain, so

they crossed the channel and overran the greater portion of

Britain, until the Silures, identified by Tacitus with the

Iberians, were left only in those fastnesses which were

subsequently a refuge for the Welsh against the English

invaders."

W. B. Dawkins,

Early Man in Britain,

chapter 9.

ALSO IN:

I. Taylor,

Origin of the Aryans,

chapter 2, section 5.

See CELTS; LIGURIANS;

AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES;

AND PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY;

and, also, volume 1, APPENDIX A.

IBERION.

See ALBION.

IBRAHIM,

Caliph, A. D. 744.

Ibrahim, Turkish Sultan, 1640-1649.

ICARIA, Attica.

One of the demes or ancient townships of Attica, where

Icarius, in a Greek legend, was taught the art of wine-making

by Dionysus.

ICARIA, in the Ægean.

An island near Samos and anciently belonging to the Samians,

who used it chiefly for their pasture land.

----------ICELAND: Start--------

ICELAND:

Supposed identity with the Ultima Thule of the ancients.

See THULE.

ICELAND: A. D. 860-1100.

Discovery and Settlement by the Northmen.

A Norse Commonwealth.

Development of the Saga Literature.

See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100.

ICELAND: A. D. 1800-1874.

Political relations with Denmark.

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

----------ICELAND: End--------

ICELANDIC "THING," The.

See THING.

ICENI, The.

See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES; and A. D. 61.

ICONIUM, Sultans of.

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

ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY, The.

"Of the controversies that disquieted this age [the eighth

century], the greatest and the most pernicious related to the

worship of sacred images. Originating in Greece, it thence

spread over the East, and the West, producing great harm both

to the state and to the church. The first sparks of it

appeared under Phillippicus Bardanes, who was emperor of the

Greeks near the beginning of this century. With the consent of

the patriarch John, in the year 712, he removed from the

portico of the church of St. Sophia a picture representing the

sixth general council, which condemned the Monothelites, whom

the emperor was disposed to favour; and he sent his mandate to

Rome, requiring all such pictures to be removed out of the

churches. But Constantine, the Roman pontiff, not only

protested against the emperor's edict, but … , having

assembled a council at Rome, he caused the emperor himself to

be condemned as an apostate from the true religion. These

first commotions, however, terminated the next year, when the

emperor was hurled from the throne. Under Leo the Isaurian, a

very heroic emperor, another conflict ensued; which was far

more terrific, severe, and lasting. Leo, unable to bear with

the extravagant superstition of the Greeks in worshipping

religious images, which rendered them a reproach both to the

Jews and the Saracens; in order to extirpate the evil

entirely, issued an edict in the year 726, commanding all

images of saints, with the exception of that of Christ on the

cross, to be removed out of the churches, and the worship of

them to be wholly discontinued and abrogated.

{1693}

… A civil war broke out; first in the islands of the

Archipelago and a part of Asia, and afterwards in Italy. For

the people, either spontaneously, or being so instructed by

the priests and monks, to whom the images were productive of

gain, considered the emperor as an apostate from true

religion. … In Italy, the Roman pontiffs, Gregory II. and

Gregory III., were the principal authors of the revolt. …

The Romans and the other people of Italy who were subjects of

the Greek empire, violated their allegiance, and either

massacred or expelled the viceroys of Leo. Exasperated by

these causes, the emperor contemplated making war upon Italy,

and especially upon the pontiff: but circumstances prevented

him. Hence in the year 730, fired with resentment and

indignation, he vented his fury against images and their

worshippers, much more violently than before. For having

assembled a council of bishops, he deposed Germanus, bishop of

Constantinople, who favoured images, and substituted

Anastasius in his place; commanded that images should be

committed to the flames, and inflicted various punishments

upon the advocates of them. The consequence of this severity

was, that the Christian church was unhappily rent into two

parties; that of the Iconoduli or Iconolatrae, who adored and

worshipped images, and that of the Iconomachi or Iconoclastae,

who would not preserve but destroyed them; and these parties

furiously contended with mutual invectives, abuses, and

assassinations. The course commenced by Gregory II. was warmly

prosecuted by Gregory III., and although we cannot determine

at this distance of time the precise degree of fault in either

of these prelates, thus much is unquestionable, that the loss

of their Italian possessions in this contest by the Greeks, is

to be ascribed especially to the zeal of these two pontiffs in

behalf of images. Leo's son Constantine, surnamed Copronymus

by the furious tribe of Image-worshippers, after he came to

the throne, A. D. 741, trod in his father's steps; for he

laboured with equal vigour to extirpate the worship of images,

in opposition to the machinations of the Roman pontiff and the

monks. Yet he pursued the business with more moderation than

his father had done: and being, aware that the Greeks were

governed entirely by the authority of councils in religious

matters, he collected a council of eastern bishops at

Constantinople in the year 754, to examine and decide this

controversy. By the Greeks this is called the seventh general

council. The bishops pronounced sentence, as was customary,

according to the views of the emperor; and therefore condemned

images. … Leo IV., who succeeded to the throne on the death

of Constantine, A. D. 775, entertained the same views as his

father and grandfather. For when he saw, that the abettors of

images were not to be moved at all by mild and gentle

measures, he coerced them with penal statutes. But Leo IV.

being removed by poison, through the wickedness of his

perfidious wife Irene, in the year 780, images became

triumphant. For that guilty woman, who governed the empire

during the minority of her son Constantine, with a view to

establish her authority, after entering into a league with

Hadrian the Roman pontiff, assembled a council at Nice in

Bithynia in the year 786, which is known by the title of the

second. Nicene council. Here the laws of the emperors,

together with the decrees of the council of Constantinople,

were abrogated; the worship of images and of the cross was

established. … In these contests most of the Latins,—as the

Britons, the Germans, and the French, took middle ground

between the contending parties; for they decided, that images

were to be retained indeed, and to be placed in the churches,

but that no religious worship could be offered to them without

dishonouring the Supreme Being. In particular Charlemagne, at

the suggestion of the French bishops who were displeased with

the Nicene decrees, caused four Books concerning images to be

drawn up by some learned man, and sent them in the year 790 to

the Roman pontiff Hadrian, with a view to prevent his

approving the decrees of Nice. In this work, the arguments of

the Nicene bishops in defence of image-worship, are acutely

and vigorously combated. But Hadrian was not to be taught by

such a master, however illustrious, and therefore issued his

formal confutation of the book. Charlemagne next assembled, in

the year 794, a council of 300 bishops, at Frankfort on the

Maine, in order to re-examine this controversy. This council

approved the sentiments contained in the Books of Charlemagne,

and forbid the worship of images."

J. L. von Mosheim,

Institutes of Ecclesiastical History,

book 3, century 8, part 2, chapter 3 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

P. Schaff,

History of the Christian Church,

volume 4, chapter 10, section 101.

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 49.

G. Finlay,

History of the Byzantine Empire,

book 1.

H. F. Tozer,

The Church and the Eastern Empire,

chapter 6.

See, also,

PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

ICONOCLASTS OF THE NETHERLANDS.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

ICTIS.

An island off the coast of Britain, to which tin is said to

have been brought from the main shore by natives to be sold to

Greek merchants. Whether it was the Isle of Thanet, at the

mouth of the Thames, or the Isle of Wight, or St. Michael's

Mount, is a disputed question.

IDA, Mount.

See TROJA.

----------IDAHO: Start--------

IDAHO:

The Aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

IDAHO: A. D. 1803.

Was it embraced in the Louisiana Purchase?

Grounds of American possession.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

IDAHO: A. D. 1863.

Organized as a Territory.

The Territory of Idaho was created by an act of

Congress passed March 3, 1863.

IDAHO: A. D. 1890.

Admission to the Union as a State.

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

----------IDAHO: End--------

IDES.

See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

IDLE, Battle of the.

Fought A. D. 617, between the East English, or East Angles,

and the Northumbrians; the former victorious.

IDOMENE, Battle of.

One of the battles of the Peloponnesian War, in which the

Ambrakiots were surprised and almost totally destroyed by

Messenians and Akarnanians, under the Athenian general

Demosthenes, B. C. 426.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 51 (volume 6).

IDSTEDT, Battle of (1850).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.

IDUMEANS, The.

See EDOMITES.

IERNE.

See IRELAND: THE NAME.

{1694}

IGANIE, Battle of (1831).

See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

IGUALA, The Plan of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.

IGUALADA, Battle of (1809).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

IKENILD-STRETE.

See ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

ILA.

ILARCH.

The Spartan boys were divided into companies, according to

their several ages; each company was called an Ila, and was

commanded by a young officer called an Ilarch.

G. Schömann,

Antiquity of Greece: The State,

part 3, chapter 1.

ILERDA.

Modern Lerida, in Spain, the scene of Cæsar's famous campaign

against Afranius and Petreius, in the civil war.

See ROME: B. C. 49.

ILIAD, The.

See HOMER.

ILIUM.

See TROJA.

ILKHANS, The.

See PERSIA: A. D. 1258-1393.

ILLINOIA,

The proposed State of.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

----------ILLINOIS: Start--------

ILLINOIS:

The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS,

ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and ILLINOIS.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1673.

Traversed by Marquette and Joliet.

See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1679-1682.

LaSalle's fort and colony.

See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1679-1735.

The French occupation.

See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1700-1750.

The "Illinois country" under the French.

"For many years the term 'Illinois country' embraced all the

region east of the Upper Mississippi as far as Lake Michigan,

and from the Wisconsin on the north to the Ohio on the south.

The extent of the Illinois country under the French varied but

little from the extent of the present State of Illinois. At a

later date, its limits on the east were restricted by the

'Wabash country,' which was erected into a separate

government, under the commandant of 'Post St. Vincent,'on the

Wabash River. … The early French on the Illinois were

remarkable for their talent of ingratiating themselves with

the warlike tribes around them, and for their easy

amalgamation in manners and customs, and blood. … Their

settlements were usually in the form of small, compact,

patriarchal villages, like one great family assembled around

their old men and patriarchs."

J. W. Monette,

History of the Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of

the Mississippi,

volume 1, pages 181-183.

See, also, LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1751.

Settlements and population.

"Up to this time, the 'Illinois country,' east of the Upper

Mississippi, contained six distinct settlements, with their

respective villages. These were:

1. Cahokia, near the mouth of Cahokia Creek, and nearly five

miles below the present site of St. Louis;

2. St. Philip, forty-five miles below the last, and four miles

above Fort Chartres, on the cast side of the Mississippi;

3. Fort Chartres, on the east bank of the Mississippi, twelve

miles above Kaskaskia;

4. Kaskaskia, situated upon the Kaskaskia River, five miles

above its mouth, upon a peninsula, and within two miles of the

Mississippi River;

5. Prairie du Rocher, near Fort Chartres;

6. St. Geneviève, on the west side of the Mississippi, and

about one mile from its bank, upon Gabarre Creek.

These are among the oldest towns in what was long known as the

Illinois country. Kaskaskia, in its best days, under the

French regime, was quite a large town, containing 2,000 or

3,000 inhabitants. But after it passed from the crown of

France, its population for many years did not exceed 1,500

souls. Under the British dominion the population decreased to

460 souls, in 1773."

J. W. Monette,

History of the Discovery and Settlement

of the Mississippi Valley,

volume 1, pages 167-168.

"The population of the French and Indian villages in the

district of the Illinois, at the period of which we write, is

largely a matter of conjecture and computation. Father Louis

Vivier, a Jesuit missionary, in a letter dated June 8, 1750,

and written from the vicinity of Fort Chartres, says: 'We have

here whites, negroes, and Indians, to say nothing of the

cross-breeds. There are five French villages, and three

villages of the natives within a space of twenty-five

leagues, situate between the Mississippi and another river

called (Kaskaskia). In the French villages are, perhaps,

eleven hundred whites, three hundred blacks, and sixty red

slaves or savages. The three Illinois towns do not contain

more than eight hundred souls, all told.' This estimate does

not include the scattered French settlers or traders north of

Peoria, nor on the Wabash. It is stated that the Illinois

nation, then dwelling for the most part along the river of

that name, occupied eleven different villages, with four or

five fires at each village, and each fire warming a dozen

families, except at the principal village, where there were

three hundred lodges. These data would give us something near

eight thousand as the total number of the Illinois of all

tribes."

J. Wallace,

History of Illinois and Louisiana under the French Rule,

chapter 16.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1763.

Cession to Great Britain.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1763.

The king's proclamation excluding settlers.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.

Possession taken by the English.

"The French officers had, since the peace, been ready loyally

to surrender the country to the English. But the Illinois, the

Missouri, and the Osage tribes would not consent. At a council

held in the spring of 1765, at Fort Chartres, the chief of the

Kaskaskias, turning to the English officer, said: 'Go hence,

and tell your chief that the Illinois and all our brethren

will make war on you if you come upon our lands.' … But when

Fraser, who arrived from Pittsburg, brought proofs that their

elder brothers, the Senecas, the Delawares and the Shawnees,

had made peace with the English, the Kaskaskias said: 'We

follow as they shall lead.' 'I waged this war,' said Pontiac,

'because, for two years together, the Delawares and Shawnees

begged me to take up arms against the English. So I became

their ally, and was of their mind;' and, plighting his word

for peace, he kept it with integrity. A just curiosity may ask

how many persons of foreign lineage had gathered in the valley

of the Illinois since its discovery by the missionaries.

Fraser was told that there were of white men, able to bear

arms, 700; of white women, 500; of their children, 850; of

negroes of both sexes, 900. The banks of the Wabash, we learn

from another source, were occupied by about 110 French

families, most of which were at Vincennes.

{1695}

Fraser sought to overawe the French traders with the menace of

an English army that was to come among them; but they pointed

to the Mississippi, beyond which they would be safe from

English jurisdiction [France having ceded to Spain her

territory on the western side of the river]. … With Croghan,

an Indian agent, who followed from Fort Pitt, the Illinois

nations agreed that the English should take possession of all

the posts which the French formerly held; and Captain

Stirling, with 100 men of the 42d regiment, was detached down

the Ohio, to relieve the French garrison. At Fort Chartres,

St. Ange, who had served for fifty years in the wilderness,

gave them a friendly reception; and on the morning of the 10th

of October he surrendered to them the left bank of the

Mississippi. Some of the French crossed the river, so that at

St. Genevieve there were at least five-and-twenty families,

while St. Louis, whose origin dates from the 15th of February

1764, and whose skilfully chosen site attracted the admiration

of the British commander, already counted about twice that

number, and ranked as the leading settlement on the western

side of the Mississippi. In the English portion of the distant

territory, the government then instituted was the absolute

rule of the British army, with a local judge to decide all

disputes among the inhabitants according to the customs of the

country, yet subject to an appeal to the military chief."

G. Bancroft,

History of the United States

(Author's last revision),

volume 3, pages 151-152.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765-1774.

Early years of English rule.

"Just before and during the first years of the English

domination, there was a large exodus of the French inhabitants

from Illinois. Such, in fact, was their dislike of British

rule that fully one-third of the population, embracing the

wealthier and more influential families, removed with their

slaves and other personal effects, beyond the Mississippi, or

down that river to Natchez and New Orleans. Some of them

settled at Ste. Genevieve, while others, after the example set

by St. Ange, took up their abode in the village of St. Louis,

which had now become a depot for the fur company of Louisiana.

… At the close of the year 1765, the whole number of

inhabitants of foreign birth or lineage, in Illinois,

excluding the negro slaves, and including those living at Post

Vincent on the Wabash, did not much exceed two thousand

persons; and, during the entire period of British possession,

the influx of alien population hardly more than kept pace with

the outflow. Scarcely any Englishmen, other than the officers

and troops composing the small garrisons, a few enterprising

traders and some favored land speculators, were then to be

seen in the Illinois, and no Americans came hither, for the

purpose of settlement, until after the conquest of the country

by Colonel Clark. All the settlements still remained

essentially French, with whom there was no taste for

innovation or change. But the blunt and sturdy Anglo-American

had at last gained a firm foot-hold on the banks of the great

Father of Rivers, and a new type of civilization, instinct

with energy, enterprise and progress, was about to be

introduced into the broad and fertile Valley of the

Mississippi. … Captain Thomas Stirling began the military

government of the country on October 10, 1765, with fair and

liberal concessions, calculated to secure the good-will and

loyalty of the French-Canadians, and to stay their further

exodus; but his administration was not of long duration. On

the 4th of the ensuing December, he was succeeded by Major

Robert Farmer, who had arrived from Mobile with a detachment

of the 34th British infantry. In the following year, after

exercising an arbitrary authority over these isolated and

feeble settlements, Major Farmer was displaced by Colonel

Edward Cole, who had commanded a regiment under Wolfe, at

Quebec. Colonel Cole remained in command at Fort Chartres

about eighteen months; but the position was not congenial to

him. … He was accordingly relieved at his own request, early

in the year 1768. His successor was Colonel John Reed, who

proved a bad exchange for the poor colonists. He soon became

so notorious for his military oppressions of the people that

he was removed, and gave place to Lieutenant-Colonel John

Wilkins, of the 18th, or royal regiment of Ireland, who had

formerly commanded at Fort Niagara. Colonel Wilkins arrived

from Philadelphia and assumed the command September 5, 1768.

He brought out with him seven companies of his regiment for

garrison duty. … One of the most noticeable features of

Colonel Wilkins' administration was the liberality with which

he parceled out large tracts of the domain over which he ruled

to his favorites in Illinois, Philadelphia, and elsewhere,

without other consideration than requiring them to re-convey

to him a certain interest in the same. Lieutenant Colonel

Wilkins' government of the Illinois country eventually became

unpopular, and specific charges were preferred against him,

including a misappropriation of the public funds. He asked for

an official investigation, claiming that he was able to

justify his public conduct. But he was deposed from office in

September, 1771, and sailed for Europe in July of the

following year. Captain Hugh Lord, of the 18th regiment,

became Wilkins' successor at Fort Chartres, and continued in

command until the year 1775. … On the 2d of June, 1774,

Parliament passed an act enlarging and extending the province

of Quebec to the Mississippi River so as to include the

territory of the Northwest. … Who was the immediate

successor of Captain Lord in command of the Illinois is not

positively determined."

J. Wallace,

History of Illinois and Louisiana Under the French Rule,

chapter 20.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1774.

Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1778-1779.

Conquest from the British by the Virginian General Clark and

annexation to the Kentucky District of Virginia.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779,

CLARK'S CONQUEST.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1784.

Included in the proposed states of Assenisipia, Illinoia, and

Polypotamia.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1785-1786.

Partially covered by the western land claims of Massachusetts

and Connecticut, ceded to the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1787.

The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.

Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1809.

Detached from Indiana and organized as a distinct Territory.

See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.

{1696}

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1818.

Admission into the Union as a State.

See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818;

and WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1832.

The Black Hawk War.

"In 1830 a treaty was made with the tribes of Sacs and Foxes,

by which their lands in Illinois were ceded to the United

States. They were nevertheless unwilling to leave their

country. … Black Hawk, a chief of the Sacs, then about 60

years of age, refused submission, and the next year returned

with a small force. He was driven back by the troops at Rock

Island, but in March, 1832, he reappeared, at the head of

about 1,000 warriors,—Sacs, Foxes, and Winnebagos,—and

penetrated into the Rock river valley, declaring that he came

only to plant corn. But either he would not or could not

restrain his followers, and the devastation of Indian warfare

soon spread among the frontier settlements. … The force at

Rock Island was sent out to stay these ravages, and Generals

Scott and Atkinson ordered from Buffalo with a reënforcement,

which on the way was greatly diminished by cholera and

desertions. The Governor of Illinois called for volunteers,

and an effective force of about 2,400 men was soon marched

against the enemy. Black Hawk's band fled before it. General

Whiteside, who was in command, burned the Prophet's Town, on

Rock River, and pursued the Indians up that stream. … The

Indians were overtaken and badly defeated on Wisconsin River;

and the survivors, still retreating northward, were again

overtaken near Bad Axe River, on the left bank of the

Mississippi. … Many of the Indians were shot in the water

while trying to swim the stream; others were killed on a

little island where they sought refuge. Only about 50

prisoners were taken, and most of these were squaws and

children. The dispersion was complete, and the war was soon

closed by the surrender or capture of Black Hawk, Keokuk, and

other chiefs."

W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,

Popular History of the United States,

volume 4, chapter 12.

ALSO IN:

T. Ford,

History of Illinois,

chapters 4-5.

J. B. Patterson, editor,

History of Black Hawk, dictated by himself.

Wisconsin Historical Society Collections,

volume 10.

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1840-1846.

The settlement and the expulsion of the Mormons.

See MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846; and 1846-1848.

----------ILLINOIS: End--------

ILLUMINATI, The.

See ROSICRUCIANS.

ILLYRIA, Slavonic settlement of.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:

7TH CENTURY (SERVIA, CROATIA, ETC.).

ILLYRIAN PROVINCES OF NAPOLEON.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

ILLYRIANS, The.

"Northward of the tribes called Epirotic lay those more

numerous and widely extended tribes who bore the general name

of Illyrians, bounded on the west by the Adriatic, on the east

by the mountain-range of Skardus, the northern continuation of

Pindus, and thus covering what is now called Middle and Upper

Albania, together with the more northerly mountains of

Montenegro, Herzegovina, and Bosnia. Their limits to the north

and north-east cannot be assigned. … Appian and others

consider the Liburnians and Istrians as Illyrian, and

Herodotus even includes under that name the Eneti or Veneti at

the extremity of the Adriatic Gulf. … The Illyrians

generally were poor, rapacious, fierce and formidable in

battle. They shared with the remote Thracian tribes the custom

of tattooing their bodies and of offering human sacrifices:

moreover, they were always ready to sell their military

service for hire, like the modern Albanian Schkipetars, in

whom probably their blood yet flows, though with considerable

admixture from subsequent immigrations. Of the Illyrian

kingdom on the Adriatic coast, with Skodra (Scutari) for its

capital city, which became formidable by its reckless piracies

in the third century B. C., we hear nothing in the flourishing

period of Grecian history."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 25 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 8, chapter 6.

ILLYRICUM OF THE ROMANS.

"The provinces of the Danube soon acquired the general

appellation of Illyricum, or the Illyrian frontier, and were

esteemed the most warlike of the empire; but they deserve to

be more particularly considered under the names of Rhætia,

Noricum, Pannonia, Dalmatia, Dacia, Mœsia, Thrace, Macedonia,

and Greece. … Dalmatia, to which the name of Illyricum more

properly belonged, was a long but narrow tract, between the

Save and the Adriatic. … The inland parts have assumed the

Sclavonian names of Croatia and Bosnia."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 1.

See, also, ROME: A. D. 394-305.

IMAGE-BREAKING IN THE NETHERLANDS.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

IMAMS.

THE IMAMATE.

"When an assembly of Moslems meet together for prayer, an Imam

is chosen, who leads the prayer, and the congregation regulate

their motions by his, prostrating themselves when he does so,

and rising when he rises. In like manner, the khalif is set up

on high as the Imam, or leader of the Faithful, in all the

business of life. He must be a scrupulous observer of the law

himself, and diligent in enforcing it upon others. The

election of an Imam is imperative. … The qualities requisite

in an Imam are four: knowledge, integrity, mental and physical

soundness. … Among strict Moslems, it is a doctrine that

Islam has been administered by only four veritable Imams—the

'rightly-guided khalifs': Abou Bekr, Omar, Othman, and Ali.

But the Muhammadan world, in general, was not so exacting.

They recognized the Commander of the Faithful in the prince

who ruled with the title of khalif in Damascus or Baghdad, in

Cordova or Kairo. The one condition absolutely essential was

that the sovereign thus reigning should be a

member of the tribe of Kuraish [or Koreish]."

R. D. Osborn,

Islam under the Khalifs of Baghdad,

part 3, chapter 1.

See, also, ISLAM.

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF THE VIRGIN MARY,

Promulgation of the Dogma of the.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1854.

IMMÆ, Battle of (A. D. 217).

See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

IMMORTALS, The.

A select corps of cavalry in the army of the Persians, under

the Sassanian kings, bore this name. It numbered 10,000.

----------IMPEACHMENT: Start--------

IMPEACHMENT:

Acquisition of the right by the English House of Commons.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1413-1422.

{1697}

IMPEACHMENT:

Revival of the right.

In the English Parliament of 1620-21 (reign of James I.), "on

the motion of the Ex-Chief Justice, Sir Edward Coke, a

committee of inquiry into grievances had been early appointed.

The first abuse to which their attention was directed was that

of monopolies, and this led to the revival of the ancient

right of parliamentary impeachment—the solemn accusation of

an individual by the Commons at the bar of the Lords—which

had lain dormant since the impeachment of the Duke of Suffolk

in 1449. Under the Tudors impeachments had fallen into disuse,

partly through the subservience of the Commons, and partly

through the preference of those sovereigns for bills of

attainder, or of pains and penalties. Moreover, the power

wielded by the Crown through the Star Chamber enabled it to

inflict punishment for many state offences without resorting

to the assistance of Parliament. With the revival of the

spirit of liberty in the reign of James I., the practice of

impeachment revived also, and was energetically used by the

Commons in the interest alike of public justice and of popular

power."

T. P. Taswell-Langmead,

English Constitutional History,

chapter 13.

----------IMPEACHMENT: End--------

IMPEACHMENTS:

Warren Hastings.

See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1795.

President Johnson.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868 (MARCH-MAY)

Strafford.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.

----------IMPERATOR: Start--------

IMPERATOR.

"There can be no doubt that the title Imperator properly

signifies one invested with Imperium, and it may very probably

have been assumed in ancient times by every general on whom

Imperium had been bestowed by a Lex Curiata. It is, however,

equally certain, that in those periods of the republic with

the history and usages of which we are most familiar, the

title Imperator was not assumed as a matter of course by those

who had received Imperium, but was, on the contrary, a much

valued and eagerly coveted distinction. Properly speaking, it

seems to have been in the gift of the soldiers, who hailed

their victorious leader by this appellation on the field of

battle; but occasionally, especially towards the end of the

commonwealth, it was conferred by a vote of the Senate. …

But the designation Imperator was employed under the empire in

a manner and with a force altogether distinct from that which

we have been considering. On this point we have the distinct

testimony of Dion Cassius (xliii. 44, comp. liii. 17), who

tells us that, in B. C. 46, the Senate bestowed upon Julius

Cæsar the title of Imperator, not in the sense in which it had

hitherto been applied, as a term of military distinction, but

as the peculiar and befitting appellation of supreme power,

and in this signification it was transmitted to his

successors, without, however, suppressing the original import

of the word. … Imperator, when used to denote supreme power,

comprehending in fact the force of the titles Dictator and

Rex, is usually, although not invariably, placed before the

name of the individual to whom it is applied."

W. Ramsay,

Manual of Roman Antiquity,

chapter 5.

See, also,

ROME: B. C. 45-44.

IMPERATOR:

Final Signification of the Roman title.

"When the Roman princes had lost sight of the senate and of

their ancient capital, they easily forgot the origin and

nature of their legal power. The civil offices of consul, of

proconsul, of censor, and of tribune, by the union of which it

had been formed, betrayed to the people its republican

extraction. Those modest titles were laid aside; and if they

still distinguished their high station by the appellation of

Emperor, or Imperator, that word was understood in a new and

more dignified sense, and no longer denoted the general of the

Roman armies, but the sovereign of the Roman world. The name

of Emperor, which was at first of a military nature, was

associated with another of a more servile kind. The epithet of

Dominus, or Lord, in its primitive signification, was

expressive, not of the authority of a prince over his

subjects, or of a commander over his soldiers, but of the

despotic power of a master over his domestic slaves. Viewing

it in that odious light, it had been rejected with abhorrence

by the first Cæsars. Their resistance insensibly became more

feeble, and the name less odious; till at length the style of

'our Lord and Emperor' was not only bestowed by flattery, but

was regularly admitted into the laws and public monuments."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 13.

See ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.

----------IMPERATOR: End--------

IMPERIAL CHAMBER, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

IMPERIAL CITIES OF GERMANY.

See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;

and (as affected by the Treaties of Westphalia)

GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

IMPERIAL FEDERATION.

See FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: BRITANNIC FEDERATION.

IMPERIAL INDICTIONS.

See INDICTIONS.

IMPERIUM, The.

"The supreme authority of the magistrates [in the Roman

Republic], the 'imperium,' embraced not only the military but

also the judicial power over the citizens. By virtue of the

imperium a magistrate issued commands to the army, and by

virtue of the imperium he sat in judgment over his

fellow-citizens."

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 6, chapter 5 (volume 4).

IMPEY, Sir Elijah, Macaulay's injustice to.

See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

IMPORTANTS, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.

IMPRESSMENT OF AMERICAN SEAMEN BY BRITISH NAVAL OFFICERS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809; and 1812.

INCAS, OR YNCAS, The.

See PERU: THE EMPIRE OF THE INCAS.

INCUNABULA.

See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.

INDEPENDENCE, MO.,

Confederate capture of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

INDEPENDENCE DAY.

The anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence,

adopted July 4, 1776.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).

INDEPENDENCE HALL.

The Liberty Bell.

The hall in the old State House of Pennsylvania, at

Philadelphia, within which the Declaration of American

Independence was adopted and promulgated by the Continental

Congress, on the 4th of July, 1776. The venerable State House,

which was erected between 1729 and 1734, is carefully

preserved, and the "Hall of Independence is kept closed,

except when curious visitors seek entrance, or some special

occasion opens its doors to the public.

{1698}

Nothing now remains of the old furniture of the hall except

two antique mahogany chairs, covered with red leather, one of

which was used by Hancock as president, and the other by

Charles Thomson as secretary of Congress, when the Declaration

of Independence was adopted. … I ascended to the steeple,

where hangs, in silent grandeur, the Liberty Bell. It is four

feet in diameter at the lip, and three inches thick at the

heaviest part. Its tone is destroyed by a crack, which extends

from the lip to the crown, passing directly through the names

of the persons who cast it. An attempt was made to restore

the tone by sawing the crack wider, but without success. …

The history of this bell is interesting. In 1752, a bell for

the State House was imported from England. On the first

trial-ringing, after its arrival, it was cracked. It was

recast by Pass and Stow, of Philadelphia, in 1753, under the

direction of Isaac Norris, Esq., the then speaker of the

Colonial Assembly. And that is the bell, 'the greatest in

English America,' which now hangs in the old State House

steeple and claims our reverence. Upon fillets around its

crown, cast there twenty-three years before the Continental

Congress met in the State House, are the words of Holy Writ:

'Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the

inhabitants thereof.' How prophetic! Beneath that very bell

the representatives of the thirteen colonies 'proclaimed

liberty.' Ay, and when the debates were ended, and the result

was announced, on the 4th of July, 1776, the iron tongue of

that very bell first 'proclaimed liberty throughout all the

land, unto all the inhabitants thereof,' by ringing out the

joyful annunciation for more than two hours."

B. J. Lossing,

Field-book of the Revolution,

volume 2, chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott,

History of Philadelphia,

volume I, chapters 15 and 17.

INDEPENDENT REPUBLICANS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

----------INDEPENDENTS: Start--------

INDEPENDENTS, OR SEPARATISTS:

Their origin and opinions.

"The Puritans continued members of the church, only pursuing

courses of their own in administering the ordinances, and it

was not till about the middle of the reign of Elizabeth that

the disposition was manifested among them to break away from

the church altogether, and to form communities of their own.

And then it was but a few of them who took this course: the

more sober part remained in the church. The communities of

persons who separated themselves were formed chiefly in

London: there were very few in the distant counties, and those

had no long continuance. It was not till the time of the Civil

Wars that such bodies of Separatists, as they were called, or

Congregationalists, or Independents, became numerous. At first

they were often called Brownist churches, from Robert Brown, a

divine of the time, who was for a while a zealous maintainer

of the duty of separation."

J. Hunter,

The Founders of New Plymouth,

pages 12-13.

"The peculiar tenet of Independency … consists in the belief

that the only organization recognised in the primitive Church

was that of the voluntary association of believers into local

congregations, each choosing its own office-bearers and

managing its own affairs, independently of neighbouring

congregations, though willing occasionally to hold friendly

conferences with such neighbouring congregations, and to

profit by the collective advice. Gradually, it is asserted,

this right or habit of occasional friendly conference between

neighbouring congregations had been mismanaged and abused,

until the true independency of each voluntary society of

Christians was forgotten, and authority came to be vested in

Synods or Councils of the office-bearers of the churches of a

district or province. This usurpation of power by Synods or

Councils, it is said, was as much a corruption of the

primitive Church-discipline as was Prelacy itself. … So, I

believe, though with varieties of expression, English

Independents argue now. But, while they thus seek the original

warrant for their clews in the New Testament and in the

practice of the primitive Church, … they admit that the

theory of Independency had to be worked out afresh by a new

process of the English mind in the 16th and 17th centuries,

and they are content, I believe, that the crude immediate

beginning of that process should be sought in the opinions

propagated, between 1580 and 1590, by the erratic Robert

Brown, a Rutlandshire man, bred at Cambridge, who had become a

preacher at Norwich. … Though Brown himself had vanished

from public view since 1590, the Brownists, or Separatists, as

they were called, had persisted in their course, through

execration and persecution, as a sect of outlaws beyond the

pale of ordinary Puritanism, and with whom moderate Puritans

disowned connexion or sympathy. One hears of considerable

numbers of them in the shires of Norfolk and Essex, and

throughout Wales; and there was a central association of them

in London, holding conventicles in the fields, or shifting

from meeting-house to meeting-house in the suburbs, so as to

elude Whitgift's ecclesiastical police. At length, in 1592,

the police broke in upon one of the meetings of the London

Brownists at Islington. … There ensued a vengeance far more

ruthless than the Government dared against Puritans in

general. Six of the leaders were brought to the scaffold. …

Among the observers of these severities was Francis Bacon,

then rising into eminence as a politician and lawyer. His

feeling on the subject was thus expressed at the time: 'As for

those which we call Brownists, being, when they were at the

most, a very small number of very silly and base people here

and there in corners dispersed, they are now (thanks be to

God), by the good remedies that have been used, suppressed and

worn out, so as there is scarce any news of them.' … Bacon

was mistaken in supposing that Brownism was extinguished.

Hospitable Holland received and sheltered what England cast

out."

D. Masson,

Life of John Milton,

volume 2, book 4, sections 1-2.

"The name 'Brownist' had never been willingly borne by most of

those who had accepted the distinguishing doctrine of the

heresiarch to whom it related. Nor was it without reason that

a distinction was alleged, and a new name preferred, when,

relaxing the offensive severity of Brown's system, some who

had adopted his tenet of the absolute independence of churches

came to differ from him respecting the duty of avoiding and

denouncing dissentients from it as rebellious, apostate,

blasphemous, antichristian and accursed.

{1699}

To this amendment of 'Brownism' the mature reflections and

studies of the excellent Robinson of Leyden conducted him; and

with reference to it he and his followers were sometimes

called 'Semi-separatists.' Such a deference to reason and to

charity gave a new position and attractiveness to the sect,

and appears to have been considered as entitling Robinson to

the character of 'father of the Independents.' Immediately on

the meeting of the Long Parliament [1640], 'the Brownists, or

Independents, who had assembled in private, and shifted from

house to house for twenty or thirty years, resumed their

courage, and showed themselves in public.' During this period

of the obscurity of a sect which, when arrived at its full

vigor, was to give law to the mother country, the history of

the progress of its principles is mainly to be sought in New

England. … Their opponents and their votaries alike referred

to Massachusetts as the source of the potent element which had

made its appearance in the religious politics of England."

J. G. Palfrey,

History of New England,

book 2, chapter 2 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

D. Neal,

History of the Puritans,

volume 2, chapters 1, 2 and 7.

L. Bacon,

Genesis of the New England Churches.

B. Hanbury,

Historical Memorials of the Independents,

volume 1.

G. Punchard,

History of Congregationalism,

volume 3.

H. M. Dexter,

The Congregationalism of the last 300 Years,

lectures 1-5.

See, also,

ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640, and PURITANS:

IN DISTINCTION FROM THE INDEPENDENTS, OR SEPARATISTS.

INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.

The church at Scrooby and its migration to Holland.

"The flimsiness of Brown's moral texture prevented him from

becoming the leader in the Puritan exodus to New England. That

honour was reserved for William Brewster, son of a country

gentleman who had for many years been postmaster at Scrooby."

After King James' Hampton Court Conference with the Puritan

divines, in 1604, and his threatening words to them,

nonconformity began to assume among the churches more

decidedly the form of secession. "The key-note of the conflict

was struck at Scrooby. Staunch Puritan as he was, Brewster had

not hitherto favoured the extreme measures of the Separatists.

Now he withdrew from the church, and gathered together a

company of men and women who met on Sunday for divine service

in his own drawing-room at Scrooby Manor. In organizing this

independent Congregationalist society, Brewster was powerfully

aided by John Robinson, a native of Lincolnshire. Robinson was

then thirty years of age, and had taken his master's degree at

Cambridge in 1600. He was a man of great learning and rare

sweetness of temper, and was moreover distinguished for a

broad and tolerant habit of mind too seldom found among the

Puritans of that day. Friendly and unfriendly writers alike

bear witness to his spirit of Christian charity and the

comparatively slight value which he attached to orthodoxy in

points of doctrine; and we can hardly be wrong in supposing

that the comparatively tolerant behaviour of the Plymouth

colonists, whereby they were contrasted with the settlers of

Massachusetts, was in some measure due to the abiding

influence of the teachings of this admirable man. Another

important member of the Scrooby congregation was William

Bradford, of the neighbouring village of Austerfield, then a

lad of seventeen years, but already remarkable for maturity of

intelligence and weight of character, afterward governor of

Plymouth for nearly thirty years, he became the historian of

his colony; and to his picturesque chronicle, written in pure

and vigorous English, we are indebted for most that we know of

the migration that started from Scrooby and ended in Plymouth.

It was in 1606—two years after King James's truculent

threat—that this independent church of Scrooby was organized.

Another year had not elapsed before its members had suffered

so much at the hands of officers of the law, that they began

to think of following the example of former heretics and

escaping to Holland. After an unsuccessful attempt in the

autumn of 1607, they at length succeeded a few months later in

accomplishing their flight to Amsterdam, where they hoped to

find a home. But here they found the English exiles who had

preceded them so fiercely involved in doctrinal controversies,

that they decided to go further in search of peace and quiet:

This decision, which we may ascribe to Robinson's wise

counsels, served to keep the society of Pilgrims from getting

divided and scattered. They reached Leyden in 1609, just as

the Spanish government had sullenly abandoned the hopeless

task of conquering the Dutch, and had granted to Holland the

Twelve Years Truce. During eleven of these twelve years the

Pilgrims remained in Leyden, supporting themselves by various

occupations, while their numbers increased from 300 to more

than 1,000. … In spite of the relief from persecution,

however, the Pilgrims were not fully satisfied with their new

home. The expiration of the truce with Spain might prove that

this relief was only temporary; and at any rate, complete

toleration did not fill the measure of their wants. Had they

come to Holland as scattered bands of refugees, they might

have been absorbed into the Dutch population, as Huguenot

refugees have been absorbed in Germany, England, and America.

But they had come as an organized community, and absorption

into a foreign nation was something to be dreaded. They wished

to preserve their English speech and English traditions, keep

up their organization, and find some favoured spot where they

might lay the corner-stone of a great Christian state. The

spirit of nationality was strong in them; the spirit of

self-government was strong in them; and the only thing which

could satisfy these feelings was such a migration as had not

been seen since ancient times, a migration like that of

Phokaians to Massilia or Tyrians to Carthage. It was too late

in the world's history to carry out such a scheme upon

European soil. Every acre of territory there was appropriated.

The only favourable outlook was upon the Atlantic coast of

America, where English cruisers had now successfully disputed

the pretensions of Spain, and where after forty years of

disappointment and disaster a flourishing colony had at length

been founded in Virginia."

J. Fiske,

The Beginnings of New England,

chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

G. Punchard,

History of Congregationalism,

volume 1, chapters 12-15.

G. Sumner,

Memoirs of the Pilgrims at Leyden

(Massachusetts Historical Society Collection, 3d series,

volume 9).

A. Steele,

Life and Time of Brewster,

chapters 8-14.

D. Campbell,

The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,

chapter 17 (volume 2).

{1700}

INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1617-1620.

Preparations for the exodus to New England.

"'Upon their talk of removing, sundry of the Dutch would have

them go under them, and made them large offers'; but an inborn

love for the English nation and for their mother tongue led

them to the generous purpose of recovering the protection of

England by enlarging her dominions. They were 'restless' with

the desire to remove to 'the most northern parts of Virginia,'

hoping, under the general government of that province, 'to

live in a distinct body by themselves.' To obtain the consent

of the London Company, John Carver, with Robert Cushman, in

1617, repaired to England. They took with them 'seven

articles,' from the members of the church at Leyden, to be

submitted to the council in England for Virginia. These

articles discussed the relations which, as separatists in

religion, they bore to their prince; and they adopted the

theory which the admonitions of Luther and a century of

persecution had developed as the common rule of plebeian

sectaries on the continent of Europe. They expressed their

concurrence in the creed of the Anglican church, and a desire

of spiritual communion with its members. Toward the king and

all civil authority derived from him, including the civil

authority of bishops, they promised, as they would have done

to Nero and the Roman pontifex, 'obedience in all things,

active if the thing commanded be not against God's word, or

passive if it be.' They denied all power to ecclesiastical

bodies, unless it were given by the temporal magistrate. …

The London company listened very willingly to their proposal,

so that their agents 'found God going along with them'; and,

through the influence of 'Sir Edwin Sandys, a religious

gentleman then living,' a patent might at once have been

taken, had not the envoys desired first to consult 'the

multitude' at Leyden. On the 15th of December, 1617, the

pilgrims transmitted their formal request, signed by the hands

of the greatest part of the congregation. … The messengers

of the pilgrims, satisfied with their reception by the

Virginia company, petitioned the king for liberty of religion,

to be confirmed under the king's broad seal. But here they

encountered insurmountable difficulties. … Even while the

negotiations were pending, a royal declaration constrained the

Puritans of Lancashire to conform or leave the kingdom; and

nothing more could be obtained for the wilds of America than

an informal promise of neglect. On this the community relied,

being advised not to entangle themselves with the bishops. 'If

there should afterward be a purpose to wrong us,' thus they

communed with themselves, 'though we had a seal as broad as

the house-floor, there would be means enough found to recall

or reverse it. We must rest herein on God's providence.'

Better hopes seemed to dawn when, in 1619, the London company

for Virginia elected for their treasurer Sir Edwin Sandys, who

from the first had befriended the pilgrims. Under his

presidency, so writes one of their number, the members of the

company in their open court 'demanded our ends of going; which

being related, they said the thing was of God, and granted a

large patent.' As it was taken in the name of one who failed

to accompany the expedition [Mr. John Wincob], the patent was

never of any service. And, besides, the pilgrims, after

investing all their own means, had not sufficient capital to

execute their schemes. In this extremity, Robinson looked for

aid to the Dutch. He and his people and their friends, to the

number of 400 families, professed themselves well inclined to

emigrate to the country on the Hudson, and to plant there a

new commonwealth under the command of the stadholder and the

states general. The 'West India company was willing to

transport them without charge, and to furnish them with

cattle; but when its directors petitioned the states general

to promise protection to the enterprise against all violence

from other potentates, the request was found to be in conflict

with the policy of the Dutch republic, and was refused. The

members of the church of Leyden, ceasing 'to meddle with the

Dutch, or to depend too much on the Virginia company,' now

trusted to their own resources and the aid of private friends.

The fisheries had commended American expeditions to English

merchants; and the agents from Leyden were able to form a

partnership between their employers and men of business in

London. The services of each emigrant were rated as a capital

of £10, and belonged to the company; all profits were to be

reserved till the end of seven years, when the whole amount,

and all houses and land, gardens and fields, were to be

divided among the share-holders according to their respective

interests. The London merchant, who risked £100, would receive

for his money tenfold as much as the penniless laborer for his

services. This arrangement threatened a seven years' check to

the pecuniary prosperity of the community; yet, as it did not

interfere with civil rights or religion, it was accepted. And

now, in July, 1620, the English at Leyden, trusting in God and

in themselves, made ready for their departure."

G. Bancroft,

History of the United States

(Author's last revision),

part 1, chapter 12 (volume 1).

INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1620.

The exodus of the Pilgrims to New England.

See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH COLONY): A. D. 1620.

INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1646-1649.

In the English Civil War.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1646 (MARCH);

1647 (APRIL-AUGUST), and after.

----------INDEPENDENTS: End--------

INDEX EXPURGATORIUS, The.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1559-1595.

----------INDIA: Start--------

INDIA.

The name.

"To us … it seems natural that the whole country which is

marked off from Asia by the great barrier of the Himalaya and

the Suleiman range should have a single name. But it has not

always seemed so. The Greeks had but a very vague idea of this

country. To them for a long time the word India was for

practical purposes what it was etymologically, the province of

the Indus. When they say that Alexander invaded India, they

refer to the Punjab. At a later time they obtained some

information about the valley of the Ganges, but little or none

about the Deccan. Meanwhile in India itself it did not seem so

natural as it seems to us to give one name to the whole

region. For there is a very marked difference between the

northern and southern parts of it.

{1701}

The great Aryan community which spoke Sanscrit and invented

Brahminism spread itself chiefly from the Punjab along the

great valley of the Ganges; but not at first far southward.

Accordingly the name Hindostan properly belongs to this

northern region. In the South or peninsula we find other races

and non-Aryan languages. … It appears then that India is not

a political name, but only a geographical expression like

Europe or Africa."

J. R. Seeley,

The Expansion of England,

pages 221-222.

"The name 'Hindustan' … is not used by the natives as it has

been employed by writers of books and map-makers in Europe.

… The word really means 'the land of the Hindus'; the

northern part of the Peninsula, distinguished from the

'Deccan,' from which it is parted by the river Narbada. …

The word Hindu' is of Zend (ancient Persian) origin, and may

be taken to denote 'river-people,' so named, perhaps, from

having first appeared on the line of the Indus, q. d., 'the

river.'"

E. G. Keene,

Sketch of the History of Hindustan,

page 1.

"Sinde, India, and Hindu-stan are various representatives of

the same native word. 'Hindu' is the oldest known form, since

it occurs in one of the most ancient portions of the

Zendavesta. The Greeks and Romans sometimes called the river

Sindus, instead of Indus."

G. Rawlinson,

Five Great Monarchies: Persia,

chapter 1, note.

INDIA:

The aboriginal inhabitants.

"Our earliest glimpses of India disclose two races struggling

for the soil. The one was a fair-skinned people, which had

lately entered by the north-western passes,—a people who

called themselves Aryan, literally of 'noble' lineage,

speaking a stately language, worshipping friendly and powerful

gods. These Aryans became the Brahmans and Rajputs of India.

The other race was of a lower type, who had long dwelt in the

land, and whom the lordly newcomers drove back into the

mountains, or reduced to servitude on the plains. The

comparatively pure descendants of these two races are now

nearly equal in numbers; the intermediate castes, sprung

chiefly from the ruder stock, make up the mass of the present

Indian population. … The victorious Aryans called the early

tribes Dasyus, or 'enemies,' and Dasas, or 'slaves.' The

Aryans entered India from the colder north, and prided

themselves on their fair complexion. Their Sanskrit word for

'colour' (varna) came to mean 'race' or 'caste.' The old Aryan

poets, who composed the Veda at least 3,000 and perhaps 4,000

years ago, praised their bright gods, who, 'slaying the

Dasyus, protected the Aryan colour;' who, 'subjected the

black-skin to the Aryan man.' They tell us of their own

'stormy deities, who rush on like furious bulls and scatter

the black-skin.' Moreover, the Aryan, with his finely-formed

features, loathed the squat Mongolian faces of the Aborigines.

One Vedic poet speaks of the non-Aryans as 'noseless' or

flat-nosed, while another praises his own 'beautiful-nosed'

gods. … Nevertheless all the non-Aryans could not have been

savages. We hear of wealthy Dasyus or non-Aryans; and the

Vedic hymns speak of their 'seven castles' and 'ninety forts.'

The Aryans afterwards made alliance with non-Aryan tribes; and

some of the most powerful kingdoms of India were ruled by

non-Aryan kings. … Let us now examine these primitive

peoples as they exist at the present day. Thrust back by the

Aryan invaders from the plains, they have lain hidden away in

the mountains, like the remains of extinct animals found in

hill-caves. India thus forms a great museum of races, in which

we can study man from his lowest to his highest stages of

culture. … Among the rudest fragments of mankind are the

isolated Andaman islanders, or non-Aryans of the Bay of

Bengal. The Arab and early European voyagers described them as

dog-faced man-eaters. The English officers sent to the islands

in 1855 to establish a settlement, found themselves in the

midst of naked cannibals; who daubed themselves at festivals

with red earth, and mourned for their dead friends by

plastering themselves with dark mud. … The Anamalai hills,

in Southern Madras, form the refuge of many non-Aryan tribes.

The long-haired, wild-looking Puliars live on jungle products,

mice, or any small animals they can catch; and worship demons.

Another clan, the Mundavers, have no fixed dwellings, but

wander over the innermost hills with their cattle. They

shelter themselves in caves or under little leaf sheds, and

seldom remain in one spot more than a year. The thick-lipped,

small-bodied Kaders, 'Lords of the Hills,' are a remnant of a

higher race. They live by the chase, and wield some influence

over the ruder forest-folk. These hills abound in the great

stone monuments (kistvaens and dolmens) which the ancient

non-Aryans erected over their dead. The Nairs, or hillmen of

South-Western India, still keep up the old system of

polyandry, according to which one woman is the wife of several

husbands, and a man's property descends not to his own sons,

but to his sister's children. This system also appears among

the non-Aryan tribes of the Himalayas at the opposite end of

India. In the Central Provinces, the non-Aryan races form a

large part of the population. In certain localities they

amount to one-half of the inhabitants. Their most important

race, the Gonds, have made advances in civilisation; but the

wilder tribes still cling to the forest, and live by the

chase. … The Maris fly from their grass-built huts on the

approach of a stranger. … Farther to the north-east, in the

Tributary States of Orissa, there is a poor tribe, 10,000 in

number, of Juangs or Patuas, literally the 'leaf-wearers.'

Until lately their women wore no clothes, but only a few

strings of beads around the waist, with a bunch of leaves

before and behind. … Proceeding to the northern boundary of

India, we find the slopes and spurs of the Himalayas peopled

by a great variety of rude non-Aryan tribes. Some of the Assam

hillmen have no word for expressing distance by miles or by

any land-measure, but reckon the length of a journey by the

number of plugs of tobacco or pan which they chew upon the

way. They hate work; and, as a rule, they are fierce, black,

undersized, and ill-fed. … Many of the aboriginal tribes,

therefore, remain in the same early stage of human progress as

that ascribed to them by the Vedic poets more than 3,000 years

ago. But others have made great advances, and form communities

of a well-developed type. These higher races, like the ruder

ones, are scattered over the length and breadth of India, and

I must confine myself to a very brief account of two of

them,—the Santals and the Kandhs. The Santals have their

home among the hills which abut on the valley of the Ganges in

Lower Bengal.

{1702}

They dwell in villages of their own, apart from the people of

the plains, and number about a million. Although still

clinging to many customs of a hunting forest tribe, they have

learned the use of the plough, and settled down into skilful

husbandmen. Each hamlet is governed by its own headman, who is

supposed to be a descendant of the original founder of the

village. … Until near the end of the last century, the

Santals lived by plundering the adjacent plains. But under

British rule they settled down into peaceful cultivators. …

The Kandhs, literally 'The Mountaineers,' a tribe about

100,000 strong, inhabit the steep and forest-covered ranges

which rise from the Orissa coast. Their idea of government is

purely patriarchal. The family is strictly ruled by the

father. The grown-up sons have no property during his life,

but live in his house with their wives and children, and all

share the common meal prepared by the grandmother. The head of

the tribe is usually the eldest son of the patriarchal family.

… The Kandh system of tillage represents a stage half way

between the migratory cultivation of the ruder non-Aryan

tribes and the settled agriculture of the Hindus. … Whence

came these primitive peoples, whom the Aryan invaders found in

the land more than 3,000 years ago, and who are still

scattered over India, the fragments of a pre-historic world?

Written annals they do not possess. Their traditions tell us

little. But from their languages we find that they belong to

three stocks. First, the Tibeto-Burman tribes, who entered

India from the north-east, and still cling to the skirts of

the Himalayas. Second, the Kolarians, who also seem to have

entered Bengal by the north-eastern passes. They dwell chiefly

along the north-eastern ranges of the three-sided tableland

which covers the southern half of India. Third, the

Dravidians, who appear, on the other hand, to have found their

way into the Punjab by the north-western passes. They now

inhabit the southern part of the three-sided tableland as far

down as Cape Comorin, the southernmost point of India. As a

rule, the non-Aryan races, when fairly treated, are truthful,

loyal, and kind. Those in the hills make good soldiers; while

even the thieving tribes of the plains can be turned into

clever police. The non-Aryan castes of Madras supplied the

troops which conquered Southern India for the British; and

some of them fought at the battle of Plassey, which won for us

Bengal. The gallant Gurkhas, a non-Aryan tribe of the

Himalayas, now rank among the bravest regiments in our Indian

army, and lately covered themselves with honour in

Afghanistan."

W. W. Hunter,

Brief History of the Indian People,

chapters 2-3.

ALSO IN:

R. Brown,

Races of Mankind,

volume 4, chapter 1.

R. G. Latham,

Ethnology of British Colonies and Dependencies,

chapter 3.

See, also,

TURANIAN RACES.

INDIA:

The immigration and conquests of the Aryas.

The hymns and prayers of their religion.

Vedism.

Brahmanism.

Hinduism

"The immigration of the Aryas into India took place from the

west. They stand in the closest relation to the inhabitants of

the table-land of Iran, especially the inhabitants of the

eastern half. These also call themselves Aryas, though among

them the word becomes Airya, or Ariya, and among the Greeks

Arioi. The language of the Aryas is in the closest connection

with that of the Avesta, the religious books of Iran, and in

very close connection with the language of the monuments of

Darius and Xerxes, in the western half of that region. The

religious conceptions of the Iranians and Indians exhibit

striking traits of a homogeneous character. A considerable

number of the names of gods, of myths, sacrifices, and

customs, occurs in both nations, though the meaning is not

always the same, and is sometimes diametrically opposed.

Moreover, the Aryas in India are at first confined to the

borders of Iran, the region of the Indus, and the Panjab.

Here; in the west, the Aryas had their most extensive

settlements, and their oldest monuments frequently mention the

Indus, but not the Ganges. Even the name by which the Aryas

denote the land to the south of the Vindhyas, Dakshinapatha

(Deccan), i. e., path to the right, confirms the fact already

established, that the Aryas came from the west. From this it

is beyond a doubt that the Aryas, descending from the heights

of Iran, first occupied the valley of the Indus and the five

tributary streams, which combine and flow into the river from

the north-east, and they spread as far as they found pastures

and arable land, i. e., as far eastward as the desert which

separates the valley of the Indus from the Ganges. The river

which irrigated their land, watered their pastures, and shaped

the course of their lives they called Sindhu (in Pliny,

Sindus), i. e., the river. It is, no doubt, the region of the

Indus, with the Panjab, which is meant in the Avesta by the

land hapta hindu (hendu), i. e., the seven streams. The

inscriptions of Darius call the dwellers on the Indus Idhus.

These names the Greeks render by Indos and Indoi. … Products

of India, and among them such as do not belong to the land of

the Indus, were exported from the land about 1000 B. C., under

names given to them by the Aryas, and therefore the Aryas must

have been settled there for centuries previously. For this

reason, and it is confirmed by facts which will appear further

on, we may assume that the Aryas descended into the valley of

the Indus about the year 2000 B. C., i. e., about the time

when the kingdom of Elam was predominant in the valley of the

Euphrates and Tigris, when Assyria still stood under the

dominion of Babylon, and the kingdom of Memphis was ruled by

the Hyksos. … The oldest evidence of the life of the Aryas,

whose immigration into the region of the Indus and settlement

there we have been able to fix about 2000 B. C., is given in a

collection of prayers and hymns of praise, the Rigveda, i. e.,

'the knowledge of thanksgiving.' It is a selection or

collection of poems and invocations in the possession of the

priestly families, of hymns and prayers arising in these

families, and sung and preserved by them. … We can ascertain

with exactness the region in which the greater number of these

poems grew up. The Indus is especially the object of praise:

the 'seven rivers' are mentioned as the dwelling-place of the

Aryas. This aggregate of seven is made up of the Indus itself

and the five streams which unite and flow into it from the

east—the Vitasta, Asikni, Iravati, Vipaça, Çatadru. The

seventh river is the Sarasvati, which is expressly named 'the

seven-sistered.' The land of the seven rivers is, as has

already been remarked, known to the Iranians. The 'Sapta

sindhava' of the Rigveda are, no doubt, the hapta hendu of the

Avesta, and in the form Harahvaiti, the Arachotus of the Greeks,

we again find the Sarasvati in the east of the table-land of

Iran.

{1703}

As the Yamuna and the Ganges are only mentioned in passing …

and the Vindhya mountains and Narmadas are not mentioned at

all, the conclusion is certain that, at the time when the

songs of the Aryas were composed, the nation was confined to

the land of the Panjab, though they may have already begun to

move eastward beyond the valley of the Sarasvati. We gather

from the songs of the Rigveda that the Aryas on the Indus were

not one civic community. They were governed by a number of

princes (raja). Some of these ruled on the bank of the Indus,

others in the neighbourhood of the Sarasvati. They sometimes

combined; they also fought not against the Dasyus only, but

against each other."

M. Duncker,

History of Antiquity,

book 5, chapters 1-2 (volume 4).

"When the Indian branch of the Aryan family settled down in

the land of the seven rivers. … now the Panjab, about the

15th century B. C., their religion was still nature-worship.

It was still adoration of the forces which were everywhere in

operation around them for production, destruction, and

reproduction. But it was physiolatry developing itself more

distinctly into forms of Theism, Polytheism, Anthropomorphism,

and Pantheism. The phenomena of nature were thought of as

something more than radiant beings, and something more than

powerful forces. … They were addressed as kings, fathers,

guardians, friends, benefactors, guests. They were invoked in

formal hymns and prayers (mantras), in set metres (chandas).

These hymns were composed in an early form of the Sanskrit

language, at different times—perhaps during several

centuries, from the 15th to the 10th B. C.—by men of light

and leading (Rishis) among the Indo-Aryan immigrants, who were

afterwards held in the highest veneration as patriarchal

saints. Eventually the hymns were believed to have been

directly revealed to, rather than composed by, these Rishis,

and were then called divine knowledge (Veda), or the eternal

word heard (sruti), and transmitted by them. These Mantras or

hymns were arranged in three principal collections or

continuous texts (Samhitas). The first and earliest was called

the Hymn-veda (Rig-veda). It was a collection of 1,017 hymns,

arranged for mere reading or reciting. This was the first

bible of the Hindu religion, and the special bible of Vedism.

… Vedism was the earliest form of the religion of the Indian

branch of the great Aryan family. … Brahmanism grew out of

Vedism. It taught the merging of all the forces of Nature in

one universal spiritual Being—the only real Entity—which,

when unmanifested and impersonal, was called Brahma (neuter);

when manifested as a personal creator, was called Brahmā

(masculine); and when manifested in the highest order of men,

was called Brāhmana ('the Brāhmans'). Brahmanism was rather a

philosophy than a religion, and in its fundamental doctrine

was spiritual Pantheism. Hinduism grew out of Brahmanism. It

was Brahmanism, so to speak, run to seed and spread out into a

confused tangle of divine personalities and incarnations. …

Yet Hinduism is distinct from Brahmanism, and chiefly in

this—that it takes little account of the primordial,

impersonal Being Brahma, and wholly neglects its personal

manifestation Brahmā, substituting, in place of both Brahma

and Brahmā., the two popular personal deities Siva and Vishnu.

Be it noted, however, that the employment of the term Hinduism

is wholly arbitrary and confessedly unsatisfactory. Unhappily

there is no other expression sufficiently comprehensive. …

Hinduism is Brahmanism modified by the creeds and

superstitions of Buddhists [see below: B. C. 312—] and

Non-Aryan races of all kinds, including Dravidians, Kolarians,

and perhaps pre-Kolarian aborigines. It has even been modified

by ideas imported from the religions of later conquering

races, such as Islam and Christianity."

M. Williams,

Religious Thought and Life in India,

part 1, chapter 1, and introduction.

ALSO IN:

R. Mitra,

Indo-Aryans.

F. Max Müller,

History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature.

F. Max Müller, editor,

Sacred Books of the East,

volume. 1, and others.

A. Barth,

Religions of India.

Rig-Veda Sanhita,

translated by H. H. Wilson.

See, also,

ARYANS.

INDIA: 6th Century, B. C.

Invasion of Darius.

See PERSIA: B. C.621-493.

INDIA: B. C. 327-312.

Invasion and conquests of Alexander the Great.

Expulsion of the Greeks.

Rise of the empire of Chandragupta.

"The year B. C. 327 marks an important era in the history of

India. More than two centuries are supposed to have elapsed

since the death of Gotama Buddha. The great empire of Magadha

was apparently falling into anarchy, but Brahmanism and

Buddhism were still expounding their respective dogmas on the

banks of the Ganges. At this juncture Alexander of Macedon was

leading an army of Greeks down the Cabul river towards the

river Indus, which at that time formed the western frontier of

the Punjab.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.

… The design of Alexander was to conquer all the regions

westward of the Indus, including the territory of Cabul, and

then to cross the Indus in the neighbourhood of Attock, and

march through the Punjab in a south-easterly direction,

crossing all the tributary rivers on his way; and finally to

pass down the valley of the Ganges and Jumna, via Delhi and

Agra, and conquer the great Gangetic empire of Magadha or

Pataliputra between the ancient cities of Prayaga and Gour.

… After crossing the Indus, there were at least three

kingdoms in the Punjab to be subdued one after the other,

namely;—that of Taxiles between the Indus and the Jhelum;

that of Porus the elder between the Jhelum and the Chenab; and

that of Porus the younger between the Chenab and the Ravee.

… When Alexander had fully established his authority in

Cabul he crossed the Indus into the Punjab. Here he halted

some time at the city of Taxila [Taxiles, the king, having

submitted in advance], and then marched to the river Jhelum,

and found that Porus the elder was encamped on the opposite

bank with a large force of cavalry and infantry, together with

chariots and elephants. The decisive battle which followed on

the Jhelum is one of the most remarkable actions in ancient

story. … Porus fought with a valour which excited the

admiration of Alexander, but was at last wounded and compelled

to fly. Ultimately he was induced to tender his submission.

… The victory over Porus established the ascendancy of

Alexander in the Punjab." It "not only decided the question

between himself and Porus, but enabled him to open up a new

communication with Persia, via the river Indus and the Indian

Ocean.

{1704}

He sent out woodmen to cut timber for ship-building in the

northern forests, and to float it down the Jhelum; and he

founded two cities, Bukephalia and Nikæa, one on each side of

the Jhelum. … Whilst the fleet was being constructed,

Alexander continued his march to the Chenab, and crossed that

river into the dominions of Porus the younger," who fled at

his approach, and whose kingdom was made over to the elder

Porus, his uncle. "Alexander next crossed the Ravee, when he

was called back by" a revolt in his rear, which he suppressed.

"But meantime the Macedonians had grown weary of their

campaign in India. … They … resisted every attempt to lead

them beyond the Sutlej; and Alexander, making a virtue of

necessity, at last consulted the oracles and found that they

were unfavourable to an onward movement. … He returned with

his army to the Jhelum, and embarked on board the fleet with a

portion of his troops, whilst the remainder of his army

marched along either bank. In this manner he proceeded almost

due south through the Punjab and Scinde. … At last he

reached the Indian Ocean, and beheld for the first time the

phenomena of the tides; and then landed his army and marched

through Beloochistan towards Susa, whilst Nearchos conducted

the fleet to the Persian Gulf, and finally joined him in the

same city. … Alexander had invaded the Punjab during the

rainy season of B. C. 327, and reached the Indian Ocean about

the middle of B. C. 326. Meantime Philip remained at Taxila as

his lieutenant or deputy, and commanded a garrison of

mercenaries and a body-guard of Macedonians. When Alexander

was marching through Beloochistan, on his way to Susa, the

news reached him that Philip had been murdered by the

mercenaries, but that nearly all the murderers had been slain

by the Macedonian body-guards. Alexander immediately

despatched letters directing the Macedonian Eudemos to carry

on the government in conjunction with Taxiles, until he could

appoint another deputy; and this provisional arrangement seems

to have been continued until the death of Alexander in B. C.

323. The political anarchy which followed this catastrophe can

scarcely be realized. … India was forgotten. Eudemos took

advantage of the death of Alexander to murder Porus; but was

ultimately driven out of the Punjab with all his Macedonians

by an adventurer who was known to the Greeks as Sandrokottos,

and to the Hindus as Chandragupta. This individual is said to

have delivered India from a foreign yoke only to substitute

his own. … By the aid of banditti he captured the city of

Patali-putra, and obtained the throne; and then drove the

Greeks out of India, and established his empire over the whole

of Hindustan and the Punjab."

J. T. Wheeler,

History of India: Hindu, Buddhist and Brahmanical,

chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

Arrian,

Anabasis of Alexander

(translated by Chinnock),

books 4-6.

T. A. Dodge,

Alexander,

chapters 38-43.

INDIA: B. C. 312

Chandragupta and Asoka.

The spread of Buddhism and its Brahmanic absorption.

"The first tolerably trustworthy date in Indian history is the

era of Candra-gupta (=Sandro-kottus) the founder of the Maurya

dynasty, who, after making himself master of Pataliputra

(Palibothra, Patna) and the kingdom of Magadha (Behar),

extended his dominion over all Hindustan, and presented a

determined front towards Alexander's successor Seleukos

Nikator, the date of the commencement of whose reign was about

312 B. C. When the latter contemplated invading India from his

kingdom of Bactria, so effectual was the resistance offered by

Candra-gupta that the Greek thought it politic to form an

alliance with the Hindu king, and sent his own countryman

Megasthenes as an ambassador to reside at his court. To this

circumstance we owe the first authentic account of Indian

manners, customs, and religious usages by an intelligent

observer who was not a native, and this narrative of

Megasthenes, preserved by Strabo, furnishes a basis on which

we may found a fair inference that Brahmanism and Buddhism

existed side by side in India on amicable terms in the fourth

century B. C. There is even ground for believing that King

Candra-gupta himself was in secret a Buddhist, though in

public he paid homage to the gods of the Brahmans; at any

rate, there can be little doubt that his successor Asoka did

for Buddhism what Constantine did for Christianity—gave an

impetus to its progress by adopting it as his own creed.

Buddhism, then, became the state religion, the national faith

of the whole kingdom of Magadha, and therefore of a great

portion of India. This Asoka is by some regarded as identical

with Candra-gupta; at any rate, their characters and much of

their history are similar. He is probably the same as King

Priyadarsi, whose edicts on stone pillars enjoining 'Dharma,'

or the practice of virtue and universal benevolence, are

scattered over India from Katak in the east and Gujarat in the

west to Allahabad, Delhi, and Afghanistan on the north-west.

What then is Buddhism? It is certainly not Brahmanism, yet it

arose out of Brahmanism, and from the first had much in common

with it. Brahmanism and Buddhism are closely interwoven with

each other, yet they are very different from each other.

Brahmanism is a religion which may be described as all

theology, for it makes God everything, and everything God.

Buddhism is no religion at all, and certainly no theology, but

rather a system of duty, morality, and benevolence, without

real deity, prayer or priest. The name Buddha is simply an

epithet meaning the perfectly enlightened one,' or rather one

who, by perfect knowledge of the truth, is liberated from all

existence, and who, before his own attainment of Nirvana, or

'extinction,' reveals to the world the method of obtaining it.

The Buddha with whom we are concerned was only the last of a

series of Buddhas who had appeared in previous cycles of the

universe. He was born at Kapila-vastu, a city and kingdom at

the foot of the mountains of Nepal, his father Suddhodana

being the king of that country, and his mother Maya-devi being

the daughter of King Suprabuddha. Hence he belonged to the

Kshatriya class, and his family name was Sakya, while his name

of Gautama (or Gotama) was taken from that of his tribe. He is

said to have arrived at supreme knowledge under the Bodhi

tree, or 'tree of wisdom' (familiarly called' the Bo tree'),

at Gaya, in Behar (Magadha), about the year 588 B. C., and to

have commenced propagating the new faith at Benares soon

afterwards. … Buddhism was a protest against the tyranny of

Brahmanism and caste. According to the Buddha, all men are

equal.

{1705}

… We have five marked features of Buddhism:

1. disregard of all caste distinctions;

2. abolition of animal sacrifice and of vicarious suffering;

3. great stress laid on the doctrine of transmigration;

4. great importance assigned to self-mortification, austerity,

and abstract meditation, as an aid to the suppression of all

action;

5. concentration of all human desires on the absolute

extinction of all being.

There is still a sixth, which is perhaps the most noteworthy

of all; viz., that the Buddha recognized no supreme deity. The

only god, he affirmed, is what man himself can become. A

Buddhist, therefore, never really prays, he only meditates on

the perfections of the Buddha and the hope of attaining

Nirvana. … Brahmanism and Buddhism [in India] appear to have

blended, or, as it were, melted into each other, after each

had reciprocally parted with something, and each had imparted

something. At any rate it may be questioned whether Buddhism

was ever forcibly expelled from any part of India by direct

persecution, except, perhaps, in a few isolated centres of

Brahmanical fanaticism, such as the neighbourhood of Benares.

Even in Benares the Chinese traveller, Hiouen Thsang, found

Brahmanism and Buddhism flourishing amicably side by side in

the 7th century of our era. In the South of India the Buddha's

doctrines seem to have met with acceptance at an early date,

and Ceylon was probably converted as early as B. C. 240, soon

after the third Buddhist council held under King Asoka. In

other parts of India there was probably a period of

Brahmanical hostility, and perhaps of occasional persecution;

but eventually Buddhism was taken by the hand, and drawn back

into the Brahmanical system by the Brahmans themselves, who

met it half way and ended by boldly adopting the Buddha as an

incarnation of Vishnu. … Only a small section of the

Buddhist community resisted all conciliation, and these are

probably represented by the present sect of Jains [who are

found in large numbers in various parts of India, especially

on the western coast]. Be the actual state of the case as it

may, nothing can be clearer than the fact that Buddhism has

disappeared from India (the island of Ceylon being excepted),

and that it has not done so without having largely contributed

towards the moulding of Brahmanism into the Hinduism of the

present day."

M. Williams,

Hinduism,

chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

M. Williams (now Sir Monier Monier-Williams),

Buddhism.

H. Oldenburg,

Buddha.

P. Bigandet,

Life and Legend of Gaudama.

A. Lillie,

Buddha and the Early Buddhists.

W. W. Rockhill,

The Life of the Buddha.

INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

Under the Ghaznavide and Mameluke empires.

"Aryan civilisation was … germinating, but it was in

uncongenial soil. Like the descendants of Abraham and Jacob,

the invaders mingled with the heathen and learned their ways.

The older inhabitants were barbarous, multilingual, indolent;

worshippers less of many gods than of many devils. The fusion

that ensued was not happy; though the origin and growth of the

caste system prevented complete union, it facilitated some of

its evils; the character of the Aryan settlers became

disastrously affected; the want of commercial communication by

land and sea tended to perpetuate stagnation. This was the

state of things upon which the rising tide from Central Asia

began to flow with resistless pertinacity after the

Mongolo-Turkish power became established on the Oxus and the

Helmand. It was not to be wondered at if the Arabs made no

wide or lasting Indian conquests in the early ages of the

Musulman era. At a time when they were engaged with the

Christian Empires of the East and the West, when they were

spreading the power of the crescent from the borders of

Khorásán to the Pillars of Hercules, the warriors of Islam had

perhaps but little temptation to undertake further adventure.

Certain it is that beyond the confines of Makran and a part of

Sindh (occupied less than a hundred years after the

Hijra)—the Arab conquests did not spread in India. It was

Nasir-ud-Din Sabuktigin—certainly a Merv captive and

popularly believed a scion of the Sassanian dynasty that once

ruled Persia—by whom the first Muslim invasion of Hindustan

was made in durable fashion. His master, Alptigin, having fled

from the oppression of the Samani dynasty of Bukhara in 962 A.

D., had founded a principality at Ghazni. Sabuktigin acquired

his favour, and was able, soon after his death, to acquire the

succession in 977 A. D. He established his power in the

Punjab; and his armies are said to have penetrated as far as

Benares. On his death, 997 A. D., his son, the celebrated

Sultan Mahmud, succeeded to the Empire extending from Balkh to

Lahore, if not to Hansi [see TURKS: A. D. 999-1183]. During a

reign of over thirty years he invaded Hindustan twelve times,

inflicting terrible carnage on the Hindus, desecrating their

idols, and demoralising their temples. Mathura, Kanauj,

Somnath; to such distant and divergent points did his

enterprises reach. Mahmud died 1030 A. D., and was buried at

Ghazni, where his monument is still to be seen. For about one

hundred years the dynasty continued to rule in the Punjab and

Afghanistan, more and more troubled by the neighbouring tribe

of Ghor, who in 1187 A. D. took Lahore and put an end to the

Ghaznavide dynasty. A prince of the Ghorians—variously known,

but whose name may be taken as Muhammad Bin Sam—was placed in

a sort of almost independent viceroyalty at Ghazni. In 1191 A.

D. he led an army against Sirhind, south of the Sutlaj river.

Rai Pithaura, or Pirthi Rai, a chief of the Chauhans (who had

lately possessed themselves of Dehli), marched against the

invaders and defeated them in a battle where Bin Sam had a

narrow escape from being slain. But the sturdy mountaineers

would not be denied. Next year they returned" and defeated

Pithaura. "The towns of Mirat and Dehli fell upon his defeat;

and their fall was followed a year later by that of Kanauj and

Benares. The Viceroy's brother dying at this juncture, he

repaired to his own country to establish his succession. He

was killed in an expedition, 1206 A. D., and the affairs of

Hindustan devolved upon his favourite Mameluke, Kutb-ud-din

Aibak. … When Muhammad bin Sam had gone away, to rule and

ultimately to perish by violence in his native highlands, his

acquisitions in Hindustan came under the sway of Kutb-ud-din

Aibak, a Mameluke, or Turkish slave, who had for a long time

been his faithful follower. One of the Viceroy's first

undertakings was to level to the ground the palaces and

temples of the Hindus at Dehli, and to build, with the

materials obtained by their destruction, a great Mosque for

the worship of Allah. … From 1192 to 1206, the year of Bin

Sam's death, Kutb-ud-din Aibak ruled as Viceroy.

{1706}

But it is recorded that the next Emperor—feeling the

difficulty, perhaps, of exercising any sort of rule over so

remote a dependency—sent Aibak a patent as 'Sultan,'

accompanied by a canopy of state, a throne and a diadem.

Becoming Sultan of Hindustan, the distinguished and fortunate

Mameluke founded what is known as 'the Slave dynasty.' …

Aibak died at Lahore, in 1210, from an accident at a game now

known as 'polo.' He was contemporaneous with the great Mughul

leader Changiz Khan, by whom, however, he was not molested.

The chief event of his reign is to be found in his successful

campaigns in Behar and Northern Bengal. … The Musulman power

was not universally and firmly established in the Eastern

Provinces till the reign of Balban (circ. 1282). At the death

of Aibak the Empire was divided into four great portions. The

Khiljis represented the power of Islam in Bihar and Bengal;

the North-West Punjab was under a viceroy named Ilduz, a

Turkman slave; the valley of the Indus was ruled by another of

these Mamelukes, named Kabacha; while an attempt was made at

Dehli to proclaim an incompetent lad, son of the deceased, as

Sultan. But the Master of the Horse, a third Mameluke named

Altimsh, was close at hand, and, hurrying up at the invitation

of influential persons there, speedily put down the movement.

… Altimsh, having deposed his feeble brother-in-law, became

Suzerain of the Empire. His satraps were not disposed to

obedience; and bloody wars broke out, into the details of

which we need not enter. It will be sufficient to note that

Ilduz was defeated and slain A. D. 1215. Two years later

Kabacha came up from Sindh, and seems [to] have enlisted some

of the Mughul hordes in his armies. These formidable

barbarians, of whom more anon, were now in force in Khorasan,

under Changiz in person, assisted by two of his sons.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

They drove before them the Sultan of Khwarizm (now Khiva), and

occupied Afghanistan. The fugitive, whose adventures are among

the most romantic episodes of Eastern history, attempted to

settle himself in the Panjab; but he was driven out by Altimsh

and Kabacha in 1223. Two years later Altimsh moved on the

Khiljis in the Eastern Provinces, occupied Gaur, their

capital; and proceeding from thence made further conquests

south and north at the expense of the Hindus. In 1228 he

turned against Kabacha, the mighty Satrap of Sindh, who was

routed in battle near Bakkhar, where he committed suicide or

was accidentally drowned. In 1232-3 the Sultan reduced Gwalior

(in spite of a stout resistance on the part of the Hindus

under Milak Deo), slaying 700 prisoners at the door of his

tent. In 1234 he took the province of Malwa; where he

demolished the great temples of Bhilsa and Ujain. In the

following year this puissant warrior of the Crescent succumbed

to the common conqueror, dying a natural death at Dehli, after

a glorious reign of twenty-six (lunar) years. … His eldest

son, who had conducted the war against the Khiljis, had died

before him, and the Empire was assumed by a younger son,

Rukn-ud-din Firoz. … [In 1241] Lahore was taken by the

Mughols with terrific carnage. Troubles ensued; Dehli was

besieged by the army that had been raised for its defence

against the Mughols; in May 1242 the city was taken by storm

and the new Sultan was slain. His successor, Ala-uddin I., was

a grandson of Altimsh, incompetent and apathetic as young men

in his position have usually been. The land was partitioned

among Turkish satraps, and overrun by the Mughols, who

penetrated as far as Gaur in Bengal. Another horde, led by

Mangu, grandson of Changiz, and father of the celebrated

Kiblai Khan, ravaged the Western Punjab. The Sultan marched

against them and met with a partial success. This turned into

evil courses the little intellect that he had, a plot was

organised for his destruction. Ala-ud-din was slain, and his

uncle Nasir-ud-din was placed upon the vacant throne in June

1246. Nasir's reign was long, and, so far as his personal

exploits went, would have been uneventful. But the risings of

the Hindus and the incursions of the Mughols kept the Empire

in perpetual turmoil." Nasir was succeeded in 1286-7 by his

grandson, Kai Kobad. "This unfortunate young man was destined

to prove the futility of human wisdom. Educated by his stern

and serious grandfather, his lips had never touched those of a

girl or a goblet. His sudden elevation turned his head. He

gave himself up to debauchery, caused his cousin Khusru to be

murdered, and was himself ultimately killed in his palace at

Kilokhari, while lying sick of the palsy. With his death

(1290) came to an end the Mameluke Empire of Hindustan."

H. G. Keene,

Sketch of the History of Hindustan,

book 1, chapters 1-2.

ALSO IN:

J. T. Wheeler,

History of India,

volume 4, part 1, chapter 2.

A. Dow,

History of Hindustan

(from the Persian of Ferishta),

volume 1.

INDIA: A. D. 1290-1398.

From the Afghans to the Moghuls.

"In 1290 the last Sultan of the Afghan slave dynasty was

assassinated, and a Sultan ascended the throne at Delhi under

the name of Jelal-ud-din. He was an old man of seventy, and

made no mark in history; but he had a nephew, named

Ala-ud-din, who became a man of renown," and who presently

acquired the throne by murdering his uncle. "When Ala-ud-din

was established on the throne at Delhi he sent an army to

conquer Guzerat." This conquest was followed by that of

Rajputana. "Meanwhile the Moghuls [Mongols] were very

troublesome. In the previous reign the uncle of Ala-ud-din had

enlisted 3,000, and settled them near Delhi; but they were

turbulent, refractory, and mixed up with every rebellion.

Ala-ud-din ordered them to be disbanded, and then they tried

to murder him. Ala-ud-din then ordered a general massacre.

Thousands are said to have been put to death, and their wives

and children were sold into slavery. Ala-ud-din was the first

Muhammadan sovereign who conquered Hindu Rajas in the Dekhan

and Peninsula. … Ala-ud-din sent his general Malik Kafur to

invade these southern countries, ransack temples, and carry

off treasure and tribute. The story is a dreary narrative of

raid and rapine. … Ala-ud-din died in 1316. His death was

followed by a Hindu revolt; indeed Hindu influences must have

been at work at Delhi for many years previously. Ala-ud-din

had married a Hindu queen; his son had married her daughter.

Malik Kafur was a Hindu converted to Islam. The leader of the

revolt at Delhi in 1316 was another Hindu convert to Islam.

The proceedings of the latter rebel, however, were of a mixed

character. He was proclaimed Sultan under a Muhammadan name,

and slaughtered every male of the royal house. Meanwhile his

Hindu followers set up idols in the mosques, and seated

themselves on Korans.

{1707}

The rebels held possession of Delhi for five months. At the

end of that time the city was captured by the Turkish governor

of the Punjab, named Tughlak. The conqueror then ascended the

throne of Delhi, and founded the dynasty of Tughlak Sultans.

The Tughlak Sultans would not live at Delhi; they probably

regarded it as a Hindu volcano. They held their court at

Tughlakabad, a strong fortress about an hour's drive from old

Delhi. The transfer of the capital from Delhi to Tughlakabad

is a standpoint in history. It shows that a time had come when

the Turk began to fear the Hindu. The conqueror of Delhi died

in 1325. He was succeeded by a son who has left his mark in

history. Muhammad Tughlak was a Sultan of grand ideas, but

blind to all experiences, and deaf to all counsels. He sent

his armies into the south to restore the Muhammadan supremacy

which had been shaken by the Hindu revolt. Meanwhile the

Moghuls invaded the Punjab, and Muhammad Tughlak bribed them

to go away with gold and jewels. Thus the imperial treasury

was emptied of all the wealth which had been accumulated by

Ala-ud-din. The new Sultan tried to improve his finances, but

only ruined the country by his exactions. … Then followed

rebellions and revolutions. Bengal revolted, and became a

separate kingdom under an independent Sultan. The Rajas of the

Dekhan and Peninsula withheld their tribute. The Muhammadan

army of the Dekhan broke out into mutiny, and set up a Sultan

of their own. Muhammad Tughlak saw that all men turned against

him. He died in 1350, after a reign of twenty-five years. The

history of Delhi fades away after the death of Muhammad

Tughlak. A Sultan reigned from 1350 to 1388, named Firuz Shah.

He is said to have submitted to the dismemberment of the

empire, and done his best to promote the welfare of the

subjects left to him; but it is also said that he destroyed

temples and idols, and burnt a Brahman alive for perverting

Muhammadan women. In 1398-99, ten years after the death of

Firuz Shah, Timur Shah invaded the Punjab and Hindustan [see

TIMOUR]. The horrors of the Tartar invasion are indescribable;

they teach nothing to the world, and the tale of atrocities

may well be dropped into oblivion. It will suffice to say that

Timur came and plundered, and then went away. He left officers

to rule in his name, or to collect tribute in his name. In

1450 they were put aside by Afghans;—turbulent Muhammadan

fanatics whose presence must have been hateful to the Hindus.

At last, in 1525, a descendant of Timur, named the Baber,

invaded India, and conquered the Punjab and Hindustan."

J. T. Wheeler,

Short History of India,

part 2, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

M. Elphinstone,

History of India: Hindu and Mahometan,

book 6. chapters 2-3.

INDIA: A. D. 1398-1399.

Timour's invasion of the Punjab.

See TIMOUR.

INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.

The Saiyid and the Lodi dynasties.

The founding of the Moghul Empire by Babar and Akbar.

"The invasion of Taimur … dealt a fatal blow to an authority

already crumbling. The chief authority lingered indeed for

twelve years in the hands of the then representative, Sultan

Mahmud. It then passed for a time into the hands of a family

which did not claim the royal title. This family, known in

history as the Saiyid dynasty, ruled nominally in Northern

India for about 33 years, but the rule had no coherence, and a

powerful Afghan of the Lodi family took the opportunity to

endeavour to concentrate power in his own hands. The

Muhammadan rule in India had indeed become by this time the

rule of several disjointed chiefs over several disjointed

provinces, subject in point of fact to no common head. Thus,

in 1450, Delhi, with a small territory around it, was held by

the representative of the Saiyid family. Within fourteen miles

of the capital, Ahmad Khan ruled independently in Mewat.

Sambhal, or the province now known as Rohilkhand, extending to

the very walls of Delhi, was occupied by Darya Khan Lodi. …

Lahore, Dipalpur, and Sirhind, as far south as Panipat, by

Behlul Lodi. Multan, Jaunpur, Bengal, Malwa, and Gujarat, each

had its separate king. Over most of these districts, and as

far eastward as the country immediately to the north of

Western Bihar, Behlul Lodi, known as Sultan Behlul, succeeded

on the disappearance of the Saiyids in asserting his sole

authority, 1450-88. His son and successor, Sultan Sikandar

Lodi, subdued Behar, invaded Bengal, which, however, he

subsequently agreed to yield to Allah-u-din, its sovereign,

and not to invade it again; and overran a great portion of

Central India. On his death, in 1518, he had concentrated

under his own rule the territories now known as the Punjab;

the North-western Provinces, including Jaunpur; a great part

of Central India; and Western Bihar. But, in point of fact,

the concentration was little more than nominal." The death of

Sikandar Lodi was followed by a civil war which resulted in

calling in the Tartar or Mongol conqueror, Babar, a descendant

of Timour, who, beginning in 1494 with a small dominion (which

he presently lost) in Ferghana, or Khokland, Central Asia, had

made himself master of a great part of Afghanistan (1504),

establishing his capital at Kabul. Babar had crossed the

Indian border in 1505, but his first serious invasion was in

1519, followed, according to some historians, by a second

invasion the same year; the third was in 1520; the fourth

occurred after an interval of two or three years. On his fifth

expedition he made the conquest complete, winning a great

battle at Panipat, 53 miles to the north-west of Delhi, on the

24th of April, 1526. Ibrahim Lodi, son and successor of

Sikandar Lodi, was killed in the battle, and Delhi and Agra

were immediately occupied. "Henceforth the title of King of

Kabul was to be subjected to the higher title of Emperor of

Hindustan." Babar was in one sense the founder of the Mughal

(synonymous with Mongol) dynasty—the dynasty of the Great

Moguls, as his successors were formerly known. He died in

1530, sovereign of northern India, and of some provinces in

the center of the peninsula: But "he bequeathed to his son,

Humayun, … a congeries of territories uncemented by any bond

of union or of common interest, except that which had been

concentrated in his life. In a word, when he died, the Mughal

dynasty, like the Muhammadan dynasties which had preceded it,

had shot down no roots into the soil of Hindustan."

G. B. Malleson,

Akbar,

chapters 4-5.

{1708}

Humayun succeeded Babar in India, "but had to make over Kabul

and the Western Punjab to his brother and rival, Kamran.

Humayun was thus left to govern the new conquest of India, and

at the same time was deprived of the country from which his

father had drawn his support. The descendants of the early

Afghan invaders, long settled in India, hated the new

Muhammadan hordes of Babar even more than they hated the

Hindus. After ten years of fighting, Humayun was driven out of

India by these Afghans under Sher Shah, the Governor of

Bengal. While flying through the desert of Sind to Persia, his

famous son Akbar was born in the petty fort of Umarkot (1542).

Sher Shah set up as emperor, but was killed while storming the

rock fortress of Kalinjar (1545). His son succeeded. But,

under Sher Shah's grandson, the third of the Afghan house, the

Provinces revolted, including Malwa, the Punjab, and Bengal.

Humayun returned to India, and Akbar, then only in his

thirteenth year, defeated the Afghan army after a desperate

battle at Panipat (1556). India now passed finally from the

Afghans to the Mughals. Sher Shah's line disappears; and

Humayun, having recovered his Kabul dominions, reigned again

for a few months at Delhi, but died in 1556. … Akbar the

Great, the real founder of the Mughal Empire as it existed for

two centuries, succeeded his father at the age of fourteen.

… His reign lasted for almost fifty years, from 1556 to

1605, and was therefore contemporary with that of our own

Queen Elizabeth (1558-1603). His father, Humayun, left but a

small kingdom in India, scarcely extending beyond the

Districts around Agra and Delhi. … The reign of Akbar was a

reign of pacification. … He found India split into petty

kingdoms, and seething with discordant elements; on his death,

in 1605, he bequeathed it an empire. The earlier invasions by

Turks, Afghans, and Mughals, had left a powerful Muhammadan

population in India under their own Chiefs. Akbar reduced

these Musalman States to Provinces of the Delhi Empire. Many

of the Hindu kings and Rajput nations had also regained their

independence: Akbar brought them into political dependence

upon his authority. This double task he effected partly by

force of arms, but in part also by alliances. He enlisted the

Rajput princes by marriage and by a sympathetic policy in the

support of his throne. He then employed them in high posts,

and played off his Hindu generals and Hindu ministers against

the Mughal party in Upper India, and against the Afghan

faction in Bengal. … His efforts to establish the Mughal

Empire in Southern India were less successful. … Akbar

subjugated Khandesh, and with this somewhat precarious

annexation his conquests in the Deccan ceased. … Akbar not

only subdued all India to the north of the Vindhya mountains,

he also organized it into an empire. He partitioned it into

Provinces, over each of which he placed a governor, or

viceroy, with full civil and military control."

W. W. Hunter,

Brief History of the Indian People,

chapter 10.

"I wish briefly and fairly to state what the Emperor Akbar did

for the improvement of the country and the people of

Hindostan. He improved the system of land-assessment, or

rather he improved upon the improvements instituted by Shir

Shah. He adapted an uniform and improved system of

land-measurement, and computed the average value of the land,

by dividing it into three classes, according to the

productiveness of each. This computation being made, one-third

of the average produce was fixed as the amount of tax to be

paid to the state. But as this was ordinarily to be paid in

money, it was necessary to ascertain the value of the produce,

and this was done upon an average of the nineteen preceding

years, according to local circumstances; and if the estimate

was conceived to be too high, the tax-payer was privileged to

pay the assessment in kind. … The regulations for the

collection of the revenue enforced by Akbar were well

calculated to prevent fraud and oppression, and, on the whole,

they worked well for the benefit of the people; but it has

been said of them, and with truth, that 'they contained no

principle of progressive improvement, and held out no hopes to

the rural population, by opening paths by which it might

spread into other occupations, or rise by individual exertions

within its own.' The judicial regulations of Akbar were

liberal and humane. Justice, on the whole, was fairly

administered. All unnecessary severity—all cruel personal

punishments, as torture and mutilation, were prohibited,

except in peculiar cases, and capital punishments were

considerably restricted. The police appears to have been well

organised. … He prohibited … trials by ordeal … ; he

suppressed the barbarous custom of condemning to slavery

prisoners taken in war; and he authoritatively forbade the

burning of Hindoo widows, except with their own free and

uninfluenced consent. … That something of the historical

lustre which surrounds the name of the Emperor Akbar was

derived rather from the personal character of the man than

from the great things that he accomplished, is, I think, not

to be denied. His actual performances, when they come to be

computed, fall short of his reputation. But his merits are to

be judged not so much by the standard of what he did, as of

what he did with the opportunities allowed to him, and under

the circumstances by which he was surrounded. Akbar built up

the Mogul Empire, and had little leisure allowed him to

perfect its internal economy."

J. W. Kaye,

The Administration of the East India Company,

part 1, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: 3

W. Erskine,

History of India under Baber and Humayun.

A. Dow,

History of Hindostan, from Ferishta,

volume 2.

J. T. Wheeler,

History of India,

volume 4, chapter 4.

INDIA: A. D. 1498-1580.

Portuguese trade and settlements.

In May, 1498, Vasco da Gama, the Portuguese navigator, reached

Calicut, on the southwest (Malabar) coast, being the first

European to traverse the ocean route to India, around the Cape

of Good Hope (see PORTUGAL: A. D. 1463-1498). He met with a

hostile reception from the natives of Malabar; but the next

voyager from Portugal, Alvarez Cabral, "who came out the

following year, was very favourably received, being allowed to

establish a factory on the mainland and to appoint a 'factor'

(or consul, as we say now) to represent Portugal there. This

factor seems to have had some difficulties with the natives,

chiefly owing to his own high-handed actions, which resulted

in the murder of himself and the destruction of the factory.

Alvarez Cabral therefore sailed up to Cochin, and was received

with great friendliness by the chiefs of that part of the

country, who allowed him again to set up agencies at Cochin

and at Cananore. But the vengeance of the ruler of Malabar

pursued them; and the Portuguese, together with their native

allies, had to fight desperately for their safety.

{1709}

They were almost exhausted with the struggle when in 1504

large reinforcements were sent from Portugal, bombarded

Calicut, the capital of Malabar, and established the name and

fame of the Portuguese as an important power in India

generally. A regular maritime trade with India was now firmly

set on foot, but the Portuguese had to struggle hard to

maintain it. The Mohammedans of India called in the aid of

Egypt against them, and even the republic of Venice joined

these enemies, in hopes of crushing this new rival to their

ancient trade. In 1508 a powerful expedition was sent out from

Egypt against the newcomers, a tremendous battle took place,

and the Portuguese were defeated. But by a desperate effort

Almeida, the Portuguese viceroy, collected all his forces for

a final blow, and succeeded in winning a magnificent naval

victory which once and for all firmly established the

Portuguese power in India. Two years afterwards Almeida's

rival and successor, Alfonso de Albuquerque, gained possession

of Goa (1510), and this city became the centre of their Indian

dominion, which now included Ceylon and the Maldive Islands,

together with the Malacca and Malabar coasts. In 1511 the city

of Malacca was captured, and the city of Ormuz in 1515. The

next few years were spent in consolidating their sovereignty

in these regions, till in 1542 the Portuguese colonists

practically regulated all the Asiatic coast trade with Europe,

from the Persian Gulf … to Japan. … For nearly sixty years

after this date the king of Portugal, or his viceroy, was

virtually the supreme ruler—in commercial matters at any

rate—of the southern coast of Asia. The Portuguese were at

the climax of their power in the east. The way in which

Portuguese trade was carried on is an interesting example of

the spirit of monopoly which has, invariably at first and very

often afterwards, inspired the policy of all European powers

in their efforts of colonisation. The eastern trade was of

course kept in the hands of Portuguese traders only, as far as

direct commerce between Portugal and India was concerned; but

even Portuguese traders were shut out from intermediate

commerce between India and other eastern countries, i. e.,

China, Japan, Malacca, Mozambique, and Ormuz. This traffic was

reserved as a monopoly to the crown; and it was only as a

great favour, or in reward for some particular service, that

the king allowed private individuals to engage in it. The

merchant fleet of Portugal generally set sail from Lisbon,

bound to Goa, once a year about February or March. … This

voyage generally took about eighteen months, and, owing to the

imperfect state of navigation at that time, and the lack of

accurate charts of this new route, was frequently attended by

the loss of several ships. Immense profits were, however, made

by the traders. On arriving back at Lisbon the Portuguese

merchants, as a rule, did not themselves engage in any trade

with other European countries in the goods they had brought

back, but left the distribution of them in the hands of Dutch,

English, and Hansa sailors who met them at Lisbon. … The

colonial empire of Portugal, so rapidly and brilliantly

acquired, came to a disastrous close. It lasted altogether

hardly a century. The avarice and oppressions of its viceroys

and merchants, the spirit of monopoly which pervaded their

whole policy, and the neglect both of the discipline and

defences necessary to keep newly-acquired foreign possessions,

hastened its ruin. By 1580 the Portuguese power in the east

had seriously declined, and in that year the crown of Portugal

was united to that of Spain in the person of Philip II. The

Spaniards neglected their eastern possessions altogether, and

engaged in wars with the Dutch which had the effect, not only

of wasting a great portion of their own and the Portuguese

fleet, but of positively driving the Dutch into those very

eastern seas which the Portuguese had once so jealously kept

to themselves. Only Goa and Diu and a few other small stations

remained out of all their magnificent dominion."

H. de B. Gibbins,

History of Commerce in Europe,

book 3, chapter 1 (sections 94-97).

ALSO IN:

E. McMurdo,

History of Portugal,

volume 3, books 2-5.

Commentaries of the Great Afonso Dalboquerque

(Hakluyt Society Publications).

E. Grey,

Introduction to Travels of Pietro della Valle

(Hakluyt Society Publications).

H. M. Stephens,

Albuquerque.

INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

Beginnings of English trade.

The chartering of the English East India Company.

Its early footholds in Hindostan.

The founding of Madras, Bombay and Calcutta.

The three Presidencies.

"For some time it appears to have been thought by other

European Powers, that the discovery of the passage round

Africa by the Portuguese gave them some exclusive claim to its

navigation. But after the year 1580 the conquest of Portugal

by Spain, and the example of the Dutch who had already formed

establishments not only in India but the Spice Islands,

aroused the commercial enterprise of England. In 1599 an

Association was formed for the Trade to the East Indies; a sum

was raised by subscription, amounting to £68,000; and a

petition was presented to the Crown for a Royal Charter. Queen

Elizabeth wavered during some time, apprehending fresh

entanglements with Spain. At length, in December 1600, the

boon was granted; the 'Adventurers' (for so were they termed

at that time) were constituted a body corporate, under the

title of 'the Governor and Company of Merchants of London

trading into the East Indies.' By their Charter they obtained

the right of purchasing lands without limitation, and the

monopoly of their trade during fifteen years, under the

direction of a Governor, and twenty-four other persons in

Committee, to be elected annually. … In 1609, the Charter of

the new Company was not only renewed but rendered

perpetual,—with a saving clause, however, that should any

national detriment be at any time found to ensue, these

exclusive privileges should, after three years' notice, cease

and expire. It does not seem, however, that the trade of the

new Company was extensive. Their first voyage consisted of

four ships and one pinnace, having on board £28,742 in

bullion, and £6,860 in goods, such as cloth, lead, tin,

cutlery, and glass. Many other of their voyages were of

smaller amount; thus, in 1612, when they united into a Joint

Stock Company, they sent out only one ship, with £1,250 in

bullion and £650 in goods. But their clear profits on their

capital were immense; scarcely ever, it is stated, below 100

per cent. During the Civil Wars the Company shared in the

decline of every other branch of trade and industry.

{1710}

But soon after the accession of Charles II. they obtained a

new Charter, which not only confirmed their ancient privileges

but vested in them authority, through their agents in India,

to make peace and war with any prince or people, not being

Christians, and to seize within their limits, and send home as

prisoners, any Englishmen found without a licence. It may well

be supposed that in the hands of any exclusive Company this

last privilege was not likely to lie dormant. … The period

of the Revolution was not so favourable to the Company as that

of the Restoration. A rival Company arose, professing for its

object greater freedom of trade with the East Indies, and

supported by a majority in the House of Commons. It is said

that the competition of these two Companies with the private

traders and with one another had well nigh ruined both. … An

Union between these Companies, essential, as it seemed, to

their expected profits, was delayed by their angry feelings

till 1702. Even then, by the Indenture which passed the Great

Seal, several points were left unsettled between them, and

separate transactions were allowed to their agents in India

for the stocks already sent out. Thus the ensuing years were

fraught with continued jarrings and contentions. … After the

grant of the first Charter by Queen Elizabeth, and the growth

of the Company's trade in India, their two main factories were

fixed at Surat and Bantam. Surat was then the principal

sea-port of the Mogul Empire, where the Mahometan pilgrims

were wont to assemble for their voyages towards Mecca. Bantam,

from its position in the island of Java, commanded the best

part of the Spice trade. But at Surat the Company's servants

were harassed by the hostility of the Portuguese, as at

Bantam, by the hostility of the Dutch. To such heights did

these differences rise that in 1622 the English assisted the

Persians in the recovery of Ormuz from the Portuguese, and

that in 1623 the Dutch committed the outrage termed the

'Massacre of Amboyna,'—putting to death, after a trial, and

confession of guilt extorted by torture, Captain Towerson and

nine other Englishmen, on a charge of conspiracy. In the final

result, many years afterwards, the factories both at Bantam

and Surat were relinquished by the Company. Other and newer

settlements of theirs had, meanwhile, grown into

importance.—In 1640 the English obtained permission from a

Hindoo Prince in the Carnatic to purchase the ground adjoining

the Portuguese settlement of St. Thomé, on which they

proceeded to raise Fort St. George and the town of Madras. …

In a very few years Madras had become a thriving town.—About

twenty years afterwards, on the marriage of Charles II. to

Catherine of Braganza [1661], the town and island of Bombay

were ceded to the King of England as a part of the Infanta's

dowry. For some time the Portuguese Governor continued to

evade the grant, alleging that the patent of His Majesty was

not in accordance with the customs of Portugal; he was

compelled to yield; but the possession being found on trial to

cost more than it produced, it was given up by King Charles to

the East India Company, and became one of their principal

stations. Nor was Bengal neglected. Considering the beauty and

richness of that province, a proverb was already current among

the Europeans, that there are a hundred gates for entering and

not one for leaving it. The Dutch, the Portuguese, and the

English had established their factories at or near the town of

Hooghly on one of the branches—also called Hooghly—of the

Ganges. But during the reign of James II. the imprudence of

some of the Company's servants, and the seizure of a Mogul

junk, had highly incensed the native Powers. The English found

it necessary to leave Hooghly, and drop twenty-five miles down

the river, to the village of Chuttanuttee. Some petty

hostilities ensued, not only in Bengal but along the coasts of

India. … So much irritated was Aurungzebe at the reports of

these hostilities, that he issued orders for the total

expulsion of the Company's servants from his dominions, but he

was appeased by the humble apologies of the English traders,

and the earnest intercession of the Hindoo, to whom this

commerce was a source of profit. The English might even have

resumed their factory at Hooghly, but preferred their new

station at Chuttanuttee, and in 1698 obtained from the Mogul,

on payment of an annual rent, a grant of the land on which it

stood. Then, without delay, they began to construct for its

defence a citadel, named Fort William, under whose shelter

there grew by degrees from a mean village the great town of

Calcutta,—the capital of modern India. … At nearly the

same period another station,—Tegnapatam, a town on the coast

of Coromandel, to the south of Madras,—was obtained by

purchase. It was surnamed Fort St. David; was strengthened

with walls and bulwarks, and was made subordinate to Madras

for its government. Thus then before the accession of the

House of Hanover these three main stations,—Fort William,

Fort St. George, and Bombay,—had been erected into

Presidencies, or central posts of Government; not, however, as

at present, subject to one supreme authority, but each

independent of the rest. Each was governed by a President and

a Council of nine or twelve members, appointed by the Court of

Directors in England. Each was surrounded with fortifications,

and guarded by a small force, partly European and partly

native, in the service of the Company. The Europeans were

either recruits enlisted in England or strollers and deserters

from other services in India. Among these the descendants of

the old settlers, especially the Portuguese, were called

Topasses,—from the tope or hat which they wore instead of

turban. The natives, as yet ill-armed and ill-trained, were

known by the name of Sepoys,—a corruption from the Indian

word 'sipahi,' a soldier. But the territory of the English

scarcely extended out of sight of their towns."

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope);

History of England, 1713-1783,

chapter 39 (volume 4).

ALSO IN:

J. Mill,

History of British India,

book 1 (volume 1).

P. Anderson,

The English in Western India,

chapters 1-10.

H. Stevens, editor.,

Dawn of British Trade to East Indies:

Court Minutes of the East India Company, 1599-1603.

J. W. Kaye,

The Administration of the East India Company,

chapters 3-4.

INDIA: A. D. 1602-1620.

Rise of the Dutch East India Company.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.

{1711}

INDIA: A. D. 1605-1658.

Jahangir and Nur Mahal.

Shah Jahan and the Taj Mahal.

Seizure of the throne by Aurungzebe.

"Selim, the son and successor of Akbar, reigned from the year

of his father's death until 1627, having assumed the title of

Jahangir, or 'Conqueror of the World'; that is to say, he

reigned, but he did not govern. Before he came to the throne,

he fell in love with a poor Persian girl," whom his father

gave in marriage to one of his officers. "On his advent to the

throne, Jahangir … managed to get the husband killed, and

took the widow into his harem. He subsequently married her,

and she ruled, not him alone, but the whole empire. … [She

was first called Nur Mahal, 'Light of the Harem,' then Nur

Jahan, 'Light of the World.'] It was during this reign, in

1615, that the first English ambassador, Sir Thomas Roe,

arrived in Hindustan from James I.; and proceeding to Ajmere,

where Jahangir was staying at the time with his court, he made

him several presents, amongst which, we are told, a beautiful

English coach gave the Emperor the most satisfaction. He

received the ambassador with great distinction, showed him

marked attention at all public receptions, and granted a

firmân to the English to establish a factory at Surat. … The

later years of Jahangir's reign were disturbed by family

intrigues, in which the Empress Nur Jehan took a prominent

part, endeavouring to secure the succession for her

son-in-law; but after the death of the Emperor, his oldest

living son, Shah Jahan, pensioned and forced the Empress into

retirement … and … 'dispatched all the males of the house

of Timour, so that only himself and his children remained of

the posterity of Baber, who conquered India.' In some respects

the reign of Shah Jahan was unfortunate. He lost his Afghan

dominions, and gained but little by his invasions of the

Dekhan, which were carried on by his rebellious son and

successor, Aurungzeb; but in another direction he did more to

perpetuate the glory of the Mughal dynasty than any other

emperor of his line. Amongst other handsome buildings, he

erected the most beautiful the world has ever possessed. …

This was the well-known Taj Mahal at Agra, a mausoleum for his

favourite Empress Arjamund, known as Mumtaz-i-Mahal [of which

name, according to Elphinstone, Taj Mahal is a corruption],

'the Exalted One of the Seraglio.' … When Shah Jahan had

attained his 66th year (according to some writers, his 70th),

he was seized with a sudden illness, the result of his

debauched life, and as it was reported that he was dead, a

civil war broke out amongst his sons for the possession of the

throne. These were four in number, Dara (the oldest), Shuja,

Aurungzeb, and Murad (the youngest); and in the conflict

Aurungzeb, the third son, was ultimately successful. Two of

the brothers, Dara and Murad, fell into the power of the

last-named and were put to death by his orders. Shuja escaped

to Arracan, and was murdered there; and as for the Emperor,

who had recovered, Aurungzeb confined him in the fort at Agra,

with all his female relatives, and then caused himself to be

proclaimed in his stead [1658]. Towards the close of Shah

Jehan's life [which came to an end in 1666], a partial

reconciliation took place between him and his son, who,

however, did not release him from his confinement."

J. Samuelson,

India, Past and Present,

part 1, chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

J. T. Wheeler,

History of India,

volume 4, chapters 5-7.

Sir T. Roe,

Journal of Embassy

(Pinkerton's Collection of Voyages, volume 8).

M. Elphinstone,

History of India: Hindu and Mahometan,

book 10.

INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

The struggle of Aurungzebe with the Mahrattas.

The Mahratta empire.

Invasion of Nadir Shah.

Sack of Delhi and great Massacre.

"Aurungzebe had reigned five years before he succeeded in

destroying all his kinsmen. … About that time, in the year

1662, a new and extraordinary power in Southern India began to

attract attention. The Mahrattas appear to have been nothing

more than the Hindoo peasantry, scattered throughout some of

the mountainous districts of the Mahomedan kingdoms of

Ahmednuggur, Beijapoor and Golconda, and united into a body

only by the prejudices of caste, of which their rank was the

lowest, that of Sudra. In the confusion incidental to the

constant wars in which these states were engaged, some of the

head men of their villages set up for themselves, and one of

them, Shahji Borla, became powerful enough to play a

conspicuous part at the time of the annexation of Ahmednuggur

to the Mogul empire. His son Sevaji, setting out from this

vantage ground, strengthened his hands by the silent capture

of some hill forts in Beijapoor, and eventually raising the

standard of revolt against that government, introduced a

spirit of union amidst the scattered masses of his people, and

may thus be considered the founder of the Mahratta empire. In

1662 he commenced his predatory expeditions into the Mogul

territory, and in ten years he found himself at the head of a

regular government with the title of Rajah, and strong enough

to encounter and defeat the imperial forces in a field battle.

This was the critical moment in the progress of the Mogul

empire. Aurungzebe was called away for two years by the

chronic disturbances beyond the Indus; his strength was wasted

by the ceaseless wars of the Deccan; and being goaded to

madness by the casual insurrection of some Hindoo devotees in

the centre of his dominions, he replaced the capitation tax on

infidels, and fulminated other decrees against that portion of

his subjects of such extravagant intolerance that they at

length looked upon the progress of their co-religionists, the

Mahrattas, with more longing than alarm. In 1679, the western

portion of Rajahstan was in arms against the empire, and

continued in a state of hostility more or less active during

the whole reign. Even the emperor's eventual successes in the

Deccan, in overthrowing the kingdoms of Beijapoor and

Golconda, contributed to his ruin; for it removed the check of

regular government from that distracted portion of the

country, and … threw into the arms of the Mahrattas the

adventurous and the desperate of the population. Sevaji died,

and successors of less talent filled the throne of the

robber-king; but this seems to have had no effect upon the

progress of the inundation, which now bursting over the

natural barriers of the peninsula, and sweeping away its

military defences, overflowed Malwa and a portion of Guzerat.

Aurungzebe fought gallantly and finessed craftily by turns;

… and thus he struggled with his destiny even to extreme old

age, bravely and alone. He expired in his 89th year, the 50th

of his reign, on the 21st of February, 1707. … During the

next twelve years after the death of Aurungzebe, no fewer than

five princes sat upon the throne, whose reigns, without being

distinguished by any great events, exhibited evident

indications of the gradual decline of the empire.

{1712}

During that period the Sikhs, originally a sect of Hindoo

dissenters, whose peculiarity consisted in their repudiation

of all religious ceremonies, having first been changed into

warriors by persecution, began to rise by the spirit of union

into a nation; but so weak were they at this time that in 1706

the dying energies of the empire were sufficient almost for

their extirpation. … Mahomed Shah succeeded to the throne in

1719. The Mahratta government was by this time completely

consolidated, and the great families of the race, since so

celebrated, had begun to rise into eminence: such as that of

the Peshwa, the official title of a minister of the Rajah; of

Holkar, the founder of which was a shepherd; and of Sindia,

which sprang from a menial servant. … A still more

remarkable personage of the time was Asof Jah, whose

descendants became the Nizams [regulators or governors—the

title becoming hereditary in the family of Asof, at Hyderabad]

of the Deccan. … While the empire was … rent in pieces by

internal disturbances, a more tremendous enemy even than the

Mahrattas presented himself from without. A revolution had

taken place in Persia, which seated a soldier of fortune upon

the throne; and the famous Nadir Shah, after capturing

Candahar, found it necessary, according to the fashion of

conquerors, to seize upon the Mogul territories, Ghizni and

Cabul, and when at the latter city to continue his march into

Hindostan. In 1739, he arrived at Kurnaul, within 70 miles of

Delhi, and defeated the emperor in a general engagement. …

The two kings then proceeded to Delhi after the battle, where

Nadir, in consequence, it is said, of an insurrection of the

populace, set fire to the city and massacred the inhabitants

to a number which has been variously estimated at from 30,000

to 150,000. He then proceeded to the main business of his

invasion, robbing first the treasury and afterwards the

inhabitants individually, torturing or murdering all who were

suspected of concealing their riches, and at length returned

to his own dominions, having obtained a formal cession of the

country west of the Indus, and carrying with him in money and

plate at least twelve millions sterling, besides jewels of

great value, including those of the Peacock Throne [the throne

of the Great Mogul, made solidly of gold and adorned with

diamonds and pearls,—the enamelled back of the throne being

spread in the form of a peacock's tail.]

Tavernier's Travels,

translated and edited by V. Ball,

book 2, chapter 8 (volume 1).

From this period to the death of the Emperor Mahomed Shah, in

1748, the interval was filled up with the disturbances which

might be expected."

Leitch Ritchie,

History of the Indian Empire,

book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).

The Asof or Asaf Jah mentioned above had become, in 1721, the

Prime Minister of the Emperor Muhammad Shah, "In a little more

than three years he had thrown up in disgust an office which

the levity of the young monarch hindered him from discharging

to his satisfaction; and had repaired to the Deccan, where he

founded the State which still subsists under the name of 'The

Nizam's Dominions.' Nominally, it was the Subah [province]

erected on the ruins of the old Musalman kingdoms; but in the

decline of the Empire it became a hereditary and

quasi-independent province, though the ruler never took the

royal title, but continued to retain the style of an Imperial

Viceroy, as 'Nizam-ul-mulk,' which his descendant still

bears."

H. G. Keene,

Madhava Rao Sindhia,

chapter 1.

"The different provinces and viceroyalties went their own

natural way; they were parcelled out in a scuffle among

revolted governors, rebellious chiefs, leaders of insurgent

tribes or sects, religious revivalists, or captains of

mercenary bands. The Indian people were becoming a masterless

multitude swaying to and fro in the political storm, and

clinging to any power, natural or supernatural, that seemed

likely to protect them. They were prepared to acquiesce in the

assumption of authority by anyone who could show himself able

to discharge the most elementary functions of government in

the preservation of life and property. In short, the people

were scattered without a leader or protector; while the

political system under which they had long lived was

disappearing in complete disorganization. It was during this

period of tumultuary confusion that the French and English

first appeared upon the political arena in India."

Sir A. Lyall,

Rise of the British Dominion in India,

chapter 4, sections 1-2.

ALSO IN:

S. Lane-Poole,

Aurangzib,

chapters 9-12.

A. Dow,

History of Hindostan, from Ferishta,

volume 3.

J. G. Duff,

History of the Mahrattas,

volume 1, and volume 2, chapter 1.

C. R. Markham,

History of Persia,

chapter 12.

INDIA: A. D. 1665-1743.

Commercial undertakings of the French.

Their settlement at Pondicherry.

"Many expeditions to India had been made [by the French]

earlier than the time of Colbert's East India Company,

chartered in the year 1665. The first French ships, of which

there is any record, that succeeded in reaching India, were

two despatched from one of the ports of Brittany in 1601.

These ships were, however, wrecked on the Maldive Islands, and

their commander did not return to France for ten years.

Voyages were undertaken in 1616, 1619, and again in 1633, of

which the most that can be said is that they met with no great

disaster. The attempt to found settlements in Java and

Madagascar, which was the object of these voyages, completely

failed. The first operations of the French East India Company

were to establish factories in Hindostan. Surat, a large

commercial city at the mouth of the Taptee, was fixed upon for

the principal depot. The abuses and lavish waste of the

officers entrusted to carry out Colbert's plans, brought the

company to an end in five years. An attempt in 1672 to form a

colony at Trincomalee, on the north-east coast of Ceylon, was

frustrated by the hostility of the Dutch. Afterwards the

French made an attempt on Meliapoor or Thomé, belonging to the

Portuguese. They were soon expelled, and the survivors sought

refuge at Pondicherry [1674], a small town which they had

purchased on the same coast of the Carnatic. In 1693,

Pondicherry was taken by the Dutch, who improved the

fortifications and general condition of the town. At the peace

of Ryswick, in 1697, the settlement was restored to the

French. For half a century Pondicherry shared the neglect

common to French colonies, and owed more to the probity and

discretion of its governors than to the home government. M.

Martin, and subsequently Dumas, saved the settlement from

ruin. They added to the defences; and Dumas, being in want of

money for public purposes, obtained permission from the King

of Delhi to coin money for the French settlers. He also

procured the cession of Karikal, a district of Tanjore. On the

other hand, several stations and forts had to be given up."

J. Yeats,

Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,

part 3, chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

G. B. Malleson,

History of the French in India,

chapters 1-3.

H. Martin,

History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,

volume 1, chapter 2.

{1713}

INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.

Struggle of the French and English for supremacy in the Deccan.

Clive against Dupleix.

The founding of British empire.

"England owes the idea of an Indian empire to the French, as

also the chief means by which she has hitherto sought to

realize it. The war of the Austrian succession had just broken

out [1743] between France and England.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.

Dupleix, the governor of the settlements of the French East

India Company, proposed to the English company a neutrality in

the eastern seas; it was rejected. The English probably

repented of their presumption when they saw Captain Peyton,

the commander of a squadron of three liners and a frigate,

after an indecisive engagement with the French admiral,

Labourdonnais, take flight to the Bay of Bengal, leaving

Madras, then the most flourishing of the English settlements,

defenceless. Dupleix and Labourdonnais were the first of that

series of remarkable Frenchmen who, amidst every

discouragement from home, and in spite of their frequent

mutual dissensions, kept the French name so prominent in India

for more than the next half century, only to meet on their

return with obloquy, punishment, even death. Labourdonnais,

who was Admiral of the French fleet, was also Governor of

Mauritius, then called the Isle of France. He had disciplined

a force of African negroes. With French troops and these, he

entered the narrow strip of coast, five miles long, one mile

broad, which was then the territory of Madras, bombarded the

city, compelled the fort (which had lost five men) to

surrender. But his terms were honourable; the English were

placed on parole; the town was to be given up on payment of a

moderate ransom (1746). Dupleix, however, was jealous; he

denied Labourdonnais powers; broke the capitulation; paraded

the Governor and other English gentlemen in triumph through

Pondicherry. In vain did Admiral Boscawen besiege the latter

place; time was wasted, the trenches were too far, the rains

came on; Boscawen raised the siege, crippled in men and

stores; was recalled by the news of the peace of

Aix-la-Chapelle, and, to close his career of misfortune, lost

several ships and 1,200 men on the Coromandel coast (1748-9).

News of the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, however, produced a

very temporary cessation of hostilities, Madras being

restored, with fortifications much improved. The English

fortunes seemed at their lowest in India; the French rising to

their full height. Dupleix conceived the bold plan of

interfering in the internal politics of the country.

Labourdonnais had disciplined the negro; Dupleix disciplined

the native Indian. … Labourdonnais had beaten off the

so-called Nawab of the Carnatic, when he attempted to take

Madras; the event produced an immense sensation; it was the

first victory obtained for a century by Europeans over the

natives of India. Dupleix was strong enough to be reckoned a

valuable ally. But on the English side a young man had

appeared who was to change the whole course of events in the

East. Robert Clive, an attorney's son from Market Drayton,

born in 1725, sent off at eighteen as a writer to Madras—a

naughty boy who had grown into an insubordinate clerk, who had

been several times in danger of losing his situation, and had

twice attempted to destroy himself—ran away from Madras,

disguised as a Mussulman, after Dupleix's violation of the

capitulation, obtained an ensign's commission at twenty-one,

and began distinguishing himself as a soldier under Major

Lawrence, then the best British officer in India."

J. M. Ludlow,

British India,

lecture 7.

"Clive and others who escaped [from Madras] betook themselves

to Fort St. David's—a small English settlement a few miles

south of Pondicherry. There Clive prepared himself for the

military vocation for which nature had clearly destined him.

… At Fort St. David's the English intrigued with the native

chiefs, much as the French had done, and not more creditably.

They took sides, and changed sides, in the disputes of rival

claimants to the province of Tanjore, under the inducement of

the possession of Devi-cottah, a coast station at the mouth of

the Coleroon. There was no great honour in the results, any

more than in the conception, of this first little war. We

obtained Devi-cottah; but we did not improve our reputation

for good faith, nor lessen the distance between the French and

ourselves in military prestige. But Dupleix was meantime

providing the opportunity for Clive to determine whether the

Deccan should be under French or English influence. … The

greatest of the southern princes, the Nizam al Mulk, Viceroy

of the Deccan, died in 1748; and rivals rose up, as usual, to

claim both his throne and the richest province under his

rule—the Carnatic. The pretenders on one side applied to the

French for assistance, and obtained reinforcements to the

extent of 400 French soldiers and 2,000 trained sepoys. This

aid secured victory; the opposing prince was slain; and his

son, the well-known Mohammed Ali, 'the Nabob of Arcot' of the

last century, took refuge, with a few remaining troops, at

Trichinopoly. In a little while, the French seemed to be

supreme throughout the country. Dupleix was deferred to as the

arbiter of the destinies of the native princes, while he was

actually declared Governor of India, from the Kistna to Cape

Comorin—a region as large as France, inhabited by 30,000,000

of people, and defended by a force so large that the cavalry

alone amounted to 7,000 under the command of Dupleix. In the

midst of this dominion, the English looked like a handful of

dispirited and helpless settlers, awaiting the disposal of the

haughty Frenchman. Their native ally had lost everything but

Trichinopoly; and Trichinopoly itself was now besieged by the

Nabob of the Carnatic and his French supporters. Dupleix was

greater than even the Mogul sovereign; he had erected a column

in his own honour, displaying on its four sides inscriptions

in four languages, proclaiming his glory as the first man of

the East; and a town had sprung up round this column, called

his City of Victory. To the fatalistic mind of the native

races it seemed a settled matter that the French rule was

supreme, and that the English must perish out of the land.

Major Lawrence had gone home; and the small force of the

English had no commander. Clive was as yet only a commissary,

with the rank of captain, and regarded more as a civilian than

a soldier.

{1714}

He was only five-and-twenty. His superiors were in extreme

alarm, foreseeing that when Trichinopoly was taken, the next

step would be the destruction of Madras. Nothing could make

their position worse; and they caught at every chance of

making it better. Clive offered to attack Arcot, the capital

of the Carnatic, in the hope that this would draw away the

besiegers from Trichinopoly; and the offer was accepted. The

force consisted of 200 British and 300 native soldiers,

commanded, under Clive, by four factors and four military men,

only two of whom had ever been in action. Everything was

against them, from numbers and repute to the weather; but

Clive took Arcot [September 11, 1751], and (what was much more

difficult) kept it. The garrison had fled in a panic; but it

was invested by 10,000 men before the British had repaired

half its dilapidations and deficiencies, or recruited their

numbers, now reduced to 320 men in all, commanded by four

officers. For fifty days, amidst fatigue, hunger, and a

hundred pressing dangers, the little band sustained the siege.

… A series of victories followed, and men and opinion came

round to the side of the victors. There was no energy at

headquarters to sustain Clive in his career. … In his

absence, the enemy appeared again before Fort George, and did

much damage; but Clive came up, and 100 of the French soldiers

were killed or taken. He uprooted Dupleix's boasting monument,

and levelled the city to the ground, thereby reversing the

native impression of the respective destinies of the French

and English. Major Lawrence returned. Dupleix's military

incapacity was proved, and his personal courage found wanting

as soon as fortune deserted him. Trichinopoly was relieved,

and the besiegers were beaten, and their candidate prince put

to death. Dupleix struggled in desperation for some time

longer before he gave up the contest; and Clive had his

difficulties in completing the dislodgement of the French. …

He did it; but nearly at the sacrifice of his life. When the

British supremacy in the Deccan was completely established, he

returned [1752] in bad health to England. … He left behind

him Dupleix, for whom a summons home in disgrace was on the

way."

H. Martineau,

History of British Rule in India,

chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

G. B. Malleson,

History of the French in India,

chapters 3-6.

G. B. Malleson,

Founders of the Indian Empire: Lord Clive,

chapters 1-6.

Colonel Sir C. Wilson,

Lord Clive,

chapters 2-4.

INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.

The Duranee power in Afghanistan.

Conflict of the Afghans and the Mahrattas.

Great defeat of the latter at Panniput.

Fall of the shattered Moghul empire.

The state of things which invited British conquest.

On the death of Nadir Shah, who was murdered in 1747, his

Afghan kingdom was acquired by a native chief, Ahmed Abdalee,

who, first a prisoner and a slave to Nadir Shah, had become

one of the trusted officers of his court and army. "Ahmed

Abdalee had acquired so great an ascendency among the troops

that upon this event [the death of Nadir Shah] several

commanders and their followers joined his standard; and he

drew off toward his own country. He fell in with and seized a

convoy of treasure, which was proceeding to the camp. This

enabled him to engage in his pay a still larger body of his

countrymen. He proclaimed himself king of the Afghauns; and

took the title of Doordowran, or pearl of the age, which being

corrupted into Dooranee,[or Duranee], gave one of their names

to himself and his Abdallees. He marched towards Candahar

which submitted to his arms; and next proceeded to Cabul …

and this province also fell into the hands of the Afghaun."

Lahore was next added to his dominions, and he then, in 1747,

invaded India, intent upon the capture of Delhi; but met with

sufficient resistance to discourage his undertaking, and fell

back to Cabul. In 1748, and again in 1749, he passed the

Indus, and made himself master of the Punjab. In 1755-6 he

marched to Delhi, which opened its gates to him and received

him, pretendedly as a guest, but really as a master. A plague

breaking out in his army caused him to return to his own

country. He "left his son Governor of Lahore and Multan;

disordered by revolutions, wasted and turbulent. A chief …

incited the Seiks [Sikhs] to join him in molesting the

Dooranees; and they gained several important advantages over

their principal commanders. They invited the Mahratta

generals, Ragonaut Raow, Shumsheer Bahadur, and Holkar, who

had advanced into the neighbourhood of Delhi, to join them in

driving the Abdalees from Lahore. No occupation could be more

agreeable to the Mahrattas. After taking Sirhind, they

advanced to Lahore, where the Abdalee Prince made but a feeble

resistance and fled. This event put them in possession of both

Multan and Lahore. … The whole Indian continent appeared now

about to be swallowed up by the Mahrattas. … Ahmed Shah [the

Abdalee, or Dooranee] was not only roused by the loss of his

two provinces, and the disgrace imprinted on his arms, but he

was invited by the chiefs and people of Hindustan, groaning

under the depredations of the Mahrattas, to march to their

succour and become their King. … For some days the Dooranees

hovered round the Mahratta camp; when the Mahrattas, who were

distressed for provisions, came out and offered battle. Their

army, consisting of 80,000 veteran cavalry, was almost wholly

destroyed; and Duttah Sindia, their General, was among the

slain. A detachment of horse sent against another body of

Mahrattas, who were marauding under Holkar in the

neighbourhood of Secundra, surprised them so completely that

Holkar fled naked, with a handful of followers, and the rest,

with the exception of a few prisoners and fugitives, were all

put to the sword. During the rainy season, while the Dooranee

Shah was quartered at Secundra, the news of this disaster and

disgrace excited the Mahrattas to the greatest exertions. A

vast army was collected, and … the Mahrattas marched to

gratify the resentments, and fulfil the unbounded hopes of the

nation. … They arrived at the Jumna before it was

sufficiently fallen to permit either the Mahrattas on the

other side, or the Dooranees, to cross. In the meantime they

marched to Delhi, of which after some resistance they took

possession; plundered it with their usual rapacity, tearing

away even the gold and silver ornaments of the palace;

proclaimed Sultan Jewan Bukht, the son of Alee Gohur [or Shah

Alum, absent son of the late nominal Emperor at Delhi,

Alumgeer II., who had recently been put to death by his own

vizir], Emperor; and named Sujah ad Dowlah, Nabob of Oude, his

Vizir.

{1715}

Impatient at intelligence of these and some other

transactions, Ahmed Shah swam the Jumna, still deemed

impassable, with his whole army. This daring adventure, and

the remembrance of the late disaster, shook the courage of the

Mahrattas; and they entrenched their camp on a plain near

Panniput. The Dooranee, having surrounded their position with

parties of troops, to prevent the passage of supplies,

contented himself for some days with skirmishing. At last he

tried an assault; when the Rohilla infantry … forced their

way into the Mahratta works, and Bulwant Raow with other

chiefs was killed; but night put an end to the conflict.

Meanwhile scarcity prevailed and filth accumulated in the

Mahratta camp. The vigilance of Ahmed intercepted their

convoys. In a little time famine and pestilence "raged. A

battle became the only resource [January 7, 1761]. The Abdalee

restrained his troops till the Mahrattas had advanced a

considerable way from their works; when he rushed upon them

with so much rapidity as left them hardly any time for using

their cannon. The Bhaow was killed early in the action;

confusion soon pervaded the army, and a dreadful carnage

ensued. The field was floated with blood. Twenty-two thousand

men and women were taken prisoners. Of those who escaped from

the field of battle, the greater part were butchered by the

people of the country, who had suffered from their

depredations. Of an army of 140,000 horse, commanded by the

most celebrated generals of the nation, only three chiefs of

any rank, and a mere residue of the troops, found their way to

Deccan. The Dooranee Shah made but little use of this mighty

victory. After remaining a few months at Delhi, he recognized

Alee Gohur as Emperor, by the title of Shah Aulum II.; and

entrusting Nujeeb ad Dowlah with the superintendence of

affairs, till his master should return from Bengal, he marched

back to his capital of Cabul in the end of the year 1760

[1761]. With Aulum-geer II. the empire of the Moguls may be

justly considered as having arrived at its close. The unhappy

Prince who now received the name of Emperor, and who, after a

life of misery and disaster, ended his days a pensioner of

English merchants, never possessed a sufficient degree of

power to consider himself for one moment as master of the

throne."

J. Mill,

History of British India,

book 3, chapter 4 (volume 2).

"The words 'wonderful,' 'strange,' are often applied to great

historical events, and there is no event to which they have

been applied more freely than to our [the English] conquest of

India. … But the event was not wonderful in a sense that it

is difficult to discover adequate causes by which it could

have been produced. If we begin by remarking that authority in

India had fallen on the ground through the decay of the Mogul

Empire, that it lay there waiting to be picked up by somebody,

and that all over India in that period adventurers of one kind

or another were founding Empires, it is really not surprising

that a mercantile corporation which had money to pay a

mercenary force should be able to compete with other

adventurers, nor yet that it should outstrip all its

competitors by bringing into the field English military

science and generalship, especially when it was backed over

and over again by the whole power and credit of England and

directed by English statesmen. … England did not in the

strict sense conquer India, but … certain Englishmen, who

happened to reside in India at the time when the Mogul Empire

fell, had a fortune like that of Hyder Ali or Runjeet Singh

and rose to supreme power there."

J. R. Seeley,

The Expansion of England,

course 2, lecture 3.

ALSO IN:

J. G. Duff,

History of the Mahrattas,

volume 2, chapters 2-5.

G. B. Malleson,

History of Afghanistan,

chapter 8.

H. G. Keene,

Madhava Rao Sindhia,

chapter 2.

INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757.

Capture of Calcutta by Surajah Dowlah.

The tragedy of the Black Hole.

Clive's recovery of the Fort and settlement.

Clive remained three years in England, where he sought an

election to Parliament, as a supporter of Fox, but was

unseated by the Tories. On suffering this disappointment, he

re-entered the service of the East India Company, as governor

of Fort St. David, with the commission of a lieutenant-colonel

in the British army, received from the king, and returned to

India in 1755. Soon after his arrival at Fort St. David, "he

received intelligence which called forth all the energy of his

bold and active mind. Of the provinces which had been subject

to the house of Tamerlane, the wealthiest was Bengal. No part

of India possessed such natural advantages both for

agriculture and for commerce. … The great commercial

companies of Europe had long possessed factories in Bengal.

The French were settled, as they still are, at Chandernagore

on the Hoogley. Higher up the stream the Dutch traders held

Chinsurah. Nearer to the sea, the English had built Fort

William. A church and ample warehouses rose in the vicinity. A

row of spacious houses, belonging to the chief factors of the

East India Company, lined the banks of the river; and in the

neighbourhood had sprung up a large and busy native town,

where some Hindoo merchants of great opulence had fixed their

abode. But the tract now covered by the palaces of Chowringhee

contained only a few miserable huts thatched with straw. A

jungle, abandoned to water-fowl and alligators, covered the

site of the present Citadel, and the Course, which is now

daily crowded at sunset with the gayest equipages of Calcutta.

For the ground on which the settlement stood, the English,

like other great landholders, paid rent to the government; and

they were, like other great landholders, permitted to exercise

a certain jurisdiction within their domain. The great province

of Bengal, together with Orissa and Bahar, had long been

governed by a viceroy, whom the English called Aliverdy Khan,

and who, like the other viceroys of the Mogul, had become

virtually independent. He died in 1756, and the sovereignty

descended to his grandson, a youth under twenty years of age,

who bore the name of Surajah Dowlah. … From a child Surajah

Dowlah had hated the English. It was his whim to do so; and

his whims were never opposed. He had also formed a very

exaggerated notion of the wealth which might be obtained by

plundering them; and his feeble and uncultivated mind was

incapable of perceiving that the riches of Calcutta, had they

been even greater than he imagined, would not compensate him

for what he must lose, if the European trade, of which Bengal

was a chief seat, should be driven by his violence to some

other Quarter. Pretexts for a quarrel were readily found.

{1716}

The English, in expectation of a war with France, had begun to

fortify their settlement without special permission from the

Nabob. A rich native, whom he longed to plunder, had taken

refuge at Calcutta, and had not been delivered up. On such

grounds as these Surajah Dowlah marched with a great army

against Fort William. The servants of the Company at Madras

had been forced by Dupleix to become statesmen and soldiers.

Those in Bengal were still mere traders, and were terrified

and bewildered by the approaching danger. … The fort was

taken [June 20, 1756] after a feeble resistance; and great

numbers of the English fell into the hands of the conquerors.

The Nabob seated himself with regal pomp in the principal hall

of the factory, and ordered Mr. Holwell, the first in rank

among the prisoners, to be brought before him. His Highness

talked about the insolence of the English, and grumbled at the

smallness of the treasure which he had found; but promised to

spare their lives, and retired to rest. Then was committed

that great crime, memorable for its singular atrocity,

memorable for the tremendous retribution by which it was

followed. The English captives were left at the mercy of the

guards, and the guards determined to secure them for the night

in the prison of the garrison, a chamber known by the fearful

name of the Black Hole. Even for a single European malefactor,

that dungeon would, in such a climate, have been too close and

narrow. The space was only twenty feet square. The air-holes

were small and obstructed. It was the summer solstice, the

season when the fierce heat of Bengal can scarcely be rendered

tolerable to natives of England by lofty halls and by the

constant waving of fans. The number of the prisoners was 146.

When they were ordered to enter the cell, they imagined that

the soldiers were joking; and, being in high spirits on

account of the promise of the Nabob to spare their lives, they

laughed and jested at the absurdity of the notion. They soon

discovered their mistake. They expostulated; they entreated;

but in vain. The guards threatened to cut down all who

hesitated. The captives were driven into the cell at the point

of the sword, and the door was instantly shut and locked upon

them. Nothing in history or fiction, not even the story which

Ugolino told in the sea of everlasting ice, after he had wiped

his bloody lips on the scalp of his murderer, approaches the

horrors which were recounted by the few survivors of that

night. They cried for mercy. They strove to burst the door.

Holwell who, even in that extremity, retained some presence of

mind, offered large bribes to the gaolers. But the answer was

that nothing could be done without the Nabob's orders, that

the Nabob was asleep, and that he would be angry if anybody

woke him. Then the prisoners went mad with despair. They

trampled each other down, fought for the places at the

windows, fought for the pittance of water with which the cruel

mercy of the murderers mocked their agonies, raved, prayed,

blasphemed, implored the guards to fire among them. The

gaolers in the mean time held lights to the bars, and shouted

with laughter at the frantic struggles of their victims. At

length the tumult died away in low gaspings and moanings. The

day broke. The Nabob had slept off his debauch, and permitted

the door to be opened. But it was some time before the

soldiers could make a lane for the survivors, by piling up on

each side the heaps of corpses on which the burning climate

had already begun to do its loathsome work. When at length a

passage was made, twenty-three ghastly figures, such as their

own mothers would not have known, staggered one by one out of

the charnel-house. A pit was instantly dug. The dead bodies,

123 in number, were flung into it promiscuously and covered

up. … One Englishwoman had survived that night. She was

placed in the harem of the Prince at Moorshedabad. Surajah

Dowlah, in the mean time, sent letters to his nominal

sovereign at Delhi, describing the late conquest in the most

pompous language. He placed a garrison in Fort William,

forbade Englishmen to dwell in the neighbourhood, and directed

that, in memory of his great actions, Calcutta should

thenceforward be called Alinagore, that is to say, the Port of

God. In August the news of the fall of Calcutta reached

Madras, and excited the fiercest and bitterest resentment. The

cry of the whole settlement was for vengeance. Within

forty-eight hours after the arrival of the intelligence it was

determined that an expedition should be sent to the Hoogley,

and that Clive should be at the head of the land forces. The

naval armament was under the command of Admiral Watson. Nine

hundred English infantry, fine troops and full of spirit, and

1,500 sepoys, composed the army which sailed to punish a

Prince who had more subjects than Lewis XV. or the Empress

Maria Theresa. In October the expedition sailed; but it had to

make its way against adverse winds, and did not reach Bengal

till December. The Nabob was revelling in fancied security at

Moorshedabad. He was so profoundly ignorant of the state of

foreign countries that he often used to say that there were

not ten thousand men in all Europe; and it had never occurred

to him as possible, that the English would dare to invade his

dominions. But, though undisturbed by any fear of their

military power, he began to miss them greatly. His revenues

fell off. … He was already disposed to permit the company to

resume its mercantile operations in his country, when he

received the news that an English armament was in the Hoogley.

He instantly ordered all his troops to assemble at

Moorshedabad, and marched towards Calcutta. Clive had

commenced operations with his usual vigour. He took

Budgebudge, routed the garrison of Fort William, recovered

Calcutta, stormed and sacked Hoogley. The Nabob, already

disposed to make some concessions to the English, was

confirmed in his pacific disposition by these proofs of their

power and spirit. He accordingly made overtures to the chiefs

of the invading armament, and offered to restore the factory,

and to give compensation to those whom he had despoiled.

Clive's profession, was war; and he felt that there was

something discreditable in an accommodation with Surajah

Dowlah. But his power was limited. … The promises of the

Nabob were large, the chances of a contest doubtful; and Clive

consented to treat, though he expressed his regret that things

should not be concluded in so glorious a manner as he could

have wished. With this negotiation commences a new chapter in

the life of Clive. Hitherto he had been merely a soldier

carrying into effect, with eminent ability and valour, the

plans of others. Henceforth he is to be chiefly regarded as a

statesman; and his military movements are to be considered as

subordinate to his political designs."

Lord Macaulay,

Lord Clive (Essays).

ALSO IN:

Sir J. Malcolm,

Life of Lord Clive,

chapter 3 (volume 1).

J. Mill,

History of British India,

book 4, chapter 3 (volume 3).

H. E. Busteed,

Echoes from Old Calcutta,

chapter 1.

{1717}

INDIA: A. D. 1757.

A Treacherous conspiracy against Surajah Dowlah.

His overthrow at the battle of Plassey.

The counterfeit Treaty with Omichund.

Elevation of Meer Jaffier to the Subahdar's throne.

The unsatisfactory treaty entered into with Surajah Dowlah had

been pressed upon Clive by the Calcutta merchants, who

"thought the alliance would enable them to get rid of the

rival French station at Chandernagore. The Subahdar gave a

doubtful answer to their proposal to attack this settlement,

which Clive interpreted as an assent. The French were

overpowered, and surrendered their fort. Surajah Dowlah was

now indignant against his recent allies; and sought the

friendship of the French officers. Clive, called by the

natives 'the daring in war,' was also the most adroit,

and,—for the truth cannot be disguised,—the most

unscrupulous in policy. The English resident at the Court of

Moorshedabad, under Clive's instructions, encouraged a

conspiracy to depose the Subahdar, and to raise his general,

Meer Jaffier, to the supreme power. A Hindoo of great wealth

and influence, Omichund, engaged in this conspiracy. After it

had proceeded so far as to become the subject of a treaty

between a Select Committee at Calcutta and Meer Jaffier,

Omichund demanded that a condition should be inserted in that

treaty, to pay him thirty lacs of rupees as a reward for his

service. The merchants at Calcutta desired the largest share

of any donation from Meer Jaffier, as a consideration for

themselves, and were by no means willing that £300,000 should

go to a crafty Hindoo. Clive suggested an expedient to secure

Omichund's fidelity, and yet not to comply with his

demands—to have two treaties drawn; a real one on red paper,

a fictitious one on white. The white treaty was to be shown to

Omichund, and he was to see with his own eyes that he had been

properly cared for. Clive and the Committee signed this; as

well as the red treaty which was to go to Meer Jaffier.

Admiral Watson refused to sign the treacherous document. On

the 19th of May, 1773, Clive stood up in his place in the

House of Commons, to defend himself upon this charge against

him, amongst other accusations. He boldly acknowledged that

the stratagem of the two treaties was his invention;—that

admiral Watson did not sign it; but that he should have

thought himself authorised to sign for him in consequence of a

conversation; that the person who did sign thought he had

sufficient authority for so doing. 'He (Clive) forged admiral

Watson's name, says lord Macaulay. … The courage, the

perseverance, the unconquerable energy of Clive have furnished

examples to many in India who have emulated his true glory.

Thank God, the innate integrity of the British character has,

for the most part, preserved us from such exhibitions of 'true

policy and justice.' The English resident, Mr. Watts, left

Moorshedabad. Clive wrote a letter of defiance to Surajah

Dowlah, and marched towards his capital. The Subahdar had come

forth from his city, as populous as the London of a century

ago, to annihilate the paltry army of 1,000 English, and their

2,000 Sepoys disciplined by English officers, who dared to

encounter his 60,000. He reached the village of Plassey with

all the panoply of oriental warfare. His artillery alone

appeared sufficient to sweep away those who brought only eight

field pieces and two howitzers to meet his fifty heavy guns.

Each gun was drawn by forty yoke of oxen; and a trained

elephant was behind each gun to urge it over rough ground or

up steep ascents. Meer Jaffier had not performed his promise

to join the English with a division of the Subahdar's army. It

was a time of terrible anxiety with the English commander.

Should he venture to give battle without the aid of a native

force? He submitted his doubt to a Council of War. Twelve

officers, himself amongst the number, voted for delay. Seven

voted for instant action. Clive reviewed the arguments on each

side, and finally cast away his doubts. He determined to

fight, without which departure from the opinion of the

majority, he afterwards said, the English would never have

been masters of Bengal. On the 22nd of June [1757], his little

army marched fifteen miles, passed the Hooghly, and at one

o'clock of the morning of the 23rd rested under the

mangoe-trees of Plassey. As the day broke, the vast legions of

the Subahdar,—15,000 cavalry, 45,000 infantry,—some armed

with muskets, some with bows and arrows, began to surround the

mangoe-grove and the hunting-lodge where Clive had watched

through the night. There was a cannonade for several hours.

The great guns of Surajah Dowlah did little execution. The

small field-pieces of Clive were well served. One of the chief

Mohammedan leaders having fallen, disorder ensued, and the

Subahdar was advised to retreat. He himself fled upon a swift

camel to Moorshedabad. When the British forces began to

pursue, the victory became complete. Meer Jaffier joined the

conquerors the next day. Surajah Dowlah did not consider

himself safe in his capital; and he preferred to seek the

protection of a French detachment at Patna. He escaped from

his palace disguised; ascended the Ganges in a small boat; and

fancied himself secure. A peasant whose ears he had cut off

recognised his oppressor, and with some soldiers brought him

back to Moorshedabad. In his presence-chamber now sat Meer

Jaffier, to whose knees the wretched youth crawled for mercy.

That night Surajah Dowlah was murdered in his prison, by the

orders of Meer Jaffier's son, a boy as blood-thirsty as

himself."

C. Knight,

Popular History of England,

volume 6, chapter 14.

ALSO IN:

G. B. Malleson,

Founders of the Indian Empire: Clive,

chapters 8-10.

G. B. Malleson,

Lord Clive (Rulers of India).

G. B. Malleson,

Decisive Battles of India,

chapter 3.

E. Thornton,

History of British Empire in India,

volume 1, chapter 4.

INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

Clive's Administration in Bengal.

Decisive war with the Moghul Emperor and the Nawab of Oudh.

English Supremacy established.

"The battle of Plassey was fought on June 23, 1757, an

anniversary afterwards remembered when the Mutiny of 1857 was

at its height. History has agreed to adopt this date as the

beginning of the British Empire in the East. But the immediate

results of the victory were comparatively small, and several

years passed in hard fighting before even the Bengalis would

admit the superiority of the British arms.

{1718}

For the moment, however, all opposition was at an end. Clive,

again following in the steps of Dupleix, placed Mir Jafar upon

the Viceregal throne at Murshidabad, being careful to obtain a

patent of investiture from the Mughal court. Enormous sums

were exacted from Mir Jafar as the price of his elevation. …

At the same time, the Nawab made a grant to the Company of the

zamindari or landholder's rights over an extensive tract of

country round Calcutta, now known as the District of the

Twenty-four Parganas. The area of this tract was 882 square

miles. In 1757 the Company obtained only the zamindari

rights—i. e., the rights to collect the cultivator's rents,

with the revenue jurisdiction attached [see below: A. D.

1785-1793]. The superior lordship, or right to receive the

land tax, remained with the Nawab. But in 1759, this also was

granted by the Delhi Emperor, the nominal Suzerain of the

Nawab, in favour of Clive, who thus became the landlord of his

own masters, the Company. … Lord Clive's claims to the

property as feudal Suzerain over the Company were contested in

1764; and on the 23d June, 1765, when he returned to Bengal, a

new deed was issued, confirming the unconditional jagir to

Lord Clive for ten years, with reversion afterwards to the

Company in perpetuity. … In 1758, Clive was appointed by the

Court of Directors the first Governor of all the Company's

settlements in Bengal. Two powers threatened hostilities. On

the west, the Shahzada or Imperial prince, known afterwards as

the Emperor Shah Alam, with a mixed army of Afghans and

Marhattas, and supported by the Nawab Wazir of Oudh, was

advancing his own claims to the Province of Bengal. In the

south, the influence of the French under Lally and Bussy was

overshadowing the British at Madras. The name of Clive

exercised a decisive effect in both directions. Mir Jafar was

anxious to buy off the Shahzada, who had already invested

Patna. But Clive marched in person to the rescue, with an army

of only 450 Europeans and 2,500 sepoys, and the Mughal army

dispersed without striking a blow. In the same year, Clive

despatched a force southwards under Colonel Forde, which

recaptured Masulipatam from the French, and permanently

established British influence throughout the Northern Circars,

and at the court of Haidarabad. He next attacked the Dutch,

the only other European nation who might yet prove a rival to

the English. He defeated them both by land and water; and

their settlement at Chinsurah existed thenceforth only on

sufferance. From 1760 to 1765, Clive was in England. He had

left no system of government in Bengal, but merely the

tradition that unlimited sums of money might be extracted from

the natives by the terror of the English name. In 1761, it was

found expedient and profitable to dethrone Mir Jafar, the

English Nawab of Murshidabad, and to substitute his

son-in-law, Mir Kasim, in his place. On this occasion, besides

private donations, the English received a grant of the three

Districts of Bardwan, Midnapur, and Chittagong, estimated to

yield a net revenue of half a million sterling. But Mir Kasim

soon began to show a will of his own, and to cherish dreams of

independence. … The Nawab alleged that his civil authority

was everywhere set at nought. The majority of the Council at

Calcutta would not listen to his complaints. The Governor, Mr.

Vansittart, and Warren Hastings, then a junior member of

Council, attempted to effect some compromise. But the

controversy had become too hot. The Nawab's officers fired

upon an English boat, and forthwith all Bengal rose in arms

[1763]. Two thousand of our sepoys were cut to pieces at

Patna; about 200 Englishmen, who there and in other various

parts of the Province fell into the hands of the Muhammadans,

were massacred. But as soon as regular warfare commenced, Mir

Kasim met with no more successes. His trained regiments were

defeated in two pitched battles by Major Adams, at Gheriah and

at Udha-nala; and he himself took refuge with the Nawab Wazir

of Oudh, who refused to deliver him up. This led to a

prolongation of the war. Shah Alam, who had now succeeded his

father as Emperor, and Shuja-ud-Daula, the Nawab Wazir of

Oudh, united their forces, and threatened Patna, which the

English had recovered. A more formidable danger appeared in

the English camp, in the form of the first sepoy mutiny. This

was quelled by Major (afterwards Sir Hector) Munro, who

ordered 24 of the ringleaders to be blown from guns, an old

Mughal punishment. In 1764, Major Munro won the decisive

battle of Baxar [or Buxar], which laid Oudh at the feet of the

conquerors, and brought the Mughal Emperor as a suppliant to

the English camp. Meanwhile, the Council at Calcutta had twice

found the opportunity they loved of selling the government of

Bengal to a new Nawab. But in 1765, Clive (now Baron Clive of

Plassey in the peerage of Ireland) arrived at Calcutta, as

Governor of Bengal for the second time. Two landmarks stand

out in his policy. First, he sought the substance, although

not the name, of territorial power, under the fiction of a

grant from the Mughal Emperor. Second, he desired to purify

the Company's service, by prohibiting illicit gains, and

guaranteeing a reasonable pay from honest sources. In neither

respect were his plans carried out by his immediate

successors. But the beginning of our Indian rule dates from

this second governorship of Clive, as our military supremacy

had dated from his victory at Plassey. Clive landed, advanced

rapidly up from Calcutta to Allahabad, and there settled in

person the fate of nearly half of India. Oudh was given back

to the Nawab Wazir, on condition of his paying half a million

sterling towards the expenses of the war. The Provinces of

Allahabad and Kora, forming the greater part of the Doab, were

handed over to Shah Alam himself, who in his turn granted to

the Company the diwani or fiscal administration of Bengal,

Behar, and Orissa, and also the territorial jurisdiction of

the Northern Circars. A puppet Nawab was still maintained at

Murshidabad, who received an annual allowance from us of

£600,000. Half that amount, or about £300,000, we paid to the

Emperor as tribute from Bengal. Thus was constituted the dual

system of government, by which the English received all the

revenues and undertook to maintain the army; while the

criminal jurisdiction, or nizamat, was vested in the Nawab. In

Indian phraseology, the Company was diwan and the Nawab was

nizam. The actual collection of the revenues still remained

for some years in the hands of native officials. … Lord

Clive quitted India for the third and last time in 1767.

{1719}

Between that date and the governorship of Warren Hastings, in

1772, little of importance occurred in Bengal beyond the

terrible famine of 1770, which is officially reported to have

swept away one-third of the inhabitants. The dual system of

government, established in 1765 by Clive, had proved a

failure. Warren Hastings, a tried servant of the Company,

distinguished alike for intelligence, for probity, and for

knowledge of oriental manners, was nominated Governor by the

Court of Directors, with express instructions to carry out a

predetermined series of reforms. In their own words, the Court

had resolved to 'stand forth as diwan, and to take upon

themselves, by the agency of their own servants, the entire

care and administration of the revenues.' In the execution of

this plan, Hastings removed the exchequer from Murshidabad to

Calcutta, and appointed European officers, under the now

familiar title of Collectors, to superintend the revenue

collections and preside in the courts. Clive had laid the

territorial foundations of the British Empire in Bengal.

Hastings may be said to have created a British administration

for that Empire."

Sir W. W. Hunter,

India (article in Imperial Gazetteer of India)

volume 4, pages 389-394.

ALSO IN:

W. M, Torrens,

Empire in Asia: How we came by it,

chapters 4-6.

Sir C. Wilson,

Lord Clive,

chapters 7-9.

G. B. Malleson,

Decisive Battles of India,

chapter 7.

INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

Overthrow of French domination in the Carnatic.

The decisive Battle of Wandiwash.

"In 1758 the fortunes of the French in India underwent an

entire change. In April a French fleet arrived at Pondicherry.

It brought a large force under the command of Count de Lally,

who had been appointed Governor-General of the French

possessions in India. … No sooner had he landed at

Pondicherry than he organised an expedition against Fort St.

David; but he found that no preparations had been made by the

French authorities. There was a want alike of coolies, draught

cattle, provisions, and ready money. But the energy of Lally

overcame all obstacles. … In June, 1758, Lally captured Fort

St. David. He then prepared to capture Madras as a preliminary

to an advance on Bengal. He recalled Bussy from the Dekhan to

help him with his Indian experiences; and he sent the Marquis

de Conflans to succeed Bussy in the command of the Northern

Circars. [A strip of territory on the Coromandel coast, which

had been ceded to the French in 1752 by Salabut Jung, Nizam of

the Dekhun, was so called; it stretched along 600 miles of

seaboard, from the Carnatic frontier northwards.] … The

departure of Bussy from the Northern Circars was disastrous to

the French. The Raja of Vizianagram revolted against the

French and sent to Calcutta for help. Clive despatched an

English force to the Northern Circars, under the command of

Colonel Forde; and in December, 1758, Colonel Forde defeated

the French under Conflans [at Condore, or Kondur, December 9],

and prepared to recover all the English factories on the coast

which had been captured by Bussy. Meanwhile Count de Lally was

actively engaged at Pondicherry in preparations for the siege

of Madras. He hoped to capture Madras, and complete the

destruction of the English in the Carnatic; and then to march

northward, capture Calcutta, and expel the English from

Bengal. … Lally reached Madras on the 12th of December,

1758, and at once took possession of Black Town. He then began

the siege of Fort St. George with a vigour and activity which

commanded the respect of his enemies. His difficulties were

enormous. … Even the gunpowder was nearly exhausted. At

last, on the 16th of February, 1759, an English fleet arrived

at Madras under Admiral Pocock, and Lally was compelled to

raise the siege. Such was the state of party feeling amongst

the French in India, that the retreat of Lally from Madras was

received at Pondicherry with every demonstration of joy. The

career of Lally in India lasted for two years longer, namely

from February, 1759, to February, 1761; it is a series of

hopeless struggles and wearying misfortunes. In the Dekhan,

Salabut Jung had been thrown into the utmost alarm by the

departure of Bussy and defeat of Conflans. He was exposed to

the intrigues and plots of his younger brother, Nizam Ali, and

he despaired of obtaining further help from the French.

Accordingly he opened up negotiations with Colonel Forde and

the English. Forde on his part recovered all the Captured

factories [taking Masulipatam by storm, April 7, 1759, after a

fortnight's siege], and drove the French out of the Northern

Circars. He could not however interfere in the domestic

affairs of the Dekhan, by helping Salabut Jung against Nizam

Ali. In 1761 Salabut Jung was dethroned and placed in

confinement; and Nizam Ali ascended the throne at Hyderabad as

ruler of the Dekhan. In the Carnatic the French were in

despair. In January, 1760, Lally was defeated by Colonel Coote

at Wandiwash, between Madras and Pondicherry. Lally opened up

negotiations with Hyder Ali, who was rising to power in

Mysore; but Hyder Ali as yet could do little or nothing. At

the end of 1760 Colonel Coote began the siege of Pondicherry.

Lally … was ill in health and worn out with vexation and

fatigue. The settlement was torn by dissensions. In January,

1761, the garrison was starved into a capitulation, and the

town and fortifications were levelled with the ground. A few

weeks afterwards the French were compelled to surrender the

strong hill-fortress of Jingi, and their military power in the

Carnatic was brought to a close." On the return of Count Lally

to France "he was sacrificed to save the reputation of the

French ministers. … He was tried by the parliament of Paris.

… In May, 1766, he was condemned not only to death, but to

immediate execution."

J. T. Wheeler,

Short History of India,

part 3, chapter 2.

"The battle of Wandewash, … though the numbers on each side

were comparatively small, must yet be classed amongst the

decisive battles of the world, for it dealt a fatal and

decisive blow to French domination in India."

G. B. Malleson,

History of the French in India,

chapter 12.

ALSO IN:

G. B. Malleson,

Decisive Battles of India,

chapter 4.

INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769.

The first war with Hyder Ali.

"At this period, the main point of interest changes from the

Presidency of Bengal to the Presidency of Madras. There, the

English were becoming involved in another war. There, they had

now, for the first time, to encounter the most skilful and

daring of all the enemies against whom they ever fought in

India—Hyder Ali.

{1720}

He was of humble origin, the grandchild of a wandering 'fakir'

or Mahomedan monk. Most versatile in his talents, Hyder was no

less adventurous in his career; by turns a private man devoted

to sports of the chase, a captain of free-booters, a

partisan-chief, a rebel against the Rajah of Mysore, and

commander-in-chief of the Mysorean army. Of this last position

he availed himself to dethrone and supplant his master. …

Pursuing his ambitious schemes, Hyder Ali became, not merely

the successor of the Rajah, but the founder of the kingdom of

Mysore. From his palace at Seringapatam, as from a centre, a

new energy was infused through the whole of Southern India. By

various wars and by the dispossession of several smaller

princes, he extended his frontiers to the northward, nearly to

the river Kistna. His posts on the coast of Malabar, Mangalore

especially, gave him the means of founding a marine; and he

applied himself with assiduous skill to train and discipline

his troops according to the European models. The English at

Madras were roused by his ambition, without as yet fully

appreciating his genius. We find them at the beginning of 1767

engaged, with little care or forethought, in a confederacy

against him with the Nizam and the Mahrattas. Formidable as

that confederacy might seem, it was speedily dissipated by the

arts of Hyder. At the very outset, a well-timed subsidy bought

off the Mahrattas. The Nizam showed no better faith; he was

only more tardy in his treason. He took the field in concert

with a body of English commanded by Colonel Joseph Smith, but

soon began to show symptoms of defection, and at last drew off

his troops to join the army of Hyder. A battle ensued near

Trincomalee, in September, 1767. Colonel Smith had under him

no more than 1,500 Europeans and 9,000 Sepoys; while the

forces combined on the other side were estimated, probably

with much exaggeration, at 70,000 men. Nevertheless, Victory,

as usual, declared for the English cause. … Our victory at

Trincomalee produced as its speedy consequence a treaty of

peace with the Nizam. Hyder was left alone; but even thus

proved fully a match for the English both of Madras and of

Bombay. … He could not be prevented from laying waste the

southern plains of the Carnatic, as the territory of one of

the staunchest allies of England, Mahomed Ali, the Nabob of

Arcot. Through such ravages, the British troops often

underwent severe privations. … At length, in the spring of

1769, Hyder Ali became desirous of peace, and resolved to

extort it on favourable terms. First, by a dexterous feint he

drew off the British forces 140 miles to the southward of

Madras. Then suddenly, at the head of 5,000 horsemen, Hyder

himself appeared at St. Thomas's Mount, within ten miles of

that city. The terrified Members of the Council already, in

their mind's eye, saw their country-houses given up to plunder

and to flame, and were little inclined to dispute whatever

might be asked by an enemy so near at hand. Happily his terms

were not high. A treaty was signed, providing that a mutual

restoration of conquests should take place, and that the

contracting parties should agree to assist each other in all

defensive wars. In the career of Hyder Ali, this was by no

means the first, nor yet the last occasion, on which he showed

himself sincerely desirous of alliance with the English. He

did not conceal the fact, that, in order to maintain his power

and secure himself, he must lean either on them or on the

Mahrattas. … In this war with Hyder, the English had lost no

great amount of reputation, and of territory they had lost

none at all. But as regards their wealth and their resources,

they had suffered severely. Supplies, both of men and of

money, had been required from Bengal, to assist the government

at Madras; and both had been freely given. In consequence of

such a drain, there could not be made the usual investments in

goods, nor yet the usual remittances to England. Thus at the

very time when the proprietors of the East India Company had

begun to wish each other joy on the great reforms effected by

Lord Clive, and looked forward to a further increase of their

half-yearly Dividend, they were told to prepare for its

reduction. A panic ensued. Within a few days, in the spring of

1769, India Stock fell above sixty per cent."

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),

History of England, 1713-1783,

chapter 67.

ALSO IN:

Meer Hussein Ali Khan Kirmani,

History of Hydur Naik,

chapters 1-17.

L. B. Bowring,

Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan,

chapter 8.

INDIA: A. D. 1770-1773.

Climax of English misrule.

Break-down of the East India Company's government.

The Indian Act of Lord North.

"In 1770 Bengal was desolated by perhaps the most terrible of

the many terrible famines that have darkened its history, and

it was estimated that more than a third part of its

inhabitants perished. Yet in spite of all these calamities, in

spite of the rapidly accumulating evidence of the inadequacy

of the Indian revenues, the rapacity of the proprietors at

home prevailed, and dividends of 12 and 12½ per cent., as

permitted by the last Act, were declared. The result of all

this could hardly be doubtful. In July, 1772, the Directors

were obliged to confess that the sum required for the

necessary payments of the next three months was deficient to

the extent of no less than £1,293,000, and in August the

Chairman and Deputy Chairman waited on the Minister to inform

him that nothing short of a loan of at least one million from

the public could save the Company from ruin. The whole system

of Indian government had thus for a time broken down. The

division between the Directors and a large part of the

proprietors, and between the authorities of the Company in

England and those in India, the private and selfish interests

of its servants in India, and of its proprietors at home, the

continual oscillation between a policy of conquest and a

policy of trade, and the great want in the whole organisation

of any adequate power of command and of restraint, had fatally

weakened the great corporation. In England the conviction was

rapidly growing that the whole system of governing a great

country by a commercial company was radically and incurably

false. … The subject was discussed in Parliament, in 1772,

at great length, and with much acrimony. Several propositions

were put forward by the Directors, but rejected by the

Parliament; and Parliament, under the influence of Lord North,

and in spite of the strenuous and passionate opposition of

Burke, asserted in unequivocal terms its right to the

territorial revenues of the Company. A Select Committee,

consisting of thirty-one members, was appointed by Parliament

to make a full inquiry into the affairs of the Company. It was

not, however, till 1773 that decisive measures were taken.

{1721}

The Company was at this time absolutely helpless. Lord North

commanded an overwhelming majority in both Houses, and on

Indian questions he was supported by a portion of the

Opposition. The Company was on the brink of ruin, unable to

pay its tribute to the Government, unable to meet the bills

which were becoming due in Bengal. The publication, in 1773,

of the report of the Select Committee, revealed a scene of

maladministration, oppression, and fraud which aroused a

wide-spread indignation through England; and the Government

was able without difficulty, in spite of the provisions of the

charter, to exercise a complete controlling and regulating

power over the affairs of the Company. … By enormous

majorities two measures were passed through Parliament in

1773, which mark the commencement of a new epoch in the

history of the East India Company. By one Act, the ministers

met its financial embarrassments by a loan of £1,400,000 at an

interest of 4 per cent., and agreed to forego the claim of

£400,000 till this loan had been discharged. The Company was

restricted from declaring any dividend above 6 per cent. till

the new loan had been discharged, and above 7 per cent. till

its bond-debt was reduced to £1,500,000. It was obliged to

submit its accounts every half-year to the Lords of the

Treasury; it was restricted from accepting bills drawn by its

servants in India for above 300,000 a year, and it was obliged

to export to the British settlements within its limits British

goods of a specified value. By another Act, the whole

constitution of the Company was changed, and the great centre

of authority and power was transferred to the Crown. … All

the more important matters of jurisdiction in India were to be

submitted to a new court, consisting of a Chief Justice and

three puisne judges appointed by the Crown. A Governor-General

of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, was to be appointed at a salary

of £25,000 a year, with four Councillors, at salaries of

£8,000 a year, and the other presidencies were made

subordinate to Bengal. The first Governor-General and

Councillors were to be nominated, not by the East India

Company, but by Parliament; they were to be named in the Act,

and to hold their offices for five years; after that period

the appointments reverted to the Directors, but were subject

to the approbation of the Crown. Everything in the Company's

correspondence with India relating to civil and military

affairs was to be laid before the Government. No person in the

service of the King or of the Company might receive presents,

and the Governor-General, the Councillors, and the judges were

excluded from all commercial profits and pursuits. By this

memorable Act the charter of the East India Company was

completely subverted, and the government of India passed

mainly into the hands of the ministers of the Crown. The chief

management of affairs was vested in persons in whose

appointment or removal the Company had no voice or share, who

might govern without its approbation or sanction, but who

nevertheless drew, by authority of an Act of Parliament, large

salaries from its exchequer. Such a measure could be justified

only by extreme necessity and by brilliant success, and it was

obviously open to the gravest objections from many sides. …

Warren Hastings was the first Governor-General: Barwell,

Clavering, Monson, and Philip Francis were the four

Councillors."

W. E. H. Lecky,

History of England in the 18th Century,

chapter 13 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

J. Mill,

History of British India,

book 4, chapter 9 (volume 3).

INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

The First English Governor-General.

Administration of Warren Hastings.

Execution of Nuncomar.

The Rohilla War.

Annexation of Benares.

Treatment of the Begums of Oudh.

"The Governor-General was not at once the potential personage

he has since become. The necessity of ruling by a Dictator (a

dictator on the spot, though responsible to superiors at home)

had not yet become obvious; and the Governor-General had no

superiority in council, except the casting vote in case of an

equal division. Whether he could govern or not depended

chiefly on whether he had a party of two in the council. Two

out of the four, with his own casting vote, were enough; and

without it, he was not really governor. This is not the place

in which to follow the history of the first general council

and its factions, apart from the consequences to British

interests. It must suffice to say that at the outset, three

out of four of the council (and those the new officials from

England) were opposed to Hastings. It has been related that

the internal administration of Bengal under Clive's 'double

system' was managed by the Nabob's prime-minister. This

functionary had a salary of £100,000 a year, and enjoyed a

high dignity and immense power. One man who aspired to hold

the office in Clive's time was the great Hindoo, Nuncomar, …

eminent in English eyes for his wealth, and his abilities, and

much more in native estimation for his sanctity as a Brahmin,

and his almost unbounded social power. … The Maharajah

Nuncomar was a great scoundrel—there is no doubt of that;

and his intrigues, supported by forgeries, were so flagrant as

to prevent his appointment to the premiership under the Nabob.

Such vices were less odious in Bengal than almost anywhere

else; but they were inconvenient, as well as disgusting, to

the British; and this was the reason why Clive set aside

Nuncomar, and appointed his rival competitor, Mohammed Reza

Khan, though he was highly reluctant to place the highest

office in Bengal in the hands of a Mussulman. This Mussulman

administered affairs for seven years before Hastings became

Governor-General; and he also had the charge of the infant

Nabob, after Surajah Dowla died. We have seen how dissatisfied

the Directors were with the proceeds of their Bengal

dominions. Nuncomar planted his agents everywhere; and in

London especially; and these agents persuaded the Directors

that Mohammed Reza Khan was to blame for their difficulties

and their scanty revenues. Confident in this information, they

sent secret orders to Hastings to arrest the great Mussulman,

and everybody who belonged to him, and to hear what Nuncomar

had to say against him." The Governor-General obeyed the order

and made the arrests, "but the Mussulman minister was not

punished, and Nuncomar hated Hastings accordingly. He bided

his time, storing up materials of accusation with which to

overwhelm the Governor at the first turn of his fortunes. That

turn was when the majority of the Council were opposed to the

Governor-General, and rendered him helpless in his office; and

Nuncomar then presented himself, with offers of evidence to

prove all manner of treasons and corruptions against Hastings.

{1722}

Hastings was haughty; the councils were tempestuous. Hastings

prepared to resign, though he was aware that the opinion of

the English in Bengal was with him; and Nuncomar was the

greatest native in the country, visited by the Council, and

resorted to by all his countrymen who ventured to approach

him. Foiled in the Council, Hastings had recourse to the

Supreme Court [of which Sir Elijah Impey was the Chief

Justice]. He caused Nuncomar to be arrested on a charge

brought ostensibly by a native of having forged a bond six

years before. After a long trial for an offence which appeared

very slight to Bengalee natives in those days, the culprit was

found guilty by a jury of Englishmen, and condemned to death

by the judges."

H. Martineau,

British Rule in India,

chapter 9.

"It may perhaps be said that no trial has been so often tried

over again by such diverse authorities, or in so many

different ways, as this celebrated proceeding. During the

course of a century it has been made the theme of historical,

political, and biographical discussions; all the points have

been argued and debated by great orators and great lawyers; it

has formed the avowed basis of a motion in Parliament to

impeach the Chief-Justice, and it must have weighed heavily,

though indirectly, with those who decided to impeach the

Governor-General. It gave rise to rumours of a dark and

nefarious conspiracy which, whether authentic or not, exactly

suited the humour and the rhetoric of some contemporary

English politicians. … Very recently Sir James Stephen,

after subjecting the whole case to exact scrutiny and the most

skilful analysis, after examining every document and every

fact bearing upon this matter with anxious attention, has

pronounced judgment declaring that Nuncomar's trial was

perfectly fair, that Hastings had nothing to do with the

prosecution, and that at the time there was no sort of

conspiracy or understanding between Hastings and Impey in

relation to it. Nothing can be more masterly or more effective

than the method employed by Sir James Stephen to explode and

demolish, by the force of a carefully-laid train of proofs,

the loose fabric of assertions, invectives, and ill-woven

demonstrations upon which the enemies of Hastings and Impey

based and pushed forward their attacks, and which have never

before been so vigorously battered in reply. … It may be

accepted, upon Sir James Stephen's authority, that no evidence

can be produced to justify conclusions adverse to the

innocence of Hastings upon a charge that has from its nature

affected the popular tradition regarding him far more deeply

than the accusations of high-handed oppressive political

transactions, which are little understood and leniently

condemned by the English at large. There is really nothing to

prove that he had anything to do with the prosecution, or that

he influenced the sentence. … Nevertheless when Sir James

Stephen undertakes to establish, by argument drawn from the

general motives of human action, the moral certainty that

Hastings was totally unconnected with the business, and that

the popular impression against him is utterly wrong, his

demonstration is necessarily less conclusive. … On the whole

there is no reason whatever to dissent from Pitt's view, who

treated the accusation of a conspiracy between Impey and

Hastings for the purpose of destroying Nuncomar, as destitute

of any shadow of solid proof. Whether Hastings, when Nuncomar

openly tried to ruin him by false and malignant accusations,

became aware and made use in self-defence of the fact that his

accuser had rendered himself liable to a prosecution for

forgery, is a different question, upon which also no evidence

exists or is likely to be forthcoming."

Sir A. Lyall,

Warren Hastings,

chapter 3.

"James Mill says, 'No transaction perhaps of his whole

administration more deeply tainted the reputation of Hastings

than the tragedy of Nuncomar.' A similar remark was made by

William Wilberforce. The most prominent part too in Nuncomar's

story is played by Sir Elijah Impey. … Impey, in the present

day, is known to English people in general only by the

terrible attack made upon him by Lord Macaulay, in his essay

on Warren Hastings. It stigmatises him as one of the vilest of

mankind. 'No other such judge has dishonoured the English

ermine since Jefferies drank himself to death in the Tower.'

'Impey, sitting as a judge, put a man unjustly to death, in

order to serve a political purpose.' 'The time had come when

he was to be stripped of that robe which he had so foully

dishonoured.' These dreadful accusations I, upon the fullest

consideration of the whole subject, and, in particular, of

much evidence which Macaulay seems to me never to have seen,

believe to be wholly unjust. For Macaulay himself I have an

affectionate admiration. He was my own friend, and my

father's, and my grandfather's friend also, and there are few

injunctions which I am more disposed to observe than the one

which bids us not to forget such persons. I was, moreover, his

successor in office, and am better able than most persons to

appreciate the splendour of the services which he rendered to

India. These considerations make me anxious if I can to repair

a wrong done by him, not intentionally, for there never was a

kinder-hearted man, but because he adopted on insufficient

grounds the traditional hatred which the Whigs bore to Impey,

and also because his marvellous power of style blinded him to

the effect which his language produced. He did not know his

own strength, and was probably not aware that a few sentences

which came from him with little effort were enough to brand a

man's name with almost indelible infamy. … My own opinion is

that no man ever had, or could have, a fairer trial than

Nuncomar, and that Impey in particular behaved with absolute

fairness and as much indulgence as was compatible with his

duty. In his defence at the bar of the House of Commons, he

said, 'Conscious as I am how much it was my intention to

favour the prisoner in everything that was consistent with

justice; wishing as I did that the facts might turn out

favourable for an acquittal; it has appeared most wonderful to

me that the execution of my purpose has so far differed from

my intentions that any ingenuity could form an objection to my

personal conduct as bearing hard on the prisoner.' My own

earnest study of the trial has led me to the conviction that

every word of this is absolutely true and just. Indeed, the

first matter which directed my attention to the subject was

the glaring contrast between Impey's conduct as ascribed in

the State Trials and his character as described by Lord

Macaulay.

{1723}

There is not a word in his summing-up of which I should have

been ashamed had I said it myself, and all my study of the

case has not suggested to me a single observation in

Nuncomar's favour which is not noticed by Impey. As to the

verdict, I think that there was ample evidence to support it.

Whether it was in fact correct is a point on which it is

impossible for me to give an unqualified opinion, as it is of

course impossible now to judge decidedly of the credit due to

the witnesses, and as I do not understand some part of the

exhibits."

J. F. Stephen,

The Story of Nuncomar,

pages 2-3, 186-187.

"Sir John Strachey, in his work on Hastings and the Rohilla

War, examines in detail one of the chief charges made against

the conduct of Warren Hastings while Governor-General. The

Rohilla charge was dropped by Burke and the managers, and was

therefore not one of the issues tried at the impeachment; but

it was, in spite of this fact, one of the main accusations

urged against the Governor-General in Macaulay's famous essay.

Macaulay, following James Mill, accuses Warren Hastings of

having hired out an English army to exterminate what Burke

called 'the bravest, the most honourable and generous nation

on earth.' According to Macaulay, the Vizier of Oudh coveted

the Rohilla country, but was not strong enough to take it for

himself. Accordingly, he paid down forty lakhs of rupees to

Hastings, on condition that the latter should help to strike

down and seize his prey. … Sir John Strachey … shows

beyond a shadow of doubt that the whole story is a delusion.

… 'The English army was not hired out by Hastings for the

destruction of the Rohillas; the Rohillas described by Burke

as belonging to the bravest, the most honourable and generous

nation on earth, were no nation at all, but a comparatively

small body of cruel and rapacious Afghan adventurers, who had

imposed their foreign rule on an unwilling Hindoo population;

and the story of their destruction is fictitious.' … The

north-west angle of the great strip of plain which follows the

course of the Ganges was possessed by a clan which fifty years

before had been a mere band of Afghan mercenaries, but which

was now beginning to settle down as a dominant governing

class, living among a vastly more numerous subject-population

of Hindoos. This country was Rohilkhand, the warrior-horde the

Rohillas. It must never be forgotten that the Rohillas were no

more the inhabitants of Rohilkhand than were the Normans fifty

years after the Conquest the inhabitants of England. … But

the fact that the corner of what geographically was our

barrier State was held by the Rohillas, made it necessary for

us to keep Rohilkhand as well as Oudh free from the Mahrattas.

Hence it became the key-note of Warren Hastings' policy to

help both the Rohillas and the Vizier [of Oudh] to maintain

their independence against the Mahrattas. In the year 1772,

however, the Mahrattas succeeded in crossing the Ganges, in

getting into Rohilkhand, and in threatening the Province of

Oudh. … Hastings encouraged the Vizier and the Rohilla

chiefs to make an alliance, under which the Rohillas were to

be reinstated in their country by aid of the Vizier, the

Vizier obtaining for such assistance forty lakhs,—that is, he

coupled the Rohillas and the Vizier, for defence purposes,

into one barrier-State. … If the Rohillas had observed this

treaty, all might have been well. Unhappily for them, they

could not resist the temptation to break faith." They joined

the Mahrattas against Oudh, and it was after this had occurred

twice that Hastings lent assistance to the Vizier in expelling

them from Rohilkhand. "Instead of exterminating the Rohillas,

he helped make a warrior-clan, but one generation removed from

a 'free company,' recross the Ganges and release from their grip

the land they had conquered."

The Spectator,

April 2, 1892.

Sir John Strachey,

Hastings and the Rohillas.

"The year 1781 opened for Hastings on a troubled sea of

dangers, difficulties, and distress. Haidar Ali was raging in

the Carnatic, Goddard and Camac were still fighting the

Marathas, and French fleets were cruising in the Bay of

Bengal. … It was no time for standing upon trifles. Money

must be raised somehow, if British India was to be saved.

Among other sources of supply, he turned to the Rajah of

Banaras [or Benares]. Chait Singh was the grandson of an

adventurer, who had ousted his own patron and protector from

the lordship of the district so named. In 1775, his fief had

been transferred by treaty from the Nawab of Oudh to the

Company. As a vassal of the Company he was bound to aid them

with men and money in times of special need. Five lakhs of

rupees—£50,000—and two thousand horse was the quota which

Hastings had demanded of him in 1780. In spite of the revenue

of half-a-million, of the great wealth stored up in his

private coffers, and of the splendid show which he always made

in public, the Rajah pleaded poverty, and put off compliance

with the demands of his liege lord. … Chait Singh had

repeatedly delayed the payment of his ordinary tribute; his

body-guard alone was larger than the force which Hastings

required of him; he was enrolling troops for some warlike

purpose, and Hastings' agents accused him of secret plottings

with the Oudh Begams at Faizabad. … The Rajah, in fact, like

a shrewd, self-seeking Hindu, was waiting upon circumstances,

which at that time boded ill for his English neighbours. The

Marathas, the French, or some other power might yet relieve

him from the yoke of a ruler who restrained his ambition, and

lectured him on the duty of preserving law and order among his

own subjects. … It has often been argued that, in his stern

dealings with the Rajah of Banaras, Hastings was impelled by

malice and a desire for revenge. But the subsequent verdict of

the House of Lords on this point, justifies itself to all who

have carefully followed the facts of his life. … As a matter

of policy, he determined to make an example of a contumacious

vassal, whose conduct in that hour of need added a new danger

to those which surrounded the English in India. A heavy fine

would teach the Rajah to obey orders, and help betimes to fill

his own treasury with the sinews of war. … Chait Singh had

already tried upon the Governor-General those arts which in

Eastern countries people of all classes employ against each

other without a blush. He had sent Hastings a peace-offering

of two lakhs—£20,000. Hastings took the money, but reserved

it for the Company's use. Presently he received an offer of

twenty lakhs for the public service. But Hastings was in no

mood for further compromise in evasion of his former demands.

{1724}

He would be satisfied with nothing less than half a million in

quittance of all dues. In July, 1781, he set out, with

Wheeler's concurrence, for the Rajah's capital. … Traveling,

as he preferred to do, with a small escort and as little

parade as possible, he arrived on the 16th August at the

populous and stately city. … On his way thither, at Baxar,

the recusant Rajah had come to meet him, with a large retinue,

in the hope of softening the heart of the great Lord Sahib. He

even laid his turban on Hastings' lap. … With the

haughtiness of an ancient Roman, Hastings declined his prayer

for a private interview. On the day after his arrival at

Banaras, the Governor-General forwarded to Chait Singh a paper

stating the grounds of complaint against him, and demanding an

explanation on each point. The Rajah's answer seemed to

Hastings' so offensive in style and unsatisfactory in

substance;' it was full, in fact, of such transparent, or, as

Lord Thurlow afterwards called them, 'impudent' falsehoods,

that the Governor-General issued orders for placing the Rajah

under arrest. Early the next morning, Chait Singh was quietly

arrested in his own palace. … Meanwhile his armed retainers

were flocking into the city from his strong castle of

Ramnagar, on the opposite bank. Mixing with the populace, they

provoked a tumult, in which the two companies of Sepoys

guarding the prisoner were cut to pieces. With unloaded

muskets and empty pouches—for the ammunition had been

forgotten—the poor men fell like sheep before their butchers.

Two more companies, in marching to their aid through the

narrow streets, were nearly annihilated. During the tumult

Chait Singh quietly slipped out of the palace, dropped by a

rope of turbans into a boat beneath, and crossed in safety to

Ramnagar. … If Chait Singh's followers had not shared

betimes their master's flight across the river, Hastings, with

his band of thirty Englishmen and fifty Sepoys, might have

paid very dearly for the sudden miscarriage of his plans. But

the rabble of Banaras had no leader, and troops from the

nearest garrisons were already marching to the rescue. …

Among the first who reached him was the gallant Popham,

bringing with him several hundred of his own Sepoys. … The

beginning of September found Popham strong enough to open a

campaign, which speedily avenged the slaughters at Banaras and

Ramnagar, and carried Hastings back into the full stream of

richly-earned success. … The capture of Bijigarh on the 10th

November, closed the brief but brilliant campaign. The booty,

amounting to £400,000, was at once divided among the captors;

and Hastings lost his only chance of replenishing his treasury

at the expense of Chait Singh. He consoled himself and

improved the Company's finances, by bestowing the rebel's

forfeit lordship on his nephew, and doubling the tribute

hitherto exacted. He was more successful in accomplishing

another object of his journey up the country."

L. J. Trotter,

Warren Hastings,

chapter 6.

"It is certain … that Chait Singh's rebellion was largely

aided by the Begums or Princesses of Faizabad. On this point

the evidence contained in Mr. Forrest's volumes ['Selections

from Letters, Despatches and other State Papers in the Foreign

Department of the Government of India,' edited by G. W.

Forrest] leaves no shadow of reasonable doubt. In plain truth,

the Begums, through their Ministers, the eunuchs, had levied

war both against the Company and their own kinsmen and master,

the new Wazir of Oudh. Some years before, when the Francis

faction ruled in Calcutta, these ladies, the widow and the

mother of Shuja, had joined with the British Agent in robbing

the new Wazir, Asaf-ud-daula, of nearly all the rich treasure

which his father had stored up in Faizabad. Hastings solemnly

protested against a transaction which he was powerless to

prevent. The Begums kept their hold upon the treasure, and

their Jaghirs, or military fiefs, which ought by rights to

have lapsed to the new Wazir. Meanwhile Asaf-ud-daula had to

govern as he best could, with an empty treasury, and an army

mutinous for arrears of pay. At last, with the suppression of

the Benares revolt, it seemed to Hastings and the Wazir that

the time had come for resuming the Jaghirs, and making the

Begums disgorge their ill-gotten wealth. In accordance with

the Treaty of Chunar, both these objects were carried out by

the Wazir's orders, with just enough of compulsion to give

Hastings' enemies a handle for the slanders and

misrepresentations which lent so cruel a point to Sheridan's

dazzling oratory, and to one of the most scathing passages in

Macaulay's most popular essay. There are some points, no

doubt, in Hastings' character and career about which honest

men may still hold different opinions. But on all the

weightier issues here mentioned there ought to be no room for

further controversy. It is no longer possible to contend, for

instance, that Hastings agreed, for a handsome bribe, to help

in exterminating the innocent people of Rohilkhand; that he

prompted Impey to murder Nand-Kumar; that any desire for

plunder led him to fasten a quarrel upon Chait Singh; or that

he engaged with the Oudh Wazir in a plot to rob the Wazir's

own mother of vast property secured to her under a solemn

compact, 'formally guaranteed by the Government of Bengal.'"

L. J. Trotter,

Warren Hastings and his Libellers

(Westminster Review, March, 1891).

ALSO IN:

W. M. Torrens,

Empire in Asia: How we came by it,

chapters 7-11.

H. E. Busteed,

Echoes from Old Calcutta.

G. W. Forrest,

The Administration of Warren Hastings.

G. R. Gleig,

Memoirs of Warren Hastings,

volume 1, chapters 8-14, and volume 2.

INDIA: A. D. 1780-1783.

The second war with Hyder Ali (Second Mysore War).

"The brilliant successes obtained by the English over the

French in Hindostan at the beginning of the war had made all

direct competition between the two nations in that country

impossible, but it was still in the power of the French to

stimulate the hostility of the native princes, and the ablest

of all these, Hyder Ali, the great ruler of Mysore, was once

more in the field. Since his triumph over the English, in

1769, he had acquired much additional territory from the

Mahrattas. He had immensely strengthened his military forces,

both in numbers and discipline. … For some years he showed

no wish to quarrel with the English, but when a Mahratta chief

invaded his territory they refused to give him the assistance

they were bound by the express terms of the treaty of 1769 to

afford, they rejected or evaded more than one subsequent

proposal of alliance, and they pursued a native policy in some

instances hostile to his interest.

{1725}

As a great native sovereign, too, he had no wish to see the

balance of power established by the rivalry between the

British and French destroyed. … Mysore was swarming with

French adventurers. The condition of Europe made it scarcely

possible that England could send any fresh forces, and Hyder

Ali had acquired a strength which appeared irresistible.

Ominous rumours passed over the land towards the close of

1779, but they were little heeded, and no serious preparations

had been made, when in July, 1780, the storm suddenly burst.

At the head of an army of at least 90,000 men, including

30,000 horsemen, 100 cannon, many European officers and

soldiers, and crowds of desperate adventurers from all parts

of India, Hyder Ali descended upon the Carnatic and devastated

a vast tract of country round Madras. Many forts and towns

were invested, captured, or surrendered. The Nabob and some of

his principal officers acted with gross treachery or

cowardice, and in spite of the devastations native sympathies

were strongly with the invaders. … Madras was for a time in

imminent danger. A few forts commanded by British officers

held out valiantly, but the English had only two considerable

bodies of men, commanded respectively by Colonel Baillie and

by Sir Hector Munro, in the field. They endeavoured to effect

a junction, but Hyder succeeded in attacking separately the

small army of Colonel Baillie, consisting of rather more than

3,700 men, and it was totally defeated [September 10], 2,000

men being left on the field. Munro only saved himself from a

similar fate by a rapid retreat, abandoning his baggage, and

much of his ammunition. Arcot, which was the capital of the

Nabob, and which contained vast military stores, was besieged

for six weeks, and surrendered in the beginning of November.

Velore, Wandewash, Permacoil, and Chingliput, four of the

chief strongholds in the Carnatic, were invested. A French

fleet with French troops was daily expected, and it appeared

almost certain that the British power would be extinguished in

Madras, if not in the whole of Hindostan. It was saved by the

energy of the Governor-General, Warren Hastings, who, by

extraordinary efforts, collected a large body of Sepoys and a

few Europeans in Bengal, and sent them with great rapidity to

Madras, under the command of Sir Eyre Coote, who had proved

himself twenty years before scarcely second in military genius

to Clive himself. I do not propose to relate in detail the

long and tangled story of the war that followed. … It is

sufficient to say that Coote soon found himself at the head of

about 7,200 men, of whom 1,400 were Europeans; that he

succeeded in relieving Wandewash, and obliging Hyder Ali to

abandon for the present the siege of Velore; that the French

fleet, which arrived off the coast in January, 1781, was found

to contain no troops, and that on July 1, 1781, Coote, with an

army of about 8,000 men, totally defeated forces at least

eight times as numerous, commanded by Hyder himself, in the

great battle of Porto Novo. … The war raged over the

Carnatic, over Tanjore, in the Dutch settlements to the south

of Tanjore, on the opposite Malabar coast, and on the coast of

Ceylon, while at the same time another and independent

struggle was proceeding with the Mahrattas. … The coffers at

Calcutta were nearly empty, and it was in order to replenish

them that Hastings committed some of the acts which were

afterwards the subjects of his impeachment. … By the skill

and daring of a few able men, of whom Hastings, Coote, Munro,

and Lord Macartney were the most prominent, the storm was

weathered. Hyder Ali died in December, 1782, about four months

before Sir Eyre Coote. The peace of 1782 withdrew France and

Holland from the contest, and towards the close of 1783,

Tippoo, the son of Hyder Ali, consented to negotiate a peace,

which was signed in the following March. Its terms were a

mutual restoration of all conquests, and in this, as in so

many other great wars, neither of the contending parties

gained a single advantage by all the bloodshed, the

expenditure, the desolation, and the misery of a struggle of

nearly four years."

W. E. H. Lecky,

History of England in the 18th Century,

chapter 14 (volume 5).

"The centre and heart of the English power lay in Bengal,

which the war never reached at all, and which was governed by

a man of rare talent and organizing capacity. No Anglo-Indian

government of that time could carry on a campaign by war

loans, as in Europe; the cost had to be provided out of

revenue, or by requiring subsidies from allied native rulers;

and it was Bengal that furnished not only the money and the

men, but also the chief political direction and military

leadership which surmounted the difficulties and repaired the

calamities of the English in the western and southern

Presidencies. And when at last the Marathas made peace, when

Hyder Ali died, and Suffren, with all his courage and genius,

could not master the English fleet in the Bay of Bengal, there

could be no doubt that the war had proved the strength of the

English position in India, had tested the firmness of its

foundation. … With the termination of this war ended the

only period in the long contest between England and the native

powers, during which our position in India was for a time

seriously jeoparded. That the English dominion emerged from

this prolonged struggle uninjured, though not unshaken, is a

result due to the political intrepidity of Warren Hastings.

… Hastings had no aristocratic connexions or parliamentary

influence at a time when the great families and the House of

Commons held immense power; he was surrounded by enemies in

his own Council; and his immediate masters, the East India

Company, gave him very fluctuating support. Fiercely opposed

by his own colleagues, and very ill obeyed by the subordinate

Presidencies, he had to maintain the Company's commercial

establishments, and at the same time to find money for

carrying on distant and impolitic wars in which he had been

involved by blunders at Madras or Bombay. These funds he had

been expected to provide out of current revenues, after buying

and despatching the merchandise on which the company's home

dividends depended; for the resource of raising public loans,

so freely used in England, was not available to him. He was

thus inevitably driven to the financial transactions, at

Benares and Lucknow, that were now so bitterly stigmatized as

crimes by men who made no allowance for a perilous situation

in a distant land, or for the weight of enormous national

interests committed to the charge of the one man capable of

sustaining them. When the storm had blown over in India, and

he had piloted his vessel into calm water, he was sacrificed

with little or no hesitation to party exigencies in England;

the Ministry would have recalled him; they consented to his

impeachment; they left him to be baited by the Opposition and

to be ruined by the law's delay, by the incredible

procrastination and the obsolete formalities of a seven years'

trial before the House of Lords."

Sir A. Lyall,

Rise of the British Dominion in India,

chapter 11, section 2.

ALSO IN:

Meer Hussein Ali Khan Kirmani,

History of Hydur Naik,

chapters 27-31.

G. B. Malleson,

Decisive Battles of India,

chapter 8.

L. B. Bowring,

Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan,

chapters 14-15.

{1726}

INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

State of India.

Extent of English rule.

Administration of Lord Cornwallis.

War with Tippoo Saib (Third Mysore War).

The "Permanent Settlement" of Land Revenue in Bengal,

and its fruit.

"When Warren Hastings left India, the Mogul Empire was simply

the phantom of a name. The warlike tribes of the north-west,

Sikhs, Rajpoots, Jats, were henceforth independent; but the

Rohillas of the north-east had been subdued and almost

exterminated. Of the three greatest Soobahs or vice-royalties

of the Mogul empire, at one time practically independent, that

of Bengal had wholly disappeared, those of Oude and the Deckan

had sunk into dependence on a foreign power, were maintained

by the aid of foreign mercenaries. The only two native powers

that remained were, the Mahrattas, and the newly-risen

Mussulman dynasty of Mysore. The former were still divided

between the great chieftaincies of the Peshwa, Scindia,

Holkar, the Guicowar, and the Boslas of Berar. But the

supremacy of the Peshwa was on the wane; that of Scindia, on

the contrary, in the ascendant. Scindia ruled in the north; he

had possession of the emperor's person, of Delhi, the old

Mussulman capital. In the south, Hyder Ali and Tippoo [son of

Hyder Ali, whom he had succeeded in 1782], Sultan of Mysore,

had attained to remarkable power. They were dangerous to the

Mahrattas, dangerous to the Nizam, dangerous, lastly, to the

English. But the rise of the last-named power was the great

event of the period. … They had won for themselves the three

great provinces of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, besides

Benares,—forming a large compact mass of territory to the

north-east. They had, farther down the east coast, the

province of the Northern Circars, and farther still, the

jagheer [land grant], of Madras; on the west, again, a large

stretch of territory at the southern extremity of the

peninsula. The two Mussulman sovereigns of Oude and Hyderabad

were their dependent allies; they administered the country of

the Nawab of the Carnatic, besides having hosts of smaller

potentates under their protection. … The appointed successor

to Hastings was Lord Macartney. … He lost his office,

however, by hesitating to accept it, and going to England to

urge conditions. … The great military event of Lord

Cornwallis's government was the third Mysore war. It began

with some disputes about the petty Raja of Cherika, from whom

the English had farmed the customs of Tellicherry, and taken,

in security for advances, a district called Randaterra, and by

Tippoo's attack upon the lines of the Raja of Travancore, an

ally of the English, consisting of a ditch, wall, and other

defences, on an extent of about thirty miles. Tippoo was,

however, repelled with great slaughter in an attack on the

town (1789). Hearing this, Lord Cornwallis at once entered

into treaties with the Nizam and the Peshwa for a joint war

upon Mysore; all new conquests to be equally divided, all

Tippoo's own conquests from the contracting powers to be

restored. After a first inconclusive campaign, in which,

notwithstanding the skill of General Meadows, the advantage

rather remained to Tippoo, who, amongst other things, gave a

decided check to Colonel Floyd (1790), Lord Cornwallis took

the command in person, and carried Bangalore by assault, with

great loss to both parties, but a tremendous carnage of the

besieged. However, so wretched had been the English

preparations, that, the cattle being 'reduced to skeletons,

and scarcely able to move their own weight,' Lord Cornwallis,

after advancing to besiege Seringapatam, was forced to retreat

and to destroy the whole of his battering-train and other

equipments; whilst General Abercrombie, who was advancing in

the same direction from the Malabar coast, had to do the same

(1791). A force of Mahrattas came in, well appointed and well

provided, but too late to avert these disasters. The next

campaign was more successful. It began by the taking of

several of the hill-forts forming the western barrier of

Mysore. … On the 5th February, 1792, however, Lord

Cornwallis appeared before Seringapatam, situated in an island

formed by the Cauvery: the fort and outworks were provided

with 300 pieces of cannon; the fortified camp, outside the

river, by six redoubts, with more than 100 pieces of heavy

artillery. Tippoo's army consisted of 6,000 cavalry and 50,000

infantry, himself commanding. This first siege, which is

celebrated in Indian warfare, continued with complete success

on the English side till the 24th. 10,000 subjects of Coorg,

whom Tippoo had enlisted by force, deserted. At last, when the

whole island was carried and all preparations made for the

siege, Tippoo made peace. The English allies had such

confidence in Lord Cornwallis, that they left him entire

discretion as to the terms. They were,—that Tippoo should

give up half of his territory, pay a large sum for war

expenses, and give up two of his sons as hostages. The ceded

territory was divided between the allies, the Company

obtaining a large strip of the Malabar coast, extending

eastward to the Carnatic. … Meanwhile, on the breaking out

of war between England and the French Republic, the French

settlements in India were all again annexed (1792). Lord

Cornwallis now applied himself to questions of internal

government. Properly speaking, there was no English Government

as yet. Mr. Kaye, the brilliant apologist of the East India

Company, says, of Lord Cornwallis, that 'he gathered up the

scattered fragments of government which he found, and reduced

them to one comprehensive system.' He organized the

administration of criminal justice, reorganized the police. He

separated the connection of the revenues from the

administration of justice, organizing civil justice in turn.

… He next proceeded to organize the financial system of the

Company's government. … Hence the famous 'Permanent

Settlement' of Lord Cornwallis (22nd March, 1793)."

J. M. Ludlow,

British India,

lecture 9 (volume 1).

{1727}

"In 1793 the so-called Permanent Settlement of the Land Revenue

was introduced. We found in Bengal, when we succeeded to the

Government, a class of middle-men, called Zemindars [or

Zamindars-see, also, TALUKDARS], who collected the land

revenue and the taxes, and we continued to employ them. As a

matter of convenience and expediency, but not of right, the

office of zemindar was often hereditary. The zemindars had

never been in any sense the owners of the land, but it was

supposed by Lord Cornwallis and the English rulers of the time

that it would be an excellent thing for Bengal to have a class

of landlords something like those of England; the zemindars

were the only people that seemed available for the purpose,

and they were declared to be the proprietors of the land. It

was by no means intended that injustice should thus be done to

others. Excepting the State, there was only one great class,

that of the ryots or actual cultivators, which, according to

immemorial custom, could be held to possess permanent rights

in the land. The existence of those rights was recognised,

and, as it was supposed, guarded by the law. … There has

been much dispute as to the exact nature of the rights given

to the zemindars, but everyone agrees that it was not the

intention of the authors of the Permanent Settlement to

confiscate anything which, according to the customs of the

country, had belonged to the cultivators. The right of

property given to the zemindars was a portion of those rights

which had always been exercised by the State, and of which the

State was at liberty to dispose; it was not intended that they

should receive anything else. The land revenue, representing

the share of the produce or rental to which the State was

entitled, was fixed in perpetuity. The ryots were to continue

to hold their lands permanently at the 'rates established in

the purgunnah;' when the amount of these rates was disputed it

was to be settled by the courts; so long as rents at those

rates were paid, the ryot could not be evicted. The intention

was to secure to the ryot fixity of tenure and fixity of rent.

Unfortunately, these rights were only secured upon paper. …

The consequences at the present time are these:—Even if it

be assumed that the share of the rent which the State can

wisely take is smaller than the share which any Government,

Native or English, has ever taken or proposed to take in

India, the amount now received by the State from the land in

Bengal must be held to fall short of what it might be by a sum

that can hardly be less than £5,000,000 a year; this is a

moderate computation; probably the loss is much more. This is

given away in return for no service to the State or to the

public; the zemindars are merely the receivers of rent; with

exceptions so rare as to deserve no consideration, they take

no part in the improvement of the land, and, until a very few

years ago, they bore virtually no share of the public burdens.

The result of these proceedings of the last century, to the

maintenance of which for ever the faith of the British

Government is said to have been pledged, is that the poorer

classes in poorer provinces have to make good to the State the

millions which have been thrown away in Bengal. If this were

all, it would be bad enough, but worse remains to be told. …

'The original intention of the framers of the Permanent

Settlement (I am quoting from Sir George Campbell) was to

record all rights. The Canoongoes (District Registrars) and

Putwarees (Village Accountants) were to register all holdings,

all transfers, all rent-rolls, and all receipts and payments;

and every five years there was to be filed in the public

offices a complete register of all land tenures. But the task

was a difficult one; there was delay in carrying it out. …

The putwarees fell into disuse or became the mere servants of

the zemindars; the canoongoes were abolished. No record of the

rights of the ryots and inferior holders was ever made, and

even the quinquennial register of superior rights, which was

maintained for a time, fell into disuse.' … The consequences

of the Permanent Settlement did not become immediately

prominent. … But, as time went on, and population and wealth

increased, as cultivators were more readily found, and custom

began to give way to competition, the position of the ryots

became worse and that of the zemindars became stronger. Other

circumstances helped the process of confiscation of the rights

of the peasantry. … The confiscation of the rights of the

ryots has reached vast proportions. In 1793 the rental left to

the zemindars under the Permanent Settlement, after payment of

the land revenue, is supposed not to have exceeded £400,000;

according to some estimates it was less. If the intentions of

the Government had been carried out, it was to the ryots that

the greater portion of any future increase in the annual value

of the land would have belonged, in those parts at least of

the province which were at that time well cultivated. It is

not possible to state with confidence the present gross annual

rental of the landlords of Bengal. An imperfect valuation made

some years ago showed it to be £13,000,000. It is now called

£17,000,000, but there can be little doubt that it is much

more. Thus, after deducting the land revenue, which is about

£3,800,000, the net rental has risen from £400,000 in the last

century to more than £13,000,000 at the present time. No

portion of this increase has been due to the action of the

zemindars. It has been due to the industry of the ryots, to

whom the greater part of it rightfully belonged, to the

peaceful progress of the country, and to the expenditure of

the State, an expenditure mainly defrayed from the taxation of

poorer provinces. If ever there was an 'unearned increment,'

it is this."

Sir J. Strachey,

India,

lecture 12.

ALSO IN:

J. W. Kaye,

The Administration of the East India Co.,

part 2, chapter 2.

J. Mill,

History of British India,

book 6, chapter 4 (volume 5).

W. S. Seton-Karr,

The Marquess Cornwallis,

chapter 2.

Sir R. Temple,

James Thomason,

chapter 9.

INDIA: A. D. 1785-1795.

The Impeachment and Trial of Warren Hastings.

"Warren Hastings returned to England in the summer of 1785,

and met with a distinguished reception. "I find myself," he

wrote to a friend, "every where and universally treated with

evidences, apparent even to my own observation, that I possess

the good opinion of my country." But underneath this

superficial "good opinion" there existed a moral feeling which

had been outraged by the unscrupulous measures of the

Governor-General of India, and which began soon to speak aloud

through the eloquent lips of Edmund Burke. Joined in the

movement by Fox and Sheridan, Burke laid charges before

Parliament which forced the House of Commons, in the session

of 1787 to order the impeachment of Hastings before the Lords.

On the 13th of February, 1788, the sittings of the Court

commenced.

{1728}

There have been spectacles more dazzling to the eye, more

gorgeous with jewellery and cloth of gold, more attractive to

grown-up children, than that which was then exhibited at

Westminster; but, perhaps, there never was a spectacle so well

calculated to strike a highly cultivated, a reflecting, an

imaginative mind. All the various kinds of interest which

belong to the near and to the distant, to the present and to

the past, were collected on one spot and in one hour. All the

talents and all the accomplishments which are developed by

liberty and civilisation were now displayed, with every

advantage that could be derived both from co-operation and

from contrast. Every step in the proceedings carried the mind

either backward, through many troubled centuries, to the days

when the foundations of our constitution were laid; or far

away, over boundless seas and deserts, to dusky nations living

under strange stars, worshipping strange gods, and writing

strange characters from right to left. The High Court of

Parliament was to sit, according to forms handed down from the

days of the Plantagenets, on an Englishman accused of

exercising tyranny over the lord of the holy city of Benares,

and over the ladies of the princely house of Oude. The place

was worthy of such a trial. It was the great hall of William

Rufus, the hall which had resounded with acclamations at the

inauguration of thirty kings, the hall which had witnessed the

just sentence of Bacon and the just absolution of Somers, the

hall where the eloquence of Strafford had for a moment awed

and melted a victorious party inflamed with just resentment,

the hall where Charles had confronted the High Court of

Justice with the placid courage which has half redeemed his

fame. Neither military nor civil pomp was wanting. The avenues

were lined with grenadiers. The streets were kept clear by

cavalry. The peers, robed in gold and ermine, were marshalled

by the heralds under Garter King-at-arms. The judges in their

vestments of state attended to give advice on points of law.

Near a hundred and seventy lords, three fourths of the Upper

House as the Upper House then was, walked in solemn order from

their usual place of assembling to the tribunal. … The grey

old walls were hung with scarlet. The long galleries were

crowded by an audience such as has rarely excited the fears or

the emulations of an orator. There were gathered together,

from all parts of a great, free, enlightened, and prosperous

empire, grace and female loveliness, wit and learning, the

representatives of every science and of every art. … The

Serjeants made proclamation. Hastings advanced to the bar, and

bent his knee. The culprit was indeed not unworthy of that

great presence. He had ruled an extensive and populous

country, had made laws and treaties, had sent forth armies,

had set up and pulled down princes. And in his high place he

had so borne himself, that all had feared him, that most had

loved him, and that hatred itself could deny him no title to

glory, except virtue. He looked like a great man, and not like

a bad man. … His counsel accompanied him, men all of whom

were afterwards raised by their talents and learning to the

highest posts in their profession, the bold and strong-minded

Law, afterwards Chief Justice of the King's Bench; the more

humane and eloquent Dallas, afterwards Chief Justice of the

Common Pleas; and Plomer who, near twenty years later,

successfully conducted in the same high court the defence of

Lord Melville, and subsequently became Vice-chancellor and

Master of the Rolls. But neither the culprit nor his advocates

attracted so much notice as the accusers. In the midst of the

blaze of red drapery, a space had been fitted up with green

benches and tables for the Commons. The managers, with Burke

at their head, appeared in full dress. The collectors of

gossip did not fail to remark that even Fox, generally so

regardless of his appearance, had paid to the illustrious

tribunal the compliment of wearing a bag and sword. Pitt had

refused to be one of the conductors of the impeachment; and

his commanding, copious, and sonorous eloquence was wanting to

that great muster of various talents. … The charges and the

answers of Hastings were first read. The ceremony occupied two

whole days, and was rendered less tedious than it would

otherwise have been by the silver voice and just emphasis of

Cowper, the clerk of the court, a near relation of the amiable

poet. On the third day Burke rose. Four sittings were occupied

by his opening speech, which was intended to be a general

introduction to all the charges. With an exuberance of thought

and a splendour of diction, which more than satisfied the

highly raised expectation of the audience, he described the

character and institutions of the natives of India, recounted

the circumstances in which the Asiatic empire of Britain had

originated, and set forth the constitution of the Company and

of the English presidencies. … When the Court sat again, Mr.

Fox, assisted by Mr. Grey, opened the charge respecting Cheyte

Sing, and several days were spent in reading papers and

hearing witnesses. The next article was that relating to the

Princesses of Oude. The conduct of this part of the case was

intrusted to Sheridan. The curiosity of the public to hear him

was unbounded. His sparkling and highly finished declamation

lasted two days; but the Hall was crowded to suffocation

during the whole time. It was said that fifty guineas had been

paid for a single ticket. Sheridan, when he concluded,

contrived, with a knowledge of stage effect which his father

might have envied, to sink back, as if exhausted, into the

arms of Burke, who hugged him with the energy of generous

admiration. June was now far advanced. The session could not

last much longer; and the progress which had been made in the

impeachment was not very satisfactory. There were twenty

charges. On two only of these had even the case for the

prosecution been heard; and it was now a year since Hastings

had been admitted to bail. The interest taken by the public in

the trial was great when the Court began to sit, and rose to

the height when Sheridan spoke on the charge relating to the

Begums. From that time the excitement went down fast. The

spectacle had lost the attraction of novelty. The great

displays of rhetoric were over. … The trial in the Hall went

on languidly. In the session of 1788, when the proceedings had

the interest of novelty, and when the Peers had little other

business before them, only thirty-five days were given to the

impeachment. In 1789 … during the whole year only

seventeen days were given to the case of Hastings. … At

length, in the spring of 1795, the decision was pronounced,

near eight years after Hastings had been brought by the

Serjeant-at-arms of the Commons to the bar of the Lords.

{1729}

… Only twenty-nine Peers voted. Of these only six found

Hastings guilty on the charges relating to Cheyte Sing and to

the Begums. On other charges, the majority in his favour was

still greater. On some he was unanimously absolved. He was

then called to the bar, was informed from the woolsack that

the Lords had acquitted him, and was solemnly discharged. He

bowed respectfully and retired. We have said that the decision

had been fully expected. It was also generally approved. …

It was thought, and not without reason, that, even if he was

guilty, he was still an ill-used man, and that an impeachment

of eight years was more than a sufficient punishment. It was

also felt that, though, in the ordinary course of criminal

law, a defendant is not allowed to set off his good actions

against his crimes, a great political cause should be tried on

different principles, and that a man who had governed an

empire during thirteen years might have done some very

reprehensible things, and yet might be on the whole deserving

of rewards and honours rather than of fine and imprisonment."

Lord Macaulay,

Warren Hastings (Essays).

"The trial had several beneficial results. It cleared off a

cloud of misconceptions, calumnies, exaggerations, and false

notions generally on both sides; it fixed and promulgated the

standard which the English people would in future insist upon

maintaining in their Indian administration; it bound down the

East India Company to better behaviour; it served as an

example and a salutary warning, and it relieved the national

conscience. But the attempt to make Hastings a sacrifice and a

burnt-offering for the sins of the people; the process of

loading him with curses and driving him away into the

wilderness; of stoning him with every epithet and metaphor

that the English language could supply for heaping ignominy on

his head; of keeping him seven years under an impeachment that

menaced him with ruin and infamy—these were blots upon the

prosecution and wide aberrations from the true course of

justice which disfigured the aspect of the trial, distorted

its aim, and had much to do with bringing it to the lame and

impotent conclusion that Burke so bitterly denounced."

Sir A. Lyall,

Warren Hastings,

chapter 9.

ALSO IN:

E. Burke,

Works,

volumes 8-12.

Speeches of Managers and Counsel

in the Trial of Warren Hastings,

edited by E. A. Bond.

INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

The administration and imperial policy of the Marquis Wellesley.

Treaty with the Nizam.

Overthrow and death of Tippoo, Sultan of Mysore.

War with the Mahrattas.

Assaye and Laswari.

Territorial acquisitions.

"The period of Sir John Shore's rule as Governor-General, from

1793 to 1798 [after which he became Lord Teignmouth], was

uneventful. In 1798, Lord Mornington, better known as the

Marquis of Wellesley, arrived in India, already inspired with

imperial projects which were destined to change the map of the

country. Mornington was the friend and favourite of Pitt, from

whom he is thought to have derived his far-reaching political

vision, and his antipathy to the French name. From the first

he laid down as his guiding principle, that the English must

be the one paramount power in the peninsula, and that Native

princes could only retain the insignia of sovereignty by

surrendering their political independence. The history of

India since his time has been but the gradual development of

this policy, which received its finishing touch when Queen

Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India on the 1st of

January, 1877. To frustrate the possibility of a French

invasion of India, led by Napoleon in person, was the

governing idea of Wellesley's foreign policy. France at this

time, and for many years later, filled the place afterwards

occupied by Russia in the minds of Indian statesmen. Nor was

the danger so remote as might now be thought. French regiments

guarded and overawed the Nizam of Haidarabad. The soldiers of

Sindhia, the military head of the Marhatta Confederacy, were

disciplined and led by French adventurers. Tipu Sultan of

Mysore carried on a secret correspondence with the French

Directorate, allowed a tree of liberty to be planted in his

dominions, and enrolled himself in a republican club as

'Citizen Tipu.' The islands of Mauritius and Bourbon afforded

a convenient half-way rendezvous for French intrigue and for

the assembling of a hostile expedition. Above all, Napoleon

Buonaparte was then in Egypt, dreaming of the conquests of

Alexander, and no man knew in what direction he might turn his

hitherto unconquered legions. Wellesley conceived the scheme

of crushing for ever the French hopes in Asia, by placing

himself at the head of a great Indian confederacy. In Lower

Bengal, the sword of Clive and the policy of Warren Hastings

had made the English paramount. Before the end of the century,

our power was consolidated from the seaboard to Benares, high

up the Gangetic valley. … In 1801, the treaty of Lucknow

made over to the British the Doab, or fertile tract between

the Ganges and the Jumna, together with Rohilkhand. In

Southern India, our possessions were chiefly confined, before

Lord Wellesley, to the coast Districts of Madras and Bombay.

Wellesley resolved to make the British supreme as far as Delhi

in Northern India, and to compel the great powers of the south

to enter into subordinate relations to the Company's

government. The intrigues of the Native princes gave him his

opportunity for carrying out this plan without breach of

faith. The time had arrived when the English must either

become supreme in India, or be driven out of it. The Mughal

Empire was completely broken up; and the sway had to pass

either to the local Muhammadan governors of that empire, or to

the Hindu Confederacy represented by the Marhattas, or to the

British. Lord Wellesley determined that it should pass to the

British. His work in Northern India was at first easy. The

treaty of Lucknow in 1801 made us territorial rulers as far as

the heart of the present North-Western Provinces, and

established our political influence in Oudh. Beyond those

limits, the northern branches of the Marhattas practically

held sway, with the puppet emperor in their hands. Lord

Wellesley left them untouched for a few years, until the

second Marhatta war (1802-1804) gave him an opportunity for

dealing effectively with their nation as a whole. In Southern

India, he saw that the Nizam at Haidarabad stood in need of

his protection, and he converted him into a useful follower

throughout the succeeding struggle. The other Muhammadan power

of the south, Tipu Sultan of Mysore, could not be so easily

handled.

{1730}

Lord Wellesley resolved to crush him, and had ample

provocation for so doing. The third power of Southern

India—namely, the Marhatta Confederacy—was so loosely

organized, that Lord Wellesley seems at first to have hoped to

live on terms with it. When several years of fitful alliance

had convinced him that he had to choose between the supremacy

of the Marhattas or of the British in Southern India, he did

not hesitate to decide. Lord Wellesley first addressed himself

to the weakest of the three southern powers, the Nizam of

Haidarabad. Here he won a diplomatic success, which turned a

possible rival into a subservient ally. The French battalions

at Haidarabad were disbanded, and the Nizam bound himself by

treaty not to take any European into his service without the

consent of the English Government,—a clause since inserted in

every engagement entered into with Native powers. Wellesley

next turned the whole weight of his resources against Tipu,

whom Cornwallis had defeated, but not subdued. Tipu's

intrigues with the French were laid bare, and he was given an

opportunity of adhering to the new subsidiary system. On his

refusal, war was declared, and Wellesley came down in

viceregal state to Madras to organize the expedition in

person, and to watch over the course of events. One English

army marched into Mysore from Madras, accompanied by a

contingent from the Nizam. Another advanced from the western

coast. Tipu, after a feeble resistance in the field, retired

into Seringapatam, and, when his capital was stormed, died

fighting bravely in the breach (1799). Since the battle of

Plassey, no event so greatly impressed the Native imagination

as the capture of Seringapatam, which won for General Harris a

peerage, and for Wellesley an Irish marquisate. In dealing

with the territories of Tipu, Wellesley acted with moderation.

The central portion, forming the old state of Mysore, was

restored to an infant representative of the Hindu Rajas, whom

Haidar Ali had dethroned; the rest of Tipu's dominion was

partitioned between the Nizam, the Marhattas, and the English.

At about the same time, the Karnatic, or the part of

South-Eastern India ruled by the Nawab of Arcot, and also the

principality of Tanjore, were placed under direct British

administration, thus constituting the Madras Presidency almost

as it has existed to the present day. … The Marhattas had

been the nominal allies of the English in both their wars with

Tipu. But they had not rendered active assistance, nor were

they secured to the English side as the Nizam now was. The

Marhatta powers at this time were five in number. The

recognised head of the confederacy was the Peshwa of Poona,

who ruled the hill country of the Western Ghats, the cradle of

the Marhatta race. The fertile Province of Guzerat was

annually harried by the horsemen of the Gaekwar of Baroda. In

Central India, two military leaders, Sindhia of Gwalior and

Holkar of Indore, alternately held the pre-eminence. Towards

the east, the Bhonsla Raja of Nagpur reigned from Berar to the

coast of Orissa. Wellesley laboured to bring these several

Marhatta powers within the net of his subsidiary system. In

1802, the necessities of the Peshwa, who had been defeated by

Holkar, and driven as a fugitive into British territory,

induced him to sign the treaty of Bassein. By this he pledged

himself to the British to hold communications with no other

power, European or Native, and granted to us Districts for the

maintenance of a subsidiary force. This greatly extended the

English territorial influence in the Bombay Presidency. But it

led to the second Marhatta war, as neither Sindhia nor the

Raja of Nagpur would tolerate the Peshwa's betrayal of the

Marhatta independence. The campaigns which followed are

perhaps the most glorious in the history of the British arms

in India. The general plan, and the adequate provision of

resources, were due to the Marquis of Wellesley, as also the

indomitable spirit which refused to admit of defeat. The

armies were led by Sir Arthur Wellesley (afterwards Duke of

Wellington) and General (afterwards Lord) Lake. Wellesley

operated in the Deccan, where in a few short months, he won

the decisive victories of Assaye [September 23, 1803] and

Argaum [November 28], and captured Ahmednagar. Lake's campaign

in Hindustan was equally brilliant, although it has received

less notice from historians. He won pitched battles at Aligarh

[August 29] and Laswari [November 1, 1803], and took the

cities of Delhi and Agra. He scattered the French troops of

Sindhia, and at the same time stood forward as the champion of

the Mughal Emperor in his hereditary capital. Before the end

of 1803, both Sindhia and the Bhonsla Raja of Nagpur sued for

peace. Sindhia ceded all claims to the territory north of the

Jumna, and left the blind old Emperor Shah Alam once more

under British protection. The Bhonsla forfeited Orissa to the

English, who had already occupied it with a flying column in

1803, and Berar to the Nizam, who gained fresh territory by

every act of complaisance to the British Government. … The

concluding years of Wellesley's rule were occupied with a

series of operations against Holkar, which brought little

credit on the British name. The disastrous retreat of Colonel

Monson through Central India (1804) recalled memories of the

convention of Wargaum, and of the destruction of Colonel

Baillie's force by Haidar Ali. The repulse of Lake in person

at the siege of Bhartpur (Bhurtpore) is memorable as an

instance of a British army in India having to turn back with

its object unaccomplished (1805). Bhartpur was not finally

taken till 1827. Lord Wellesley during his six years of office

carried out almost every part of his territorial scheme. In

Northern India, Lord Lake's campaigns brought the

North-Western provinces (the ancient Madhyadesa) under British

rule, together with the custody of the puppet emperor. The new

Districts were amalgamated with those previously acquired from

the Nawab Wazir of Oudh into the 'Ceded and Conquered

Provinces.' This partition of Northern India remained till the

Sikh wars of 1844 and 1847 gave us the Punjab."

W. W. Hunter,

Brief History of the Indian People,

chapter 13.

ALSO IN:

W. H. Maxwell,

Life of the Duke of Wellington,

volume 1, chapters 2-12.

J. M. Wilson.

Memoir of Wellington,

volume 1, chapters 2-9.

G. B. Malleson,

Decisive Battles of India,

chapters 9-10.

W. H. Hutton,

The Marquess Wellesley.

J. S. Cotton,

Mountstuart Elphinstone,

chapter 4.

{1731}

INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

Reversal of Lord Wellesley's policy.

Sepoy revolt at Vellore.

Influence established with Runjeet Singh and the Sikhs.

Conquest of the Mauritius.

The Ghorka War.

"The retreat of Monson was not only a disastrous blow to

British prestige, but ruined for a while the reputation of

Lord Wellesley. Because a Mahratta freebooter had broken loose

in Hindustan, the Home authorities imagined that all the

Mahratta powers had risen against the imperial policy of the

Governor-General. Lord Wellesley was recalled from his post,

and Lord Cornwallis was sent out to take his place, to reverse

the policy of his illustrious predecessor, to scuttle out of

Western Hindustan, to restore all the ceded territories, to

surrender all the captured fortresses, and to abandon large

tracts of country to be plundered and devastated by the

Mahrattas, as they had been from the days of Sivaji to those

of Wellesley and Lake. Before Lord Cornwallis reached Bengal

the political outlook had brightened. … But Lord Cornwallis

was sixty-seven years of age, and had lost the nerve which he

had displayed in his wars against Tippu; and he would have

ignored the turn of the tide, and persisted in falling back on

the old policy of conciliation and non-intervention, had not

death cut short his career before he had been ten weeks in the

country. Sir George Barlow, a Bengal civilian, succeeded for a

while to the post of Governor-General, as a provisional

arrangement. He had been a member of Council under both

Wellesley and Cornwallis, and he halted between the two. He

refused to restore the conquered territories to Sindia and the

Bhonsla, but he gave back the Indore principality to Holkar,

together with the captured fortresses. Worst of all, he

annulled most of the protective treaties with the Rajput

princes on the ground that they had deserted the British

government during Monson's retreat from Jaswant Rao Holkar.

For some years the policy of the British government was a

half-hearted system of non-intervention. … The Mahratta

princes were left to plunder and collect chout [a blackmail

extortion, levied by the Mahrattas for a century] in

Rajputana, and practically to make war on each other, so long

as they respected the territories of the British government

and its allies. … All this while an under-current of

intrigue was at work between Indian courts, which served in

the end to revive wild hopes of getting rid of British

supremacy, and rekindling the old aspirations for war and

rapine. In 1806 the peace of India was broken by an alarm from

a very different quarter. In those days India was so remote

from the British Isles that the existence of the British

government mainly depended on the loyalty of its sepoy armies.

Suddenly it was discovered that the Madras army was on the

brink of mutiny. The British authorities at Madras had

introduced an obnoxious head-dress resembling a European hat,

in the place of the old time-honoured turban, and had,

moreover, forbidden the sepoys to appear on parade with

earrings and caste marks. India was astounded by a revolt of

the Madras sepoys at the fortress of Vellore, about eight

miles to the westward of Arcot. … The garrison at Vellore

consisted of about 400 Europeans and 1,500 sepoys. At

midnight, without warning, the sepoys rose in mutiny. One body

fired on the European barracks until half the soldiers were

killed or wounded. Another body fired on the houses of the

British officers, and shot them down as they rushed out to

know the cause of the uproar. All this while provisions were

distributed amongst the sepoys by the Mysore princes, and the

flag of Mysore was hoisted over the fortress. Fortunately the

news was carried to Arcot, where Colonel Gillespie commanded a

British garrison. Gillespie at once galloped to Vellore with a

troop of British dragoons and two field guns. The gates of

Vellore were blown open; the soldiers rushed in; 400 mutineers

were cut down, and the outbreak was over. … In 1807 Lord

Minto succeeded Barlow as Governor-General. He broke the spell

of non-intervention. … Lord Minto's main work was to keep

Napoleon and the French out of India. The north-west frontier

was still vulnerable, but the Afghans had retired from the

Punjab, and the once famous Runjeet Singh had founded a Sikh

kingdom between the Indus and the Sutlej. As far as the

British were concerned, the Sikhs formed a barrier against the

Afghans; and Runjeet Singh was apparently friendly, for he had

refused to shelter Jaswant Rao Holkar in his flight from Lord

Lake. But there was no knowing what Runjeet Singh might do if

the French found their way to Lahore. To crown the perplexity,

the Sikh princes on the British side of the river Sutlej, who

had done homage to the British government during the campaigns

of Lord Lake, were being conquered by Runjeet Singh, and were

appealing to the British government for protection. In 1808-9

a young Bengal civilian, named Charles Metcalfe, was sent on a

mission to Lahore. The work before him was difficult and

complicated, and somewhat trying to the nerves. The object was

to secure Runjeet Singh as a useful ally against the French

and Afghans, whilst protecting the Sikh states on the British

side of the Sutlej, namely, Jhind, Nabha, and Patiala. Runjeet

Singh was naturally disgusted at being checked by British

interference. It was unfair, he said, for the British to wait

until he had conquered the three states, and then to demand

possession. Metcalfe cleverly dropped the question of justice,

and appealed to Runjeet Singh's self-interest. By giving up

the three states, Runjeet Singh would secure an alliance with

the British, a strong frontier on the Sutlej, and freedom to

push his conquests on the north and west. Runjeet Singh took

the hint. He withdrew his pretensions from the British side of

the Sutlej, and professed a friendship which remained unbroken

until his death in 1839; but he knew what he was about. He

conquered Cashmere on the north, and he wrested Peshawar from

the Afghans; but he refused to open his dominions to British

trade, and he was jealous to the last of any attempt to enter

his territories. … Meanwhile the war against France and

Napoleon had extended to eastern waters. The island of the

Mauritius had become a French depot for frigates and

privateers, which swept the seas from Madagascar to Java,

until the East India Company reckoned its losses by millions,

and private traders were brought to the brink of ruin. Lord

Minto sent one expedition [1810], which wrested the Mauritius

from the French; and he conducted another expedition in

person, which wrested the island of Java from the Dutch, who

at that time were the allies of France. The Mauritius has

remained a British possession until this day, but Java was

restored to Holland at the conclusion of the war. …

Meanwhile war clouds were gathering on the southern slopes of

the Himalayas.

{1732}

Down to the middle of the 18th century, the territory of Nipal

had been peopled by a peaceful and industrious race of

Buddhists known as Newars, but about the year 1767, when the

British had taken over the Bengal provinces, the Newars were

conquered by a Rajput tribe from Cashmere, known as Ghorkas.

The Ghorka conquest of Nipal was as complete as the Norman

conquest of England. The Ghorkas established a military

despotism with Brahmanical institutions, and parcelled out the

country amongst feudal nobles known as Bharadars. … During

the early years of the 19th century the Ghorkas began to

encroach on British territory, annexing villages and revenues

from Darjeeling to Simla without right or reason. They were

obviously bent on extending their dominion southward to the

Ganges, and for a long time aggressions were overlooked for

the sake of peace. At last two districts were appropriated to

which the Ghorkas had not a shadow of a claim, and it was

absolutely necessary to make a stand against their

pretensions. Accordingly, Lord Minto sent an ultimatum to

Khatmandu, declaring that unless the districts were restored

they would be recovered by force of arms. Before the answer

arrived, Lord Minto was succeeded in the post of

Governor-General by Lord Moira, better known by his later

title of Marquis of Hastings. Lord Moira landed at Calcutta in

1813. Shortly after his arrival an answer was received from

the Ghorka government, that the disputed districts belonged to

Nipal, and would not be surrendered. Lord Moira at once fixed

a day on which the districts were to be restored; and when the

day had passed without any action being taken by the Ghorkas,

a British detachment entered the districts and set up police

stations. … The council of Bharadars resolved on war, but

they did not declare it in European fashion. A Ghorka army

suddenly entered the disputed districts, surrounded the police

stations, and murdered many of the constables, and then

returned to Khatmandu to await the action of the British

government in the way of reprisals. The war against the

Ghorkas was more remote and more serious than the wars against

the Mahrattas. … Those who have ascended the Himalayas to

Darjeeling or Simla may realise something of the difficulties

of an invasion of Nipal. The British army advanced in four

divisions by four different routes. … General David

Ochterlony, who advanced his division along the valley of the

Sutlej, gained the most brilliant successes. He was one of the

half-forgotten heroes of the East India Company. … For five

months in the worst season of the year he carried one fortress

after another, until the enemy made a final stand at Maloun on

a shelf of the Himalayas. The Ghorkas made a desperate attack

on the British works, but the attempt failed; and when the

British batteries were about to open fire, the Ghorka garrison

came to terms, and were permitted to march out with the

honours of war. The fall of Maloun shook the faith of the

Ghorka government in their heaven-built fortresses.

Commissioners were sent to conclude a peace. Nipal agreed to

cede Kumaon in the west, and the southern belt of forest and

jungle known as the Terai. It also agreed to receive a British

Resident at Khatmandu. Lord Moira had actually signed the

treaty, when the Ghorkas raised the question of whether the

Terai included the forest or only the swamp. War was renewed.

Ochterlony advanced an army within fifty miles of Khatmandu,

and then the Ghorkas concluded the treaty [1816], and the

British army withdrew from Nipal. The Terai, however, was a

bone of contention for many years afterwards. Nothing was said

about a subsidiary army, and to this day Nipal is outside the

pale of subsidiary alliances; but Nipal is bound over not to

take any European into her service without the consent of the

British government."

J. T. Wheeler,

India under British Rule,

chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

J. D. Cunningham,

History of the Sikhs,

chapters 5-6.

E. Thornton,

History of British Empire in India,

chapters 21-24 (volume 4).

INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.

Suppression of the Pindaris.

Overthrow of the Mahratta power.

The last of the Peshwas.

"For some time past the Pindaris, a vast brotherhood of

mounted freebooters, who were ready to fight under any

standard for the chance of unbounded plunder, had been playing

a more and more prominent part in the wars of native princes.

As Free Lances, they had fought for the Peshwa at Panipat, had

shared in the frequent struggles of the Sindhias and Holkars

in Hindustan and Southern India, and made war on their own

account with every native prince whose weakness at any moment

seemed to invite attack. … From the hills and glens of

Central India thousands of armed ruffians sallied forth year

after year in quest of plunder, sparing no cruelty to gain

their ends, and widening the circle of their ravages with each

new raid, until in 1811 the smoke of their camp-fires could be

seen from Gaya and Mirzapur. … To thwart Maratha intrigues

and punish Pindari aggressions was the Governor-General's next

aim. In spite of hindrances offered by his own council and the

Court of Directors, he set himself to revive and extend Lord

Wellesley's policy of securing peace and order throughout

India by means of treaties, which placed one native prince

after another in a kind of vassalage to the paramount power

that ruled from Fort William. … By means of a little timely

compulsion, the able and accomplished Elphinstone baffled for

a while the plots which the Peshwa, Baji Rao, and his

villainous accomplice, Trimbakji Danglia, had woven against

their English allies. The treaty of June, 1817, left Lord

Hastings master of Sagar and Bundalkhand, while it bound the

Peshwa to renounce his friend Trimbakji, his own claims to the

headship of the Maratha League, to make no treaties with any

other native prince, and to accept in all things the counsel

and control of the Company's Government. Hard as these terms

may seem, there was no choice, averred Lord Hastings, between

thus crippling a secret foe and depriving him of the crown he

had fairly forfeited. Meanwhile Lord Hastings' fearless energy

had already saved the Rajputs of Jaipur from further suffering

at the hands of their Pathan oppressor, Amir Khan, and forced

from Sindia himself a reluctant promise to aid in suppressing

the Pindari hordes, whose fearful ravages had at length been

felt by the peaceful villagers in the Northern Sarkars. In the

autumn of 1817 Hastings took the field at the head of an army

which, counting native contingents, mustered nearly 120,000

strong, with some 300 guns. From east, west, north, and south,

a dozen columns set forth to hunt down the merciless ruffians

who had so long been allowed to harry the fairest provinces of

India.

{1733}

In spite of the havoc wrought among our troops by the great

cholera outbreak of that year, and of a sudden rising among

the Maratha princes for one last struggle with their former

conquerors, our arms were everywhere successful against

Marathas and Pindaris alike. The latter, hunted into the hills

and jungles of Central India, found no safety anywhere except

in small bodies and constant flight … and the famous

robber-league passed into a tale of yore. Not less swift and

sure was the punishment dealt upon the Maratha leaders who

joined the Peshwa in his sudden uprising against the British

power. His late submission had been nothing but a mask for

renewed plottings. Elphinstone, however, saw through the mask

which had taken in the confiding Malcolm. Before the end of

October an English regiment, summoned in hot haste from

Bombay, pitched its camp at Kirki, about two miles from Puna,

beside the small Sepoy brigade already quartered there. In the

first days of November Baji Rao began to assume a bolder tone

as his plans grew ripe for instant execution. On the 5th, a

body of Marathas attacked and destroyed the Residency, which

Elphinstone had quitted in the nick of time. A great Maratha

army then marched forth to overwhelm the little garrison at

Kirki, before fresh troops could come up to its aid from

Sirur. Elphinstone, however, who knew his foe, had no idea of

awaiting the attack. Colonel Burr at once led out his men, not

3,000 all told. A brilliant charge of Maratha horse was

heavily repulsed by a Sepoy regiment, and the English steadily

advancing drove the enemy from the field. A few days later

General Smith, at the head of a larger force, advanced on

Puna, occupied the city, and pursued the frightened Peshwa

from place to place. The heroic defence of Karigaum, a small

village on the Bhima, by Captain Staunton and 800 Sepoys, with

only two light guns, against 25,000 Marathas during a whole

day, proved once more how nobly native troops could fight

under English leading. Happily for Staunton's weary and

diminished band, Smith came up the next morning, and the

desponding Peshwa continued his retreat. Turn where he would,

there was no rest for his jaded soldiers. Munro with a weak

force, partly of his own raising, headed him on his way to the

Carnatic, took several of his strong places, and drove him

northwards within reach of General Smith. On the 19th

February, 1818, that officer overtook and routed the flying

foe at the village of Ashti. Bapu Gokla, the Peshwa's

staunchest and ablest follower, perished in the field, while

covering the retreat of his cowardly master. For some weeks

longer Baji Rao fled hither and thither before his resolute

pursuers. But at length all hope forsook him as the circle of

escape grew daily narrower; and in the middle of May the

great-grandson of Balaji Vishwanath yielded himself to Sir

John Malcolm at Indor, on terms far more liberal than he had

any reason to expect. Even for the faithful few who still

shared his fortunes due provision was made at his request. He

himself spent the rest of his days a princely pensioner at

Bithur, near Cawnpore; but the sceptre which he and his sires

had wielded for a hundred years passed into English hands,

while the Rajah of Satara, the long-neglected heir of the

house of Sivaji, was restored to the nominal headship of the

Maratha power. Meanwhile Appa Sahib, the usurping Rajah of

Berar, had no sooner heard of the outbreak at Puna, than he,

too, like the Peshwa, threw off his mask. On the evening of

the 24th November, 1817, his troops, to the number of 18,000,

suddenly attacked the weak English and Sepoy force of 1,400

men with four guns, posted on the Sitabaldi Hills, outside

Nagpur. A terrible fight for eighteen hours ended in the

repulse of the assailants, with a loss to the victors of more

than 300 men and twelve officers. A few weeks later Nagpur

itself was occupied after another fight. Even then the Rajah

might have kept his throne, for his conquerors were merciful

and hoped the best. But they hoped in vain. It was not long

before Appa Sahib, caught out in fresh intrigues, was sent off

a prisoner towards Allahabad. Escaping from his captors, he

wandered about the country for several years, and died at

Lahor a pensioner on the bounty of Ranjit Singh. The house of

Holkar had also paid the penalty of its rash resistance to our

arms. … On the 6th January, 1818, the young Holkar was glad

to sign a treaty which placed him and his heirs under English

protection at the cost of his independence and of some part of

his realm. Luckily for himself, Sindia had remained quiet, if

not quite loyal, throughout this last struggle between the

English and his Maratha kinsfolk. Thus in one short and

decisive campaign, the great Maratha power, which had survived

the slaughter of Panipat, fell shattered to pieces by the same

blow which crushed the Pindaris, and raised an English

merchant-company to the paramount lordship of all India. The

last of the Peshwas had ceased to reign, the Rajah of Berar

was a discrowned fugitive, the Rajah of Satara a king only in

name, while Sindia, Holkar, and the Nizam were dependent

princes who reigned only by sufferance of an English

Governor-General at Calcutta. The Moghal Empire lingered only

in the Palace of Dehli; its former viceroy, the Nawab of Audh,

was our obedient vassal; the haughty princes of Rajputana

bowed their necks, more or less cheerfully, to the yoke of

masters merciful as Akbar and mightier than Aurangzib. Ranjit

Singh himself cultivated the goodwill of those powerful

neighbours who had sheltered the Sikhs of Sirhind from his

ambitious inroads. With the final overthrow of the Marathas a

new reign of peace, order, and general progress began for

peoples who, during a hundred and fifty years, had lived in a

ceaseless whirl of anarchy and armed strife. With the capture

of Asirgarh in April, 1819, the fighting in Southern India

came to an end."

L. J. Trotter,

History of India,

book 5, chapters 2-3.

ALSO IN:

W. M. Torrens,

Empire in Asia: How we came by it,

chapters 19-20.

J. G. Duff,

History of the Mahrattas,

volume 3, chapters 17-20.

Major Ross-of-Bladensburg,

The Marquess of Hastings,

chapters 4-7.

INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

The first Burmese War.

English acquisition of Assam and Aracan.

Suppression of Suttee and Thuggee.

Rechartering of the East India Company.

It is deprived of its last trading monopoly.

"On Hastings' retirement, in 1823, the choice of the ministry

fell upon Canning. … Canning ultimately resigning the

Governor-Generalship, the choice of the authorities fell upon

Lord Amherst. The new Governor-General reached India at a time

when the authorities in London had a right to expect a long

period of peace.

{1734}

In fact, both in Hindostan and in the Deccan, the victories of

Hastings had left the Company no more enemies to conquer.

Unfortunately, however, for the prospects of peace, nature,

which had given India an impenetrable boundary on the north,

had left her with an undefined and open frontier on the east.

On the shores of the Bay of Bengal, opposite Calcutta, a

struggle had raged during the eighteenth century between the

inhabitants of Ava and Pegu. The former, known as Burmans or

Burmese, had the good fortune to find a capable leader, who

rapidly ensured their own victory and founded a Burmese

Empire. The successful competitors were not satisfied with

their own predominance in Pegu—they conquered Aracan, they

overran Assam, and they wrested from Siam a considerable

territory on the Tenasserim coast. The conquest of Aracan

brought the Burmese to the confines of the Company's dominions

in Chittagong. The conquered people, disliking the severe rule

of the conquerors, crossed the frontier and settled in British

territory. Many of them used their new home as a secure basis

for hostile raids on the Burmese. … The river Naf ran for a

portion of its course between the possessions of the British

in Chittagong and those of the Burmese in Aracan. With the

object of preventing the repetition of outrages, which had

occurred on the river, a small British guard was stationed on

a little island, called Shaporee, near its mouth. The Burmese,

claiming the island as their own, attacked the guard and drove

it from the post. It was impossible to ignore such a

challenge. The island was reoccupied; but the

Governor-General, still anxious for peace, offered to treat

its occupation by the Burmese as an action unauthorised by the

Burmese Government. The Burmese Court, however, instead of

accepting this offer, sent an army to reoccupy the island;

collisions almost simultaneously occurred between the British

and the Burmese on other parts of the frontier, and in

February 1824 the first Burmese war began. … If the war of

1824 may be excused as inevitable, its conduct must be

condemned as careless. No pains were taken to ascertain the

nature of the country which it was requisite to invade, or the

strength of the enemy whom it was decided to encounter. …

Burma is watered by two great rivers, the Irawaddy and the

Salwen. … In its upper waters the Irawaddy is a rapid

stream; in its lower waters it flows through alluvial plains,

and finds its way through a delta with nine mouths into the

Bay of Bengal. On one of its western mouths is the town of

Bassein, on one of its eastern mouths the great commercial

port of Rangoon. The banks of the river are clothed with

jungle and with forest; and malaria, the curse of all

low-lying tropical lands, always lingers in the marshes. The

authorities decided on invading Burma through the Rangoon

branch of the river. They gave Sir Archibald Campbell, an

officer who had won distinction in the Peninsula, the command

of the expedition, and, as a preliminary measure, they

determined to seize Rangoon. Its capture was accomplished with

ease, and the Burmese retired from the town. But the victory

was the precursor of difficulty. The troops dared not advance

in an unhealthy season; the supplies which they had brought

with them proved insufficient for their support; and the men

perished by scores during their period of forced inaction. …

When more favourable weather returned with the autumn,

Campbell was again able to advance. Burma was then attacked

from three separate bases. A force under Colonel Richards,

moving along the valley of the Bramaputra, conquered Assam; an

expedition under General Morrison, marching from Chittagong,

occupied Aracan; while Campbell himself, dividing his army

into two divisions, one moving by water, the other by land,

passed up the Irawaddy and captured Donabue and Prome. The

climate improved as the troops ascended the river, and the hot

weather of 1825 proved less injurious than the summer of 1824.

… The operations in 1825-6 drove home the lesson which the

campaign of 1824-5 had already taught. The Burmese realised

their impotence to resist, and consented to accept the terms

which the British were still ready to offer them. Assam,

Aracan, and the Tenasserim Coast were ceded to the Company;

the King of Burma consented to receive a Resident at his

capital, and to pay a very large sum of

money—£1,000,000—towards the expenses of the war. … The

increasing credit which the Company thus acquired did not add

to the reputation of the Governor-General. … The Company

complained of the vast additions which his rule had made to

expenditure, and they doubted the expediency of acquiring new

and unnecessary territory beyond the confines of India itself.

The ministry thought that these acquisitions were opposed to

the policy which Parliament had laid down, and to the true

interests of the empire. It decided on his recall. … William

Bentinck, whom Canning selected as Amherst's successor, was no

stranger to Indian soil. More than twenty years before he had

served as Governor of Madras. … Bentinck arrived in Calcutta

in difficult times. Amherst's war had saddled the Government

with a debt, and his successor with a deficit. …

Retrenchment, in the opinion of every one qualified to judge,

was absolutely indispensable, and Bentinck, as a matter of

fact, brought out specific instructions to retrench. … In

two other matters … Bentinck effected a change which

deserves to be recollected with gratitude. He had the courage

to abolish flogging in the native Indian army; he had the

still higher courage to abolish suttee. … In Bengal the

suttee, or 'the pure and virtuous woman,' who became a widow,

was required to show her devotion to her husband by

sacrificing herself on his funeral pile. … Successive

Governors-General, whose attention had been directed to this

barbarous practice, had feared to incur the unpopularity of

abolishing it. … Cornwallis and Wellesley, Hastings and

Amherst, were all afraid to prohibit murder which was

identified with religion, and it was accordingly reserved to

Bentinck to remove the reproach of its existence. With the

consent of his Council, suttee was declared illegal. The

danger which others had apprehended from its prohibition

proved a mere phantom. The Hindoos complied with the order

without attempting to resist it, and the horrible rite which

had disgraced the soil of India for centuries became entirely

unknown. For these humane regulations Bentinck deserves to be

remembered with gratitude. Yet it should not be forgotten that

these reforms were as much the work of his age as of himself.

… One other great abuse was terminated under Bentinck.

{1735}

In Central India life was made unsafe and travelling dangerous

by the establishment of a secret band of robbers known as

Thugs. The Thugs mingled with any travellers whom they met,

disarmed them by their conversation and courtesy, and availed

themselves of the first convenient spot in their journey to

strangle them with a rope and to rob them of their money. The

burial of the victim usually concealed all traces of the

crime; the secrecy of the confederates made its revelation

unlikely; and, to make treachery more improbable, the Thugs

usually consecrated their murders with religious rites, and

claimed their god as the patron of their misdoings. Bentinck

selected an active officer, Major Sleeman, whom he charged to

put down Thuggee. Sleeman's exertions were rewarded by a

gratifying success. The Thugs, like all secret societies, were

assailable in one way. The first discovery of crime always

produces an approver. The timid conspirator, conscious of his

guilt, is glad to purchase his own safety by sacrificing his

associates, and when one man turns traitor every member of the

band is anxious to secure the rewards and immunity of

treachery. Hence the first clue towards the practices of the

Thugs led to the unveiling of the whole organisation; and the

same statesman, who had the merit of forbidding suttee,

succeeded in extirpating Thuggee from the dominions over which

he ruled. Social reforms of this character occupy the greater

portion of the history of Bentinck's government. In politics

he almost always pursued a policy of non-intervention. The

British during his rule made few additions to their

possessions; they rarely interfered in the affairs of Native

states. … The privileges which the East India, Company

enjoyed had from time to time been renewed by the British

Parliament. The charter of the Company had been extended for a

period of twenty years in 1773, in 1793, and in 1813. But the

conditions on which it was continued in 1813 were very

different from those on which it had been originally granted.

Instead of maintaining its exclusive right of trade,

Parliament decided on throwing open the trade with India to

all British subjects. It left the Company a monopoly of the

China trade alone. The Act of 1813 of course excited the

strenuous opposition of the Company. The highest authorities

were brought forward to prove that the trade with India would

not be increased by a termination of the monopoly. Their

views, however, were proved false by the result, and the stern

logic of facts consequently pointed in 1833 to the further

extension of the policy of 1813 [see CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842].

… The inclination towards free trade was, in fact, so

prevalent, that it is doubtful whether, even if the Tories had

remained in office, they would have consented to preserve the

monopoly. … The fall of the Wellington administration made

its termination a certainty [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833].

… The Government consented to compensate the Company for the

loss of its monopoly by an annuity of £630,000 charged on the

territorial revenues of India. It is a remarkable circumstance

that the change of ministry which deprived the Company of its

trade possibly preserved its political power for nearly a

quarter of a century. … The Whig ministry shrank from

proposing an alteration for which the country was not

prepared, and which might have aroused the opposition by which

the Coalition of 1783 had been destroyed. Though, however, it

left the rule with Leadenhall Street, it altered the machinery

of government. The Governor-General of Bengal was made

Governor-General of India. A fourth member—an English

jurist—was added to his Council, and the Governor-General in

Council was authorised to legislate for the whole of India. At

the same time the disabilities which still clung to the

natives were in theory swept away, and Europeans were for the

first time allowed to hold land in India. These important

proposals were carried at the close of the first session of

the first reformed Parliament."

S. Walpole,

History of England from 1815,

chapter 25 (volume 5).

ALSO IN:

J. W. Kaye,

Administration of the East India Company,

parts 3-4.

Sir C. Trevelyan,

The Thugs

(Edin. Review, January, 1837).

Illustrations of the History of the Thugs.

M. Taylor,

Confessions of a Thug, introduction.

D. C. Boulger,

Lord William Bentinck,

chapters 4-6.

INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845.

The first Afghan war and its catastrophe.

Conquest and annexation of Scinde.

Threatened trouble with the Sikhs.

"With the accession of Lord Auckland, Bentinck's successor,

began a new era in Anglo-Indian history, in which the

long-sown seeds of fresh political complications, which even

now seem as far from solution as ever, began to put forth

fruit. All danger from French ambition had passed away: but

Russian intrigue was busy against us. We had brought the

danger on ourselves. False to an alliance with Persia, which

dated from the beginning of the century, we had turned a deaf

ear to her entreaties for help against Russian aggression, and

had allowed her to fall under the power of her tyrant, who

thenceforth used her as an instrument of his ambition. The

result of our selfish indifference appeared in 1837, when

Persia, acting under Russian influence, laid siege to Herat,

which was then under Afghan rule. While Herat was still

holding out, the Shah was at last threatened with war, and

raised the siege. Then was the time for Auckland to destroy

the Russian danger once for all, by making a friend of the

power which seemed to be the natural barrier against invasion

from the north-west. After a long series of revolutions, Dost

Mahomed, the representative of the now famous tribe of

Baruckzyes, had established himself upon the throne, with the

warm approval of the majority of the people; while Shah Sooja,

the leader of the rival Suddozyes, was an exile. The ruling

prince did not wait for Auckland to seek his friendship. He

treated the Russian advances with contempt, and desired

nothing better than to be an ally of the English. Auckland was

urged to seize the opportunity. It was in his power to deal

Russia a crushing blow, and to avert those troubles which are

even now harassing British statesmen. He did not let slip the

opportunity. He flung it from him, and clutched at a policy

that was to bring misery to thousands of families in England,

in India, and in Afghanistan, and to prove disastrous to the

political interests of all three countries. … Those who are

least interested in Indian history are not likely to forget

how the Afghan mob murdered the British Envoy and his

associates; how the British commander, putting faith in the

chiefs of a people whom no treaties can bind, began that

retreat from which but one man escaped to tell how 16,000 had

perished; how poor Auckland, unmanned by the disaster, lacked

the energy to retrieve it; how the heroic Sale held out at

Jellalabad till Pollock relieved him; how Auckland's

successor, Lord Ellenborough, dreading fresh disasters,

hesitated to allow his generals to act till, yielding to their

indignant zeal, he threw upon them the responsibility of that

advance to Cabul which retrieved the lost prestige of our

arms.

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1838-1842, and 1842-1869.

{1736}

Thus closed the first act of a still unfinished drama. After

celebrating the triumph of the victorious army, Ellenborough

sent Charles Napier to punish the Ameers of Scinde [see

SCINDE], who, emboldened by the retreat from Cabul, had

violated a treaty which they had concluded with the British

Government. The result of the war was the annexation of the

country: but the whole series of transactions is only

remembered now as having given rise to the dispute on the

question of the guilt of the Ameers between Napier and James

Outram. Less talked of at the time, but historically more

important, was Ellenborough's reconstitution of the British

relations with the Sindia of the day. Political disturbances

had for some time agitated that prince's court, while his army

had swollen to a dangerous size, and, like the Sikh army since

Runjeet Singh's death, which had taken place a few years

before, had passed beyond the control of the civil power. In

these two armies Ellenborough saw a danger which might disturb

the peace of Hindostan. He foresaw that the Sikh soldiers,

released from the stern discipline of Runjeet Singh, would

soon force a government which they despised to let them cross

the Sutlej in quest of plunder. Two years later his character

as a prophet was vindicated; and, if he had not now, in

anticipation of the invasion which then took place, disbanded

the greater part of Sindia's army, and over-awed the remainder

by a native contingent under the command of British officers,

the Sikhs would probably have joined their forces with the

Mahrattas. … But the Directors took a different view of

their Governor-General's conduct of affairs. In June, 1844,

all India was astonished by the news that Ellenborough had

been recalled. He had helped to bring about his own downfall,

for in the controversies with his masters in which he, like

some of the ablest of his predecessors, had found himself

involved, he had shown an unfortunate want of discretion; but,

though by bombastic proclamations and a theatrical love of

display he had sometimes exposed himself to ridicule, many of

his subordinates felt that in him they had lost a vigorous and

able ruler. Sir Henry Hardinge, who was raised to the peerage

before the close of his administration, succeeded to the

office of Governor-General, and waited anxiously for the

breaking of the storm which his predecessor had seen

gathering. The Sikhs, the Puritans of India [see SIKHS], who

were not strictly speaking a nation, but a religious

brotherhood of warriors called the Khalsa, were animated by

two passions equally dangerous to the peace of those around

them, a fierce enthusiasm, half military, half religious, for

the glory of their order, and an insatiable desire for

plunder. By giving them full scope for the indulgence of these

passions, and by punishing all disobedience with merciless

severity, Runjeet Singh had governed his turbulent subjects

for forty years: but, when he died, they broke loose from all

control; and the weak Government of Lahore found that they

could only save their own capital from being plundered by the

Khalsa army by sending it to seek plunder in British

territory. Thus began the first Sikh war."

T. R. E. Holmes,

History of the Indian Mutiny,

chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

Sir L. Griffin,

Ranjit Singh.

L. J. Trotter,

The Earl of Auckland,

chapters 4-13.

INDIA: A. D. 1843.

Conquest of Scinde.

See SCINDE.

INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

The Sikh Wars.

Conquest and annexation of the Punjab.

"There had always been an expectation that whenever Runjeet

Singh died, there would be trouble with his soldiery; and it

soon appeared that some incursion was in contemplation, for

which the Sikh troops were prepared by an able European

training under French officers. While the strife about the

succession was going on in the Punjaub, the military element

of society there became supreme; and the government at

Calcutta considered it necessary to move troops to the

frontier to preserve peace, and reassure the inhabitants of

whole districts which dreaded the incursions of a haughty and

lawless soldiery. The Sikhs were alarmed at the approach of

English troops, and adopted the same course towards us that we

had tried with their western neighbours—they crossed the

frontier to forestall our doing it. Whether this move was a

device of the Sikh chiefs, as some say it was, to get rid of

the army, and perhaps to cause its destruction by the British,

and thus to clear the field for their own factions; or whether

war with the British was considered so inevitable that the

invasion of our territory was intended as a measure of

prudence, we need not here decide. The fact was that the Sikh

soldiery gathered round the tomb of Runjeet Singh, preparing

themselves for a great battle soon to happen; and that war was

virtually declared at Lahore in November, 1845, and fairly

begun by the troops crossing the Sutlej on the 11th of

December, and taking up a position near Ferozepore. The old

error prevailed in the British councils, the mistake denounced

by Charles Metcalfe as fatal—that of undervaluing the enemy.

The Sikhs had been considered unworthy to be opposed to the

Afghans in Runjeet's time; and now we expected to drive them

into the Sutlej at once; but we had never yet, in India, so

nearly met with our match. The battle of Moodkee was fought

under Sir Hugh Gough, on the 18th of December, and 'the

rabble' from the Punjaub astonished both Europeans and Sepoys

by standing firm, manœuvring well, and rendering it no easy

matter to close the day with honour to the English arms. This

ill-timed contempt was truly calamitous, as it had caused

miscalculations about ammunition, carriage, hospital-stores,

and everything necessary for a campaign. All these things were

left behind at Delhi or Agra; and the desperate necessity of

winning a battle was only enough barely to save the day. The

advantage was with the British in the battle of Moodkee, but

not so decisively as all parties had expected. After a

junction with reinforcements, the British fought the invaders

again on the 21st and 22nd, at Ferozeshur. On the first night

our troops were hardly masters of the ground they stood on,

and had no reserve, while their gallant enemy had large

reinforcements within reach.

{1737}

The next day might easily have been made fatal to the English

army, at times when their ammunition fell short; but the Sikhs

were badly commanded at a critical moment, then deserted by a

traitorous leader, and finally driven back. For a month after

this nothing was done by the British, and the Sikhs crossed

the Sutlej at their ease. The valour of Gough and of Hardinge,

who, while Governor-General, had put himself under the orders

of the Commander-in-Chief, had saved the honour of the

English; but their prestige was weakened among their own

Sepoys, and even the European regiments; much more among the

Sikhs; and most of all in the eyes of the vigilant surrounding

states. It was a matter of life and death now to bring up

guns, ammunition and treasure. A considerable portion fell

into the enemy's hands on the 21st of January, on its way to

the relief of Loodeeana; but the battle of Aliwal on the 28th

was again a true British fight. The Sikhs were driven into the

Sutlej; and as soon as they had collected in their stronghold

of Sobraon on the other side, they were driven thence by a

closing struggle on the 10th of February. The Sikhs were

beaten, with a slaughter of 5,000 (some say 8,000) men;

against 320 killed and 2,000 wounded on our side. The

Maharajah submitted, the road to Lahore lay open, and the

Governor-General could make his own terms. He flattered

himself that he had arranged a protectorate of the Punjaub

which would render annexation unnecessary; and all who could

believe in it rejoiced that means had been found to escape the

necessity of adding new conquests to a territory already much

too large. As the Punjaub could not pay its amount of tribute

to the Company, Cashmere and some other territory was accepted

instead, and given, as a kingdom, to Gholab Singh … on his

paying a portion of the debt, thus reimbursing the Company,

and lessening the overgrown power of the Punjaub rulers. When,

at the close of 1846, the English troops should be withdrawing

from Lahore, the Sikh chiefs begged that they might remain,

and take care of the Punjaub till the young Maharajah should

grow up to manhood."

H. Martineau,

British Rule in India,

chapter 20.

"Lord Hardinge entrusted the government of the Punjab to a

Council of Regency, consisting of Sikh nobles under the

guidance of Sir Henry Lawrence as British Resident. He refused

to create a subsidiary army, but he left a British force to

protect the government until the boy Dhuleep Singh reached his

majority. Two-thirds of the Sikh army of the Khalsa were

disbanded. The Jullunder Doab between the Sutlej and the Beyas

was added to the British empire. … Lord Dalhousie succeeded

Lord Hardinge in 1848. Shortly afterwards the Punjab was again

in commotion. Sikh government under British protection had

failed to keep the peace. The army of the Khalsa had

disappeared, but the old love of license and plunder was

burning in the hearts of the disbanded soldiery. The Sikh

governor of Multan revolted; two Englishmen were murdered. A

British force besieged the rebels in Multan. It was joined by

a Sikh force in the service of the Council of Regency

commanded by Shere Singh. So far the revolt at Multan was

regarded as a single outbreak which would be soon suppressed

by the capture of the fortress. In reality it was the

beginning of a general insurrection. Shere Singh, who

commanded the Sikh force in the besieging army, suddenly

deserted the British force and joined his father Chutter

Singh, who was already in open rebellion. The revolt was

secretly promoted by the queen mother, and spread over the

Punjab like wildfire. The old soldiers of the Khalsa rallied

round Shere Singh and his father. The half-and-half government

set up by Lord Hardinge was unable to cope with a revolution

which was restoring the old anarchy. In November, 1848, Lord

Gough advanced against the rebel army. Then followed the

famous campaign between the Chenab and Jhelum rivers about 100

miles to the north of Lahore. In January, 1849, Lord Gough

fought the dubious battle of Chillianwallah, near the spot

where Alexander the Great crossed the Jhelum and defeated the

army of Porus. Meanwhile Multan surrendered, and the besieging

force joined Lord Gough. In February the Sikh army was utterly

defeated at Gujerat."

J. T. Wheeler,

Indian History,

chapter 11.

"Gujrat was essentially a forenoon battle, with the whole day

before the combatants to finish their work. It commenced with

a magnificent duel of artillery; the British infantry

occupying post after post as they were abandoned by the enemy;

and the British cavalry breaking up the Sikh masses and

scattering them by pursuit. Of the sixty Sikh guns engaged,

fifty-three were taken. Lord Dalhousie resolved to make the

victory a final one. 'The war,' he declared, 'must be

prosecuted now to the entire defeat and dispersion of all who

are in arms against us, whether Sikhs or Afghans.' General

Gilbert hurried out with a pursuing force of 12,000, horse,

foot and artillery, the day after the battle. In the

breathless chase which followed across the plains of the

Punjab to the frontier mountain-wall, the Sikh military power

was destroyed for ever. On the 12th of March, 1849, General

Gilbert received the submission of the entire Sikh army at

Rawal Pindi, together with the last forty-one of the 160 Sikh

cannon captured by the British during the war. While the Sikh

army heaped up their swords and shields and matchlocks in

submissive piles, and salamed one by one as they passed

disarmed along the British line, their Afghan allies were

chased relentlessly westwards, and reached the safety of the

Khaibar Pass panting, and barely twenty miles in front of the

English hunters. The horsemen of Afghanistan, it was said,

'had ridden down through the hills like lions and ran back

into them like dogs.' The question remained what to do with

the Punjab. The victory of Sobraon in 1846 gave to Lord

Hardinge the right of conquest: the victory at Gujrat in 1849

compelled Lord Dalhousie to assert that right. Lord Hardinge

at the end of the first Punjab war in 1846, tried, as we have

seen, an intermediate method of ruling the province by British

officers for the benefit of the infant prince. This method had

failed. … In determining the future arrangements for the

Punjab, Lord Dalhousie had as his advisers the two Lawrences.

Sir Henry Lawrence, the former Resident at Lahore; hurried

back from his sick-leave in England on the breaking out of the

war. He was of opinion that the annexation of the Punjab might

perhaps be just, but that it would be inexpedient. His brother

John, afterwards Lord Lawrence, who had also acted as

Resident, although as much averse in general principle to

annexation as Henry, was convinced that, in this case,

annexation was not only just, but that its expediency was

'both undeniable and pressing.'

{1738}

Lord Dalhousie, after a full review of the efforts which had

been made to convert the Sikh nation into a friendly power

without annexation, decided that no course now remained to the

British Government but to annex. … The annexation of the

Punjab was deliberately approved of by the Court of Directors,

by Parliament, and by the English nation."

W. W. Hunter,

The Marquess of Dalhousie,

chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

Sir H. B. Edwardes and H. Merivale,

Life of Sir Henry Lawrence.

R. B. Smith,

Life of Lord Lawrence,

volume 1, chapters 7-11.

E. Arnold,

The Marquis of Dalhousie's Administration of British India,

volume 1, chapters 1-7.

H. B. Edwardes,

A Year on the Punjab Frontier, 1848-49.

Sir R. Temple,

Men and Events of My Time in India,

chapters 3-4.

INDIA: A. D. 1848-1856.

Lord Dalhousie's minor annexations.

The lapse of dependent Native States.

The case of Nana Sahib.

"In applying the doctrine of lapse to the Hindu chiefdoms, on

default of natural successors or of an heir legally adopted

with the sanction of the Ruling Power, Lord Dalhousie merely

carried out the declared law of the case, and the deliberately

formulated policy of the Government of India, years before he

arrived in the country. In so doing, however, Lord Dalhousie

became the unconscious but effective instrument by which the

old India of Lord Wellesley at the beginning of the century

was prepared for its conversion, in 1858, into the new India

of the Queen. … The fundamental question was whether we

should allow the government of a dependent State, in absence

of natural heirs, to pass like mere private property to an

adopted son. The Court of Directors had at one time permitted

the adoption of a successor in special cases to a principality

on failure of natural heirs. It declared, however, in 1834,

that such an 'indulgence should be the exception, not the

rule.' … As the evils of the old system of government by

sham royalties further developed themselves, the Government of

India determined in 1841 to enforce a more uniform policy. …

What Lord Dalhousie did, therefore, was not to invent a new

principle of Indian law, but to steadily apply an old

principle. … The first case in which this principle came to

be applied, shortly after Lord Dalhousie's arrival, was the

Native State of Satara. That Maratha principality had been

constituted by the British Government on the general break up

of the Maratha power in 1818, and confirmed to the 'sons and

heirs, and successors' of the recipient in 1819. In 1839 the

reigning prince was deposed for misconduct by the British

Government in the exercise of its Suzerain rights. By the same

rights the British Government then set up the brother of the

deposed prince on the throne. … The Raja, whom in 1839 we

had placed on the throne, applied for permission to adopt a

son. The British Government deliberately withheld the

permission; and in the last hours of his life the Raja, in

1848, hastily adopted a son without the consent of the

Government." Lord Dalhousie, with the advice of the Court of

Directors, declared in this case that the territory of Satara

had lapsed, on the death of the Raja, by failure of heirs, to

the Power which deposed, and it was annexed, accordingly, to

the British dominions. Under kindred circumstances the Native

States of Sambalpur, on the south-western frontier of Lower

Bengal, and Jhansi, a fragment of the Maratha dominions in

Northern India, were absorbed. "The same principle of lapse on

failure of heirs was applied by Lord Dalhousie to several

other dependent States. Jaitpur in Bundelkhand, Baghat a petty

hill Chiefdom of 36 square miles in the Punjab, Udaipur on the

Western frontier of Lower Bengal, and Budawal in Khandesh,

passed under direct British rule from this cause. The fort and

military fief of Tanjore were annexed after Lord Dalhousie's

departure from India, but practically on the grounds set forth

by his government. … By far the largest accession of

territory made during Lord Dalhousie's rule, to the British

dominions on the failure of heirs, was the great central tract

of India known as Nagpur. This Maratha principality as now

constituted into the Central Provinces, and after various

rectifications of frontier, has an area of 113,279 square

miles, with a population of 12,000,000 souls. The territories

annexed by Lord Dalhousie in 1854 make nearly four-fifths of

the present Central Provinces. … It is difficult to find any

ground for the charge which Mr. Kaye brought in 1865 against

Lord Dalhousie, for 'harshness' towards the man afterwards

known as the infamous Nana Sahib [see below: A. D. 1857

(MAY-AUGUST)]. As this charge, however, is still occasionally

repeated, and as it has even been suggested that Lord

Dalhousie was to some extent responsible for the Mutiny of

1857, in consequence of his action towards Nana Sahib in 1851,

I must briefly state the facts. In 1818, the Peshwa of the

Marathas, completely beaten in the field, threw himself on the

generosity of the British. Sir John Malcolm, then the

Governor-General's Agent in the Deccan, assured him of his

protection, and engaged that he should receive an allowance of

£80,000 a year for his support. … There could not be the

slightest pretension that it was ever anything more than a

personal annuity; and from first to last all mention of heirs

is carefully excluded. The records show that the ex-Peshwa,

Baji Rao, was well aware of this. Baji Rao lived until 1851,

leaving to his adopted son, Nana Sahib, an immense fortune

admitted to amount to £280,000, and believed by the Government

of the North-western Provinces to greatly exceed that sum. The

Government of India at once acknowledged the adopted son's

title to this splendid heritage, and out of its own

beneficence added to it the Jaghir, or grant of land, on which

his father had resided in the North-western Provinces. But the

pension, paid out of the tax-payers' pockets, lapsed upon the

death of the annuitant."

Sir W. W. Hunter,

The Marquess of Dalhousie,

chapters 6-7.

Duke of Argyll,

India under Dalhousie and Canning.

INDIA: A. D. 1849-1893.

The life in exile of Dhuleep Singh, heir to the Sikh throne.

"Few careers have ever been more instructive to those who can

see than that of the Maharajah Dhuleep Singh, who died in

Paris on Sunday [October 22, 1893] of apoplexy. He finished

life a despised exile, but no man of modern days ever had such

chances, or had seen them snatched, partly by fate, partly by

fault, so completely from his lips. But for an accident, if

there is such a thing as accident, he would have been the

Hindoo Emperor of India.

{1739}

His father, Runjeet Singh, that strange combination of Louis

XI. and Charles the Bold, had formed and knew how to control

an army which would have struck down all the native powers of

India much more easily than did any of the Tartar conquerors.

Without its master at its head, that army defeated the

British, and but for a magnificent bribe paid to its General

(vide Cunningham's 'History of the Sikhs') would have driven

the English from India, and placed the child, Dhuleep Singh,

upon the throne of the Peninsula, to be supported there by

Sikh and Rajpoot, Mahratta, and Beharee. Apart from the

English, there was nothing to resist them; and they were

guided by a woman, the Ranee Chunda Kour; who of all modern

women was most like Mary of Scots as her enemies have painted

her, and of whom, after her fall, Lord Dalhousie said that her

capture would be worth the sacrifice of a brigade. How Dhuleep

Singh would have reigned had Runjeet Singh's destiny completed

itself is another matter—probably like a Hindoo Humayoon—for

even if not the son of Runjeet Singh, who, be it remembered,

acknowledged him, he inherited ability from his mother; he was

a bold man, and he was, as his career showed, capable of wild

and daring adventure. He fell, however, from his throne under

the shock of the second Sikh War, and began a new and, to all

appearance, most promising career. Lord Dalhousie had a pity

for the boy, and the English Court—we never quite understood

why—an unusually kindly feeling. A fortune of £40,000 a year

was settled on him, he was sent to England, and he was granted

rank hardly less than that of a Prince of the Blood. He turned

Christian—apparently from conviction, though subsequent

events throw doubt on that—a tutor, who was quite competent,

devoted himself to his education, and from the time he became

of age he was regarded as in all respects a great English

noble. He knew, too, how to sustain that character,—made no

social blunders, became a great sportsman, and succeeded in

maintaining for years the sustained stateliness of life which

in England is held to confer social dignity. Confidence was

first shaken by his marriage, which, though it did not turn

out unsuccessfully, and though the lady was in after-life

greatly liked and respected, was a whim, his bride being a

half Coptic, half English girl whom he saw in an Egyptian

school-room, and who, by all English as well as Indian ideas

of rank, was an unfitting bride. Then he began over-spending,

without the slightest necessity, for his great income was

unburdened by a vast estate; and at last reduced his finances

to such a condition that the India Office, which had made him

advance after advance, closed its treasury and left him, as he

thought, face to face with ruin. Then the fierce Asiatic blood

in him came out. He declared himself wronged, perhaps believed

himself oppressed, dropped the whole varnish of civilisation

from him, and resolved to make an effort for the vengeance

over which he had probably brooded for years. He publicly

repudiated Christianity, and went through a ceremony intended

to readmit him within the pale of the Sikh variety of the

Hindoo faith. Whether it did readmit him, greater doctors than

we must decide. That an ordinary Hindoo who has eaten beef

cannot be readmitted to his own caste, even if the eating is

involuntary, is certain, as witness the tradition of the

Tagore family; but the rights of the Royal are, even in

Hindooism, extraordinarily wide, and we fancy that, had

Dhuleep Singh succeeded in his enterprise, Sikh doctors of

theology would have declared his re-admission legal. He did

not, however, succeed. He set out for the Punjab intending, it

can hardly be doubted, if the Sikhs acknowledged him, to make

a stroke for the throne, if not of India, at least of Runjeet

Singh; but he was arrested at Aden, and after months of fierce

dispute, let go, on condition that he should not return to

India. He sought protection in Russia, which he did not

obtain, and at last gave up the struggle, made his peace with

the India Office, took his pension again, and lived, chiefly

in Paris, the life of a disappointed but wealthy idler. There

was some spirit in his adventure, though it was unwisely

carried out. The English generally thought it a bit of

foolhardiness, or a dodge to extract a loan from the India

Office; but those who were responsible held a different

opinion, and would have gone nearly any length to prevent his

reaching the Punjab. They were probably wise. The heir of

Runjeet might have been ridiculed by the Sikhs as a Christian,

but he might also have been accepted as a reconverted man; and

one successful skirmish in a district might have called to

arms all the 'children of the sugar and the sword,' and set

all India on fire. The Sikhs are our very good friends, and

stood by us against any revival of the Empire of Delhi, their

sworn hereditary foe; but they have not forgotten Runjeet

Singh, and a chance of the Empire for themselves might have

turned many of their heads."

The Spectator,

October 28, 1893.

INDIA: A. D. 1852.

The second Burmese War.

Annexation of Pegu.

"While Lord Dalhousie was laying out the Punjab like a Scotch

estate, on the most approved principles of planting,

road-making, culture, and general management, the chance of

another conquest at the opposite extremity of his vice-kingdom

summoned him to Calcutta. The master of a trading barque from

Chittagong, who was charged unjustly with cruelty to a pilot,

had been fined £100 by the authorities of Rangoon, and the

captain of a brig had in like manner been amerced for alleged

ill-treatment of his crew. To support a claim for restitution,

two English ships of war had been sent to the mouth of the

Irrawadi. … Misunderstandings arose on some inexplicable

point of etiquette;" the British commodore seized a royal

yacht which lay in the river; the angry Burmese opened fire on

his ships from their forts; and, "with an unprecedented

economy of time and trouble in the discovery or making of

plausible pretexts, a second war with Burmah was thus begun. A

long catalogue of affronts, wrongs, and injuries, now for the

first time poured in. … The subjects of the 'Golden Foot'

… must make an official apology for their misbehaviour, pay

ten lacs compensation, and receive a permanent Resident at

Rangoon. If these demands were not met within five weeks,

further reparation would be exacted otherwise, and as there

was no fear that they would, preparations were made for an

expedition. … The Governor-General threw himself with

enthusiasm into an undertaking which promised him another

chance of gratifying, as his biographer says, his 'passion for

imperial symmetry.'

{1740}

He resolved 'to take in kingdoms wherever they made a gap in

the red line running round his dominions or broke its internal

continuity.' There was a gap in the ring-fence between Arracan

and Moulmein, which Pegu would fill. The logical inference was

clear, the duty of appropriation obvious. Let us have Pegu.

Ten millions of silver happening just then to lie in the

coffers of Fort William, how could they be better invested

than in a jungle on the sea coast, inhabited by quadrupeds and

bipeds after their various kinds, alike unworthy of being

consulted as to their future destiny? … In April, Martaban

and Rangoon were taken with trifling loss. Operations being

suspended during the rainy season, the city of Prome was not

attacked till October, and after a few hours' struggle it

fell, with the loss of a single sepoy on the side of the

victors. There was in fact no serious danger to encounter,

save from the climate; but that unfailing ally fought with

terrible effect upon the side of Ava. … On the 20th

December, 1852, a proclamation was issued, which, after

reciting undisguisedly the ineffably inadequate pretext for

the war, informed the inhabitants that the Governor in Council

had resolved that the maritime province of Pegu should

henceforth form a portion of the British territories in the

East, and warning the King of Ava, 'should he fail to renew

his former relations of friendship with the British

Government, and seek to dispute its quiet possession of the

province, the Governor-General would again put forth the power

he held, which would lead to the total subversion of the

Burman State, and to the ruin and exile of the King and his

race.' But no depth of humiliation could bring the Sovereign

or his Ministers to acknowledge the hopelessness of defeat or

the permanency of dismemberment. … Twenty years have passed,

and no treaty recognising the alienation of Pegu has yet [in

1872] been signed."

W. M. Torrens,

Empire in Asia: How we came by it,

chapter 24.

ALSO IN:

E. Arnold,

The Marquis of Dalhousie's Administration of British India,

chapters 15-16 (volume 2).

INDIA: A. D. 1856.

The annexation of Oudh.

See OUDH.

INDIA: A. D. 1857.

Causes of the Sepoy Mutiny.

"The various motives assigned for the Mutiny appear inadequate

to the European mind. The truth seems to be that Native

opinion throughout India was in a ferment, predisposing men to

believe the wildest stories, and to rush into action in a

paroxysm of terror. Panic acts on an Oriental population like

drink upon a European mob. The annexation policy of Lord

Dalhousie, although dictated by the most enlightened

considerations, was distasteful to the Native mind. The spread

of education, the appearance at the same moment of the

steam-engine and the telegraph wire, seemed to reveal a deep

plan for substituting an English for an Indian civilisation.

The Bengal sepoys especially thought that they could see

further than the rest of their countrymen. Most of them were

Hindus of high caste; many of them were recruited from Oudh.

They regarded our reforms on Western lines as attacks on their

own nationality, and they knew at first hand what annexation

meant. They believed it was by their prowess that the Punjab

had been conquered, and that all India was held. The numerous

dethroned princes, or their heirs and widows, were the first

to learn and to take advantage of this spirit of disaffection

and panic. They had heard of the Crimean war, and were told

that Russia was the perpetual enemy of England. Our munificent

pensions had supplied the funds with which they could buy the

aid of skilful intriguers. They had much to gain, and little

to lose, by a revolution. In this critical state of affairs,

of which the Government had no official knowledge, a rumour

ran through the cantonments that the cartridges of the Bengal

army had been greased with the fat of pigs,—animals unclean

alike to Hindu and Muhammadan. No assurances could quiet the

minds of the sepoys. Fires occurred nightly in the Native

lines; officers were insulted by their men; confidence was

gone, and only the form of discipline remained. In addition,

the outbreak of the storm found the Native regiments denuded

of many of their best officers. The administration of the

great empire to which Dalhousie put the corner-stone, required

a larger staff than the civil service could supply. The

practice of selecting able military men for civil posts, which

had long existed, received a sudden and vast development.

Oudh, the Punjab, the Central Provinces, British Burma, were

administered to a large extent by picked officers from the

Company's regiments. Good and skilful commanders remained; but

the Native army had nevertheless been drained of many of its

brightest intellects and firmest wills at the very crisis of

its fate."

W. W. Hunter,

Brief History of the Indian People,

chapter 15.

"The annexation of Oudh had nothing to do with the Mutiny in

the first place, though that measure certainly did add to the

number of our enemies after the Mutiny commenced. The old

government of Oudh was extremely obnoxious to the mass of our

native soldiers of the regular army, who came from Oudh and

the adjacent province of Behar, and with whom the Mutiny

originated. These men were the sons and kinsmen of the Hindu

yeomen of the country, all of whom benefited more or less by

annexation; while Oudh was ruled by a Muhammadan family which

had never identified itself with the people, and whose

government was extremely oppressive to all classes except its

immediate creatures and followers. But when the introduction

of the greased cartridges had excited the Native Army to

revolt, when the mutineers saw nothing before them short of

escape on the one hand or destruction on the other, they, and

all who sympathised with them, were driven to the most

desperate measures. All who could be influenced by love or

fear rallied round them. All who had little or nothing to lose

joined their ranks. All that dangerous class of religious

fanatics and devotees who abound in India, all the political

intriguers, who in peaceful times can do no mischief, swelled

the numbers of the enemy, and gave spirit and direction to

their measures. India is full of races of men, who, from time

immemorial, have lived by service or by plunder, and who are

ready to join in any disturbance which may promise them

employment. Oudh was full of disbanded soldiers who had not

had time to settle down. Our gaols furnished thousands of

desperate men let loose on society. The cry throughout the

country, as cantonment after cantonment became the scene of

triumphant mutiny was, 'The English rule is at an end. Let us

plunder and enjoy ourselves.' The industrious classes

throughout India were on our side, but for a long time feared

to act.

{1741}

On the one side they saw the few English in the country shot

down or flying for their lives, or at the best standing on the

defensive, sorely pressed; on the other side they saw summary

punishment, in the shape of the plunder and destruction of

their houses, dealt out to those who aided us. But when we

evinced signs of vigour, when we began to assume the offensive

and vindicate our authority, many of these people came forward

and identified themselves with our cause."

Lord Lawrence,

Speech at Glasgow, 1860 (quoted by Sir O. T. Burne,

in "Clyde and Strathnairn," chapter 1).

ALSO IN:

J. W. Kaye,

History of the Sepoy War in India,

book 2 (volume 1).

G. B. Malleson,

The Indian Mutiny of 1857,

chapters 1-5.

INDIA: A. D. 1857 (May).

The outbreak at Meerut.

Seizure of Delhi by the Mutineers.

Massacre of Europeans.

Explosion of the magazine.

"The station of Meerut, some 40 miles north-east of Delhi, was

one of the very few in India where adequate means existed for

quelling an outbreak of native troops. There was a regiment of

English Dragoons, a battalion of the 60th Rifles, and a strong

force of Horse and Foot Artillery, far more than sufficient to

deal with the three native regiments who were also quartered

in the cantonment. The court-martial on … eighty-five men of

the 3rd N. C., who had refused to take their cartridges, had

by this time completed its inquiry. The men were sentenced to

long terms of imprisonment. The sentence was carried out with

impressive solemnity. On a morning [May 9] presently to become

historical—the heavens sombre with rolling clouds—the

brigade assembled to hear their comrades' doom—to see them

stripped of their uniform and secured with felons' manacles.

The scene produced intense emotion. Resistance was impossible.

There were entreaties, tears, imprecations, as the prisoners

were marched away to jail. Discipline had been vindicated by a

terrible example. The next day was Sunday. In the evening, as

the European Riflemen were gathering for Church, a sudden

movement took place in the native quarters. The Cavalry dashed

off to the jail to rescue their imprisoned companions. The two

Infantry regiments, after a moment's wavering, threw in their

lot with the mutineers. Then ensued a scene such as,

unhappily, became too familiar in Upper India within the next

few weeks. Officers were shot, houses fired, Europeans—men,

women, and children, wherever found, were put to the sword. A

crowd of miscreants from the jail, suddenly set free, made a

long night of pillage. Meanwhile, paralysed by the sudden

catastrophe, the English General of the Division and the

Brigadier of the Station forbore to act, refused to let their

subordinates act, and the Sepoys who had fled, a disorganised

mob, in different directions, soon found themselves gathering

on the march for Delhi. In the early morning at Delhi, where

courts and offices had already begun the day's work, a line of

horsemen were descried galloping on the Meerut road. They

found their way into the city, into the presence of the King;

cut down the European officials, and, as they were gradually

reinforced by the arrival of fresh companions, commenced a

general massacre of the Christian population. A brave

telegraph clerk, as the mutineers burst in upon him, had just

time to flash the dreadful tidings to Lahore. Before evening,

the native regiments fired upon their officers and joined the

mutineers. After weary hours of hope for the help from Meerut

which never came, the British officers in command were

compelled to recognise that the only chance of safety lay in

flight. Ere the day closed, every European who had risen that

morning in Delhi, was dead, or awaiting death, or wandering

about the country in the desperate endeavor to reach a place

of safety. A day dark with disaster was, however, illumined by

the first of those heroic acts which will make the siege of

Delhi immortal. The insurgents had their first taste of the

quality of the race whose ascendancy they had elected to

assail. Lieutenant Willoughby, the officer in charge of the

Magazine, and eight gallant companions, resolved, early in the

day, that, if they could not defend their invaluable supply of

ammunition, they would destroy it, though its destruction

would almost certainly involve their own. For hours they

defended their stronghold against an overpowering crowd of

assailants. The train was laid: the sergeant who was to fire

it stood ready: Willoughby took a last look out upon the

Meerut road: the assailants were swarming on the walls. The

word was spoken: a vast column of flame and smoke shot upward.

Two thousand of the assailants were blown into the air [and

five of the defenders perished, while Willoughby and three of

his companions escaped]. The thunder of that explosion

announced to the mutineers that one great object in the

seizure of Delhi had escaped their grasp."

H. S. Cunningham,

Earl Canning,

chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

J. W. Kaye,

History of the Sepoy War in India,

book 4, chapters 1-3 (volume 2).

INDIA: A. D. 1857 (May-August).

The situation at Delhi.

Siege of the English at Cawnpur.

Their surrender and massacre.

The siege of Lucknow.

"A few days of inactivity allowed the flame to blaze up beyond

possibility of immediate extinction. The unchallenged

occupation of the Mughal capital by rebel sepoys and badmashes

was followed by risings and massacres in almost every station

within range of the example; and from Firozpur, Bareilly,

Moradabad, Shahjahanpur, Cawnpur, and numerous other places

came harrowing tales of massacre, suffering, and heroism. When

this terrible news reached army head-quarters, it was received

with a perhaps natural incredulity. Nevertheless, a force was

hastily assembled at Ambala; and with the troops thus

mobilised, General Anson, then Commander-in-Chief, made

preparations to march against the renowned city of the Mughal.

The little force had hardly started, however, when its leader

died of cholera (May 27th). It was not until the 1st of June

that General Barnard, who had succeeded temporarily to the

chief command, advanced in earnest against the now jubilant

rebels. Meanwhile, a small body of troops under Brigadier

Archdale Wilson marched out from Meerut, after a disastrous

delay; and the combined force, amounting to about 3,000

Europeans and one battalion of Gurkhas, fought its way onwards

till it reached the outskirts of the city on the 8th of June,

1857. We may now refer to the three great points,—Delhi,

Cawnpur, and Lucknow, round which the Mutiny was, so to speak,

centred during the earlier period of the revolt; namely, from

May, 1857, till the arrival in India of Sir Colin Campbell in

August of that year.

{1742}

The modern city of Delhi was founded by the Emperor Jahangir

in 1631. Situated on the right bank of a branch of the Jumna

river it was, as it still is, surrounded by a high wall some

seven miles in extent, strengthened by bastions and by a

capacious dry ditch. The British force held the elevated

ground known as the Ridge, which extends two miles along the

northern and western faces of the city—a position taken up

some centuries before by Timur Shah and his Tartar hordes when

advancing to attack old Delhi. At intervals along the Ridge

stood the Flagstaff Tower, the Observatory, a large mansion

called Hindu Rao's house, and other defensible buildings. The

space between the city and the Ridge was thickly planted, for

the most part with trees and shrubs; in the midst of which

might be seen numerous mosques and large houses, and the ruins

of older buildings. It soon became evident that the position

held by the British force on the Ridge was a false one; and

the question arose whether the city might not be taken by a

coup de main, seeing that it was impossible either to invest

it or to attempt a regular siege with any chance of success. A

plan of assault, to be carried out on the 12th of June, was

drawn up by a young Engineer officer and sanctioned. Had this

assault been delivered the city would in all likelihood have

been taken and held. … But owing to a series of accidents,

the plan fell through—a miscarriage the more to be regretted

because the early recapture of the city would in all human

probability have put a stop to further outbreaks. As matters

stood, however, the gallant little force before Delhi could

barely hold its own. It was an army of observation perpetually

harassed by an active enemy. As time went on, therefore, the

question of raising the siege in favour of a movement towards

Agra was more than once seriously discussed, but was

fortunately abandoned. On July 5th, 1857, General Barnard

died, worn out with fatigue and anxiety. He was succeeded in

command by General Archdale Wilson, an officer who, possessing

no special force of character, did little more than secure the

safe defence of the position until the arrival of Brigadier

Nicholson from the Punjab, August 14th, 1857, with a moveable

column of 2,500 men, Europeans and Sikhs. And here we may

leave Delhi, for the moment, deferring till later any further

details of the siege. The city of Cawnpur, situated on the

south bank of the river Ganges, 42 miles south-west of Lucknow

and 270 miles from Delhi, lies about a mile from the river in

a large sandy plain. On the strip of land between the river

and the town, a space broken by ravines, stretched the Civil

Station and cantonments. A more difficult position to hold in

an extremity cannot well be conceived, occupied as it was by

four disaffected Sepoy regiments with but sixty European

artillerymen to overawe them. There was, moreover, an

incompetent commander. Realising after the disasters at Meerut

and Delhi that his native garrison was not to be trusted, Sir

Hugh Wheeler threw up a make-shift entrenchment close to the

Sepoy lines. Commanded on all sides, it was totally unfitted

to stand a siege. But a worse mistake was to follow. Alarmed

as time went on at his growing difficulties, Sir Hugh Wheeler

at length asked the notorious Nana Sahib [see above: A. D.

1848-1856], who lived a few miles off at Bithur, to assist him

with troops to guard the Treasury. For some months previously

this archtraitor's emissaries had been spreading discontent

throughout India, but he himself had taken care to remain on

good terms with his European neighbours. He now saw his

opportunity. Cawnpur, delivered into his hands by the

misplaced confidence of its defenders, was virtually in his

keeping. Of European succour there was no immediate hope. The

place was doomed. The crash came three days before General

Barnard's force reached Delhi. With the exception of a few

devoted natives who remained faithful to their salt, the whole

Sepoy force on the 5th of June rose in revolt, opened the

doors of the jail, robbed the treasury, and made themselves

masters of the magazine. The Nana cast aside all further

pretence of friendship and, joined by the mutinous troops,

laid siege to the entrenchment already mentioned, which with

culpable military ignorance had been thrown up in one of the

worst positions that could have been chosen. The besieging

army numbered some 3,000 men. The besieged could only muster

about 400 English soldiers, more than 70 of which number were

invalids. For twenty-one days the little garrison suffered

untold horrors from starvation, heat, and the onslaughts of

the rebels; until the General in command listened to overtures

for surrender, and the garrison marched out on the 27th of

June, to the number of about 450 souls, provided with a

promise of safeguard from the Nana, who would allow them, as

they thought, to embark in country boats for Allahabad. Tantia

Topi, who afterwards became notorious in Central India,

superintended the embarkation. No sooner, however, were the

Europeans placed in the boats, in apparent safety, than a

battery of guns concealed on the river banks opened fire,

while at the same time a deadly fusillade of musketry was

poured on the luckless refugees. The Nana at length ordered

the massacre to cease. He celebrated what he called his

glorious victory by proclaiming himself Peshwa or Maratha

Sovereign, and by rewarding his troops for their 'splendid

achievements,' while the wretched survivors of his treachery,

numbering about 5 men and 206 women and children, were taken

back to Cawnpur and confined in a small building for further

vengeance and insult. On the 15th of July came the last act of

this tragedy. The Nana, having suffered a crushing defeat at

the hands of Brigadier Havelock's force within a day's march

of Cawnpur, as will presently be recorded, put the whole of

his prisoners to death. The men were brought out and killed in

his presence, while the women and children were hacked to

pieces by Muhammadan butchers and others in their prison.

Their bodies were thrown into what is now known as the

Cawnpur Well.' Lucknow, at the time of the Mutiny, was in

population, in extent, and in the number and importance of its

principal buildings, one of the foremost cities of India. …

The Residency stood on a hill gently sloping towards the

river, and was an imposing edifice of three stories. Near it

were the iron and stone bridges over the river. … At the

outbreak of the Mutiny the Sepoy regiments were stationed in

various localities within the city; while the 32nd Foot, the

only European regiment on the spot, was quartered in a barrack

about a mile or so from the Residency.

{1743}

As was the case elsewhere, so it happened at Lucknow. While

the population and native garrison were seething with

sedition, the British authorities were hampered by ignorance

of popular feeling, by the want of European troops, and by

divided counsels. So, by the end of May, 1857, the rebellion

in Oudh became an accomplished fact, although matters went on

with comparative smoothness in Lucknow itself. At length,

after a serious disaster at Chinhat, the British garrison was

forced to withdraw to the Residency and its adjacent

buildings; and on the 1st of July commenced the famous

investment of this position by the rebel forces. The position

was ill adapted for defence; for the lofty windows of the

Residency itself not only allowed free access to the enemy's

missiles, but its roof was wholly exposed. On the opposite

side of the street, leading from the Bailey Guard Gate, was

the house of the Residency Surgeon, Dr. (now Sir Joseph)

Fayrer. It was a large but not lofty building with a flat roof

which, protected by sand bags, afforded a good cover for our

riflemen, and with a tyekhana, or underground story, that

afforded good shelter for the women and children. But as a

whole, the defences of the Residency were more formidable in

name than in reality, and were greatly weakened by the

proximity of high buildings from which the rebels without

danger to themselves poured an unceasing fire. The siege had

an ominous commencement. On July 4th the much-beloved Sir

Henry Lawrence, the Resident, died of a wound received two

days before from an enemy's shell that had fallen into his

room. Brigadier Inglis succeeded him in command; and for three

months the heroic garrison of about 1,700 souls held their

weak position, amid inconceivable hardships and dangers,

against thousands of the rebels who were constantly reinforced

by fresh levies. It was well said in a general order by Lord

Canning that there could not be found in the annals of war an

achievement more heroic than this defence."

General Sir O. T. Burne,

Clyde and Strathnairn,

chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

J. W. Kaye,

History of the Sepoy War,

book 9, chapters 1-3 (volume 3).

G. O. Trevelyan,

Cawnpore.

T. R. E. Holmes,

History of the Indian Mutiny,

chapters 8-10.

Lady Inglis,

The Siege of Lucknow.

INDIA: A. D. 1857 (June-September).

The siege, the storming and the capture of Delhi.

Murder of the Moghul princes.

"During the four months that followed the revolt at Delhi on

the 11th of May, all political interest was centred at the

ancient capital of the sovereigns of Hindustan. The public

mind was occasionally distracted by the current of events at

Cawnpore and Lukhnow, as well as at other stations which need

not be particularised; but so long as Delhi remained in the

hands of the rebels, the native princes were bewildered and

alarmed; and its prompt recapture was deemed of vital

importance to the prestige of the British government, and the

re-establishment of British sovereignty in Hindustan. The

Great Moghul had been little better than a mummy for more than

half a century, and Bahadur Shah was a mere tool and puppet in

the hands of rebel sepoys; but nevertheless the British

government had to deal with the astounding fact that the

rebels were fighting under his name and standard, just as

Afghans and Mahrattas had done in the days of Ahmad Shah

Durani and Mahadaji Sindia. To make matters worse, the roads

to Delhi were open from the south and east; and nearly every

outbreak in Hindustan was followed by a stampede of mutineers

to the old capital of the Moghuls. Meanwhile, in the absence

of railways, there were unfortunate delays in bringing up

troops and guns to stamp out the fires of rebellion at the

head centre. The highway from Calcutta to Delhi was blocked up

by mutiny and insurrection; and every European soldier sent up

from Calcutta was stopped for the relief of Benares,

Allahabad, Cawnpore, or Lukhnow. But the possession of the

Punjab at this crisis proved to be the salvation of the

empire. Sir John Lawrence, the Chief Commissioner, was called

upon to perform almost superhuman work:—to maintain order in

a newly conquered province; to suppress mutiny and

disaffection amongst the very sepoy regiments from Bengal who

were supposed to garrison the country; and to send

reinforcements of troops and guns, and supplies of all

descriptions, to the siege of Delhi. Fortunately the Sikhs had

been only a few short years under British administration; they

had not forgotten the miseries that prevailed under the native

government, and could appreciate the many blessings they

enjoyed under British rule. They were staunch to the British

government, and eager to be led against the rebels. In some

cases terrible punishment was meted out to mutinous Bengal

sepoys within the Punjab; but the imperial interests at stake

were sufficient to justify every severity, although all must

regret the painful necessity that called for such extreme

measures. … The defences of Delhi covered an area of three

square miles. The walls consisted of a series of bastions,

about sixteen feet high, connected by long curtains, with

occasional martello towers to aid the flanking fire. … There

were seven gates to the city, namely, Lahore gate, Ajmir gate,

Turkoman gate, Delhi gate, Mori gate, Kabul gate, and Kashmir

gate. The principal street was the Chandni Chouk, which ran in

a direct line from the Delhi gate to the palace of the

Moghuls. … For many weeks the British army on the Ridge was

unable to attempt siege operations. It was, in fact, the

besieged, rather than the besiegers; for, although the bridges

in the rear were blown up, the camp was exposed to continual

assaults from all the other sides. On the 23rd of June, the

hundredth anniversary of the battle of Plassy, the enemy made

a greater effort than ever to carry the British position. The

attack began on the right from the Subzi Mundi, its object

being to capture the Mound battery. Finding it impossible to

carry the battery, the rebels confined themselves to a hand to

hand conflict in the Subzi Mundi. The deadly struggle

continued for many hours; and as the rebels came up in

overwhelming numbers, it was fortunate that the two bridges in

the rear had been blown up the night before, or the assault

might have had a different termination. It was not until after

sunset that the enemy was compelled to retire with the loss of

a thousand men. Similar actions were frequent during the month

of August; but meanwhile reinforcements were coming up, and

the end was drawing nigh. In the middle of August, Brigadier

John Nicholson, one of the most distinguished officers of the

time, came up from the Punjab with a brigade and siege train.

On the 4th of September a heavy train of artillery was brought

in from Ferozepore.

{1744}

The British force on the Ridge now exceeded 8,000 men.

Hitherto the artillery had been too weak to attempt to breach

the City walls; but now fifty-four heavy guns were brought

into position and the siege began in earnest. From the 8th to

the 12th of September four batteries poured in a constant

storm of shot and shell; number one was directed against the

Kashmir bastion, number two against the right flank of the

Kashmir bastion, number three against the Water bastion, and

number four against the Kashmir and Water gates and bastions.

On the 13th of September the breaches were declared to be

practicable, and the following morning was fixed for the final

assault upon the doomed city. At three o'clock in the morning

of the 14th September, three assaulting columns were formed in

the trenches, whilst a fourth was kept in reserve. The first

column was led by Brigadier Nicholson; the second by Brigadier

Jones; the third by Colonel Campbell; and the fourth, or

reserve, by Brigadier Longfield. The powder bags were laid at

the Kashmir gate by Lieutenants Home and Salkeld. The

explosion followed, and the third column rushed in, and pushed

towards the Juma Musjid. Meanwhile the first column under

Nicholson escaladed the breaches near the Kashmir gate, and

pushed along the ramparts towards the Kabul gate, carrying the

several bastions in the way. Here it was met by the second

column under Brigadier Jones, who had escaladed the breach at

the Water bastion. The advancing columns were met by a

ceaseless fire from terraced houses, mosques, and other

buildings; and John Nicholson, the hero of the day, whilst

attempting to storm a narrow street near the Kabul gate, was

struck down by a shot and mortally wounded."

J. T. Wheeler,

Short History of India,

part 3, chapter 25.

"The long autumn day was over, and we were in Delhi. But Delhi

was, by no means, ours. Sixty-six officers and 1,100 men—

nearly a third, that is, of the whole attacking force—had

fallen; while, as yet, not a sixth part of the town was in our

power. How many men, it might well be asked, would be left to

us by the time that we had conquered the remainder? We held

the line of ramparts which we had attacked and the portions of

the city immediately adjoining, but nothing more. The Lahore

Gate and the Magazine, the Jumma Musjid and the Palace, were

still untouched, and were keeping up a heavy fire on our

position. Worse than this, a large number of our troops had

fallen victims to the temptation which, more formidable than

themselves, our foes had left behind them, and were wallowing

in a state of bestial intoxication. The enemy, meanwhile, had

been able to maintain their position outside the town; and if

only, at this supreme hour, a heaven-sent General had appeared

amongst them, they might have attacked our camp, defended as

it was mainly by the sick, and the maimed, and the halt. …

Never, perhaps, in the history of the Mutiny were we in quite

so perilous a position as on the night which followed our

greatest military success. General Wilson, indeed, proposed,

as might have been expected from a man in his enfeebled

condition of mind and body, to withdraw the guns, to fall back

on the camp and wait for reinforcements there; a step which,

it is needless to point out, would have given us all the

deadly work to do over again, even if our force should prove

able to maintain itself on the Ridge till reinforcements came.

But the urgent remonstrances of Baird Smith and others, by

word of mouth; of Chamberlain, by letter; and, perhaps, also,

the echoes which may have reached him from the tempest-tossed

hero who lay chafing against his cruel destiny on his

death-bed, and exclaimed in a wild paroxysm of passion, when

he heard of the move which was in contemplation, 'Thank God, I

have strength enough left to shoot that man,' turned the

General once more from his purpose. On the following day, the

15th, vast quantities of the intoxicating drinks, which had

wrought such havoc amongst our men, were destroyed by General

Wilson's order, and the streets literally ran with rivers of

beer, and wine, and brandy. Meanwhile, the troops were

sleeping off their drunken debauch; and on the 16th active

operations were resumed. On that day the Magazine was taken,

and its vast stores of shot and shell, and of all the

'material' of war, fell once more into the hands of their

proper owners. By sapping gradually from house to house we

managed, for three days more, to avoid the street-fighting

which, once and again, has proved so demoralising to

Englishmen; and, slowly but surely, we pressed back the

defenders into that ever-narrowing part of the city of which,

fortunately for themselves, they still held the bolt-holes.

Many of them had already begun, like rats, to quit the sinking

vessel. And now the unarmed population of the city flocked in

one continuous stream out of the open gates, hoping to save

their lives, if nothing else, from our avenging swords. On the

19th, the palace of the Moguls, which had witnessed the last

expiring flicker of life in an effete dynasty, and the cruel

murder of English men, and women, and children, fell into our

hands; and by Sunday, the 20th, the whole of the city—in

large part already a city of the dead—was at our mercy. But

what of the King himself and the Princes of the royal house?

They had slunk off to the tomb of Humayoun, a huge building,

almost a city in itself, some miles from the modern Delhi, and

there, swayed this way and that, now by the bolder spirits of

his army who pressed him to put himself at their head and

fight it out to the death, as became the descendant of

Tamerlane and Baber, now by the entreaties of his young wife,

who was anxious chiefly for her own safety and that of her

son, the heir of the Moguls; and now, again, by the plausible

suggestions of a double-dyed traitor of his own house who was

in Hodson's pay, and who, approaching the head of his family

with a kiss of peace, was endeavoring to detain him where he

was till he could hand him over to his employer and receive

the price of blood, the poor old monarch dozed or fooled away

the few hours of his sovereignty which remained, the hours

which might still make or mar him, in paroxysms of imbecile

vacillation and despair. The traitor gained the day, and

Hodson, who could play the game of force as well as of fraud,

and was an equal adept at either, learning from his

craven-hearted tool that the King was prepared to surrender on

the promise of his life, went to Wilson and obtained leave, on

that condition, to bring him into Delhi. The errand, with such

a promise tacked on to it, was only half to Hodson's taste.

{1745}

'If I get into the Palace,' he had written in cool blood some

days before, 'the house of Timour will not be worth five

minutes' purchase, I ween.' … After two hours of bargaining

for his own life and that of his queen and favourite son, the

poor old Priam tottered forth and was taken back, in a

bullock-cart, a prisoner, to his own city and Palace, and was

there handed over to the civil authorities. But there were

other members of the royal family, as Hodson knew well from

his informants, also lurking in Humayoun's tomb. … With a

hundred of his famous horse Hodson started for Humayoun's

tomb, and, after three hours of negotiation, the three

princes, two of them the sons, the other the grandson of the

King, surrendered unconditionally into his hands. … Their

arms were taken from them, and, escorted by some of his

horsemen, they too were despatched in bullock-carts towards

Delhi. With the rest of his horse, Hodson stayed behind to

disarm the large and nerveless crowd, who, as sheep having no

shepherd, and unable, in their paralysed condition, to see

what the brute weight even of a flock of sheep might do by a

sudden rush, were overawed by his resolute bearing. This done,

he galloped after his prey and caught them up just before the

cavalcade reached the walls of Delhi. He ordered the princes

roughly to get out of the cart and strip,—for, even in his

thirst for their blood, he had, as it would seem, an eye to

the value of their outer clothes,—he ordered them into the

cart again, he seized a carbine from one of his troopers, and

then and there, with his own hand, shot them down deliberately

one after the other. It was a stupid, cold-blooded, three-fold

murder. … Had they been put upon their trial, disclosures of

great importance as to the origin of the Mutiny could hardly

fail to have been elicited. Their punishment would have been

proportioned to their offence, and would have been meted out

to them with all the patient majesty of offended law."

R. B. Smith,

Life of Lord Lawrence,

volume 2, chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

Sir R. Temple,

Lord Lawrence,

chapter 7.

Sir R. Temple,

Men and Events of my Time in India,

chapter 7.

J. Cave-Brown,

The Punjab and Delhi in 1857.

G. B. Malleson,

History of the Indian Mutiny,

book 10, chapter 1 (volume 2).

Major Hodson,

Twelve Years of a Soldier's Life in India,

part 2: The Delhi Campaign.

INDIA: A. D. 1857-1858 (July-June).

General Havelock's campaign.

Sir Colin Campbell's.

The Relief of Lucknow.

Substantial suppression of the Mutiny.

"Meanwhile the greatest anxiety prevailed with regard to our

countrymen and countrywomen at Lucknow and Cawnpore. The

Indian government made every effort to relieve them; but the

reinforcements which had been despatched from England and

China came in slowly, and the demands made for assistance far

exceeded the means at the disposal of the government. … The

task of relieving the city was entrusted to the heroic General

Havelock, who marched out with a mere handful of men, of whom

only 1,400 were British soldiers, to encounter a large army

and a whole country in rebellion. At Futtehpore, on the 12th

of July, he defeated a vastly superior force, posted in a very

strong position. After giving his men a day's rest, he

advanced again on the 14th, and routed the enemy in two

pitched battles. Next morning he renewed his advance, and with

a force of less than 900 men attacked 5,000 strongly

entrenched, and commanded by Nana Sahib. They were

outmanœuvred, out-flanked, beaten and dispersed. But for this

signal defeat they wreaked their vengeance on the unfortunate

women and children who still remained at Cawnpore. On the very

day on which the battle occurred, they were massacred under

circumstances of cruelty over which we must throw a veil. The

well of Cawnpore, in which their hacked and mutilated bodies

were flung, presented a spectacle from which soldiers who had

regarded unmoved the carnage of numerous battle-fields shrank

with horror. Of all the atrocities perpetrated during this

war, so fruitful in horrors, this was the most awful; and it

was followed by a terrible retribution. It steeled the hearts,

and lent a furious and fearless energy to the arms, of the

British soldiery. Wherever they came, they gave no quarter to

the mutineers; a few men often frantically attacked hundreds,

frantically but vainly defending themselves; and never ceased

till all had been bayoneted, or shot, or hewn in pieces. All

those who could be shown to have been accomplices in the

perpetration of the murders that had been committed were hung,

or blown from the cannon's mouth. Though the intrepid Havelock

was unable to save the women and children who had been

imprisoned in Cawnpore, he pressed forward to Lucknow. But the

force under his command was too small to enable him to drive

off the enemy. Meanwhile Sir J. Outram, who was now returning

from the Persian war, which had been brought to a successful

conclusion, was sent to Oude as chief commissioner, with full

civil and military power. This appointment was fully deserved;

but it had the effect, probably not thought of by those who

made it, of superseding Havelock just as he was about to

achieve the crowning success of his rapid and glorious career.

Outram, however, with a generosity which did him more real

honour than a thousand victories would have conferred, wrote

to Havelock to inform him that he intended to join him with

adequate reinforcements; adding: 'To you shall be left the

glory of relieving Lucknow, for which you have already

struggled so much. I shall accompany you only in my civil

capacity as commissioner, placing my military service at your

disposal, should you please, and serving under you as a

volunteer.' Thus Havelock, after gaining no fewer than twelve

battles against forces far superior in numbers to the little

band he originally led, was enabled at length, on the 25th of

August, to preserve the civilians, the women, and children of

Lucknow from the impending horrors of another massacre, which

would no doubt have been as fearful as that of Cawnpore. The

Highlanders were the first to enter, and were welcomed with

grateful enthusiasm by those whom they had saved from a fate

worse than death. However, the enemy, recovering from the

panic which the arrival of Havelock and his troops had caused,

renewed the siege. Sir Colin Campbell, who had assumed the

command of the Indian army, had determined to march to the

relief of Lucknow. He set out from Cawnpore on the 9th of

November, but was obliged to wait till the 14th for

reinforcements, which were on the way to join him, and which

raised the force under his command to 5,000—a force

numerically far inferior to that which it was to attack.

{1746}

On the 17th of November the relief of Lucknow was effected.

The music of the Highland regiments, playing 'The Campbells

are coming,' announced to their delighted countrymen inside

the city that the commander-in-chief himself was with the

relieving force. Little time, however, was allowed for

congratulations and rejoicings. The ladies, the civilians, and

the garrison were quietly withdrawn; the guns, which it was

thought not desirable to remove, were burst; and a retreat

effected, without affording the enemy the slightest suspicion

of what was going on until some hours after the town had been

evacuated by its defenders. The retreating force reached

Dilhasha on the 24th, without having sustained any serious

molestation. There the gallant Havelock sank under the trials

and hardships to which he had been exposed, and yielded up the

life which was instrumental in preserving so many others from

the most terrible of deaths. While Sir Colin Campbell was

engaged in effecting the relief of Lucknow, intelligence

reached Cawnpore that a large hostile army was making towards

it. General Windham, who commanded there, unacquainted with

the number or the position of the approaching force, marched

forth to meet it, in the hope that he should be able to rout

and cut up the advanced guard before the main body of the

enemy could come to its assistance. But in this expectation he

was disappointed. Instead of having to deal with the van, he

engaged with the whole rebel army, and his little force,

assailed on all sides, was obliged to retire. He at once

despatched a letter to the commander-in-chief, requesting him

to hasten to his assistance; but it was intercepted by the

enemy. Fortunately Sir Colin Campbell, though ignorant of the

critical position of his subordinate, came up just at the

moment when the danger was at its height. This was on the 28th

of November. He was, however, in no haste to attack the foe,

and was content for the present merely to hold them in check.

His first care was for the safety of the civilians, the women,

and the children, which was not secured till the 30th; and he

continued to protect them till the 5th of December, when they

were all safely lodged at Allahabad. The enemy, unaware of the

motive of his seeming inaction, imputed it to fear, and became

every day more confident and audacious. On the 6th he at

length turned fiercely on them, completely defeated them, and

seized their baggage; he then dispersed and drove away another

large force, under the command of Nana Sahib, which was

watching the engagement at a little distance. The army entered

the residence of Nana Sahib at Bithoor, and took possession of

much treasure, which had been concealed in a well. Nearly the

whole of the enemy's artillery was captured; and the army,

being overtaken as they were in the act of crossing into Oude,

great numbers of them were destroyed. Of course, for the

moment Lucknow, being no longer garrisoned, had fallen into

the hands of the insurgents; but they were not long permitted

to retain it. Strong reinforcements arrived, and the Indian

government was enabled to send a force against Lucknow

sufficient to overwhelm all resistance; and on the 15th of

December this important city was in the undisputed possession

of the British troops. This final recovery of the capital of

Oude decided the reconquest of that country. A struggle was,

indeed, maintained for some time longer; innumerable battles

were fought; and the final subjugation of the country was

effected in the month of June, 1858."

W. N. Molesworth,

History of England, 1830-1874,

volume 3, chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

A. Forbes,

Havelock,

chapters 5-7.

General Sir O. T. Burne,

Clyde and Strathnairn.

General Shadwell,

Life of Colin Campbell, Lord Clyde,

volume 1, chapter 11,

and volume 2, chapters 1-18.

T. Lowe,

Central India during 1857-8.

INDIA: A. D. 1858.

The Governor-General's Proclamation,

Termination of the rule of the East India Company.

The government transferred to the Crown.

"By a singular circumstance, when the mutiny was suppressed in

1858, the Governor-General, who in the previous year had been

condemned for leniency which was thought ill-timed, was

destined to receive censure for harshness which was declared

unnecessary. On the eve of the fall of Lucknow, he drew up a

proclamation confiscating the lands of all the great

landowners in Oudh. Exceptions were, indeed, made to this

sweeping decree. Landowners who could prove their loyalty were

promised exemption from it, just as rebels who unconditionally

surrendered, and whose hands were not stained with British

blood, were offered pardon. There is no doubt that Canning, in

drawing up this proclamation, relied on the exceptions which

it contained, while there is equally no doubt that the critics

who objected to it overlooked its parentheses. But its issue

was made the basis of an attack which well-nigh proved fatal

to the Governor-General's administration. The chances of party

warfare had replaced Palmerston with Derby; and the

Conservative minister had entrusted the Board of Control to

the brilliant but erratic statesman who, fifteen years before,

had astonished India with pageant and proclamation. …

Ellenborough thought proper to condemn Canning's proclamation

in a severe despatch, and to allow his censure to be made

public. For a short time it seemed impossible that the

Governor-General who had received such a despatch could

continue his government. But the lapse of a few days showed

that the minister who had framed the despatch, and not the

Viceroy who had received it, was to suffer from the

transaction. The public, recollecting the justice of Canning's

rule, the mercy of his administration, almost unanimously

considered that he should not have been hastily condemned for

a document which, it was gradually evident, had only been

imperfectly understood; and Ellenborough, to save his

colleagues, volunteered to play the part of Jonah, and retired

from the ministry. His retirement closes, in one sense, the

history of the Indian Mutiny. But the transactions of the

Mutiny had, almost for the first time, taught the public to

consider the anomalies of Indian government. In the course of

a hundred years a Company had been suffered to acquire an

empire nearly ten times as large and as populous as Great

Britain. It was true that the rule of the Company was in many

respects nominal. The President of the Board of Control was

the true head of the Indian Government, and spoke and acted

through the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors. But

this very circumstance only accentuated the anomaly. If the

President of the Board of Control was in fact Indian minister,

it was far simpler to make him Indian minister by name, and to

do away with the clumsy expedient which alone enabled him to

exercise his authority.

{1747}

Hence it was generally decided that the rule of the Company

should cease, and that India should thenceforward become one

of the possessions of the crown. … A great danger thus led

to the removal of a great anomaly, and the vast Indian empire

which Englishmen had won was thenceforward taken into a

nation's keeping."

S. Walpole,

History of England from 1815,

chapter 27 (volume 5).

The act "for the better government of India," which was passed

in the autumn of 1858, "provided that all the territories

previously under the government of the East India Company were

to be vested in her Majesty, and all the Company's powers to

be exercised in her name. One of her Majesty's principal

Secretaries of State was to have all the power previously

exercised by the Company, or by the Board of Control. The

Secretary was to be assisted by a Council of India, to consist

of fifteen members, of whom seven were to be elected by the

Court of Directors from their own body, and eight nominated by

the Crown. The vacancies among the nominated were to be filled

up by the Crown; those among the elected by the remaining

members of the Council for a certain time, but afterward by

the Secretary of State for India. The competitive principle

for the Civil Service was extended in its application, and

made thoroughly practical. The military and naval forces of

the Company were to be deemed the forces of her Majesty. A

clause was introduced declaring that, except for the purpose

of preventing or repelling actual invasion of India, the

Indian revenues should not, without the consent of both Houses

of Parliament, be applicable to defray the expenses of any

military operation carried on beyond the external frontiers of

her Majesty's Indian possessions. Another clause enacted that

whenever an order was sent to India directing the commencement

of hostilities by her Majesty's forces there, the fact should

be communicated to Parliament within three months, if

Parliament were then sitting, or, if not, within one month

after its next meeting. These clauses were heard of more than

once in later days. The Viceroy and Governor-General was to be

supreme in India, but was to be assisted by a Council. India

now has nine provinces, each under its own civil government,

and independent of the others, but all subordinate to the

authority of the Viceroy. In accordance with this Act the

government of the Company, the famed 'John Company,' formally

ceased on September 1st, 1858; and the Queen was proclaimed

throughout India in the following November, with Lord Canning

for her first Viceroy."

J. McCarthy,

History of Our Own Times,

chapter 36 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

Sir H. S. Cunningham,

Earl Canning,

chapters 7-9.

Duke of Argyll,

India Under Dalhousie and Canning.

INDIA: A. D. 1861.

Institution of the Order of the Star of India.

See STAR OF INDIA.

INDIA: A. D. 1862-1876.

Vice-regal administrations of

Lords Lawrence, Mayo and Northbrook.

Lord Canning was succeeded as Viceroy by Lord Elgin, in 1862;

but Elgin only lived until November, 1863, and his successor

was Sir John Lawrence, the savior of the Punjab. "Sir John

Lawrence's Viceroyalty was an uneventful time. Great natural

calamities by famine and cyclone fell upon the country, which

called forth the philanthropic energies of Government and

people. Commerce passed through an unexampled crisis, taxing

skill and foresight. But the political atmosphere was calm.

With the exception of little frontier wars, wasteful of

resources that were sorely needed, there was nothing to divert

the Government from the prosecution of schemes for the

improvement of the physical and moral condition of the

people." Sir John Lawrence held the Viceroyalty until January,

1869, when he was succeeded by Lord Mayo and returned to

England. He was raised, in that year, to the peerage, under

the title of Baron Lawrence of Punjab and Grateley. He died

ten years later.

Sir C. Aitchison,

Lord Lawrence,

chapters 7-12.

Lord Lawrence's immediate successor, Lord Mayo, was

assassinated, while Viceroy, in 1872, by a convict—a

Highlander—at the convict settlement on the Andaman Islands,

for no reason of personal hatred, but only because he

represented the governing authority which had condemned the

man. Lord Mayo was succeeded by Lord Northbrook, who held the

office from 1872 to 1876.

Sir W. W. Hunter,

The Earl of Mayo.

INDIA: A. D. 1876.

Lord Lytton, Viceroy.

The successor of Lord Northbrook in the Vice-regal

office was Lord Lytton, appointed in 1876.

INDIA: A. D. 1877.

The Native States and their quasi feudatory relation to the

British Crown.

Queen Victoria's assumption of the title of Empress of India.

"In some sense the Indians were accustomed to consider the

Company, as they now consider the Queen, to be the heir of the

Great Mughal, and therefore universal suzerain by right of

succession. But it is easy to exaggerate the force of this

claim, which is itself a mere restatement of the fact of

conquest. Politically, India is divided into two parts,

commonly known as British territory and the native states. The

first portion alone is ruled directly by English officials,

and its inhabitants alone are subjects of the Queen. The

native states are sometimes called feudatory—a convenient

term to express their vague relation to the British crown. To

define that relation precisely would be impossible. It has

arisen at different times and by different methods; it varies

from semi-independence to complete subjection. Some chiefs are

the representatives of those whom we found on our first

arrival in the country; others owe their existence to our

creation. Some are parties to treaties entered into as between

equal powers; others have consented to receive patents from

their suzerain recording their limited rights; with others,

again, there are no written engagements at all. Some have

fought with us and come out of the struggle without dishonour.

Some pay tribute; others pay none. Their extent and power vary

as greatly as their political status. The Nizam of Haidarabad

governs a kingdom of 80,000 square miles and 10,000,000

inhabitants. Some of the petty chieftains of Kathiawar

exercise authority over only a few acres. It is, however,

necessary to draw a line sharply circumscribing the native

states, as a class, from British territory. Every native chief

possesses a certain measure of local authority, which is not

derivative but inherent. English control, when and as

exercised, is not so much of an administrative as of a

diplomatic nature. In Anglo-Indian terminology this shade of

meaning is expressed by the word 'political.' … As a general

proposition, and excepting the quite insignificant states, it

may be stated that the government is carried on not only in

the name but also by the initiative of the native chief.

{1748}

At all the large capitals, and at certain centres round which

minor states are grouped, a British officer is stationed under

the style of Resident or Agent. Through him all diplomatic

affairs are conducted. He is at once an ambassador and a

controller. His duty is to represent the majesty of the

suzerain power, to keep a watchful eye upon abuses, and to

encourage reforms."

J. S. Cotton,

Colonies and Dependencies,

part 1, chapter 3.

"The supremacy of the British Government over all the Native

States in India was declared in 1877, in a more emphatic form

than it had received before, by the assumption by the Queen of

the title of Kaisar-i-Hind, Empress of India. No such

gathering of chiefs and princes has taken place in historical

times as that seen at Delhi in January, 1877, when the rulers

of all the principal States of India formally acknowledged

their dependence on the British Crown. The political effect of

the assertion of the supremacy of the paramount power, thus

formally made for the first time in India, has been marked and

extremely important."

Sir J. Strachey,

India,

lecture 11.

ALSO IN:

G. B. Malleson,

Historical Sketch of the Native States of India.

INDIA: A. D. 1878-1881.

The second Afghan War.

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

INDIA: A. D. 1880-1893.

Recent Viceroys.

On the defeat of the Conservative Beaconsfield Ministry in

England, in 1880, Lord Lytton resigned the Viceroyalty and was

succeeded by the Marquis of Ripon, who gave place in turn to

the Marquis of Dufferin in 1884. In 1888, the Marquis of

Lansdowne succeeded Lord Dufferin, and was himself succeeded

in 1893 by Sir Henry Norman.

INDIA: A. D. 1893.

Suspension of the free coinage of silver.

In June, 1893, the Indian Government, with the approval of the

British Cabinet, stopped the free coinage of silver, with a

view to the introduction of a gold standard. The Government,

it was announced, while stopping the coinage of the declining

metal for private persons, would continue on its own account

to coin rupees in exchange for gold at a ratio then fixed at

sixteen pence sterling per rupee. "The closing of the mints of

British India to the coinage of silver coins of

full-debt-paying power is the most momentous event in the

monetary history of the present century. It is the final and

disastrous blow to the use of silver as a measure of value and

as money of full-debt-paying power, and the relegation of it

to the position of a subsidiary, or token metal. It is the

culmination of the evolution from a silver to a gold standard

which has been progressing with startling rapidity in recent

years. … The remarkable series of events which have

characterized, or made manifest, this evolution from a silver

to a gold standard are nearly all condensed in the brief

period of twenty years, and are probably without a parallel in

ancient or modern monetary history. … With the single

exception of England, all Europe forty years ago had the

silver standard, not only legally but actually—silver coins

constituting the great bulk of the money of actual

transactions. To-day, not a mint in Europe is open to the

coinage of full-debt-paying silver coins, and the gateways of

the Orient have been closed against it. Twenty years ago one

ounce of gold exchanged in the markets of the world for

fifteen and one-half ounces of silver; to-day, one ounce of

gold will buy nearly thirty ounces of silver. … There is a

general impression that silver has been the money of India

from remote generations. This is a fallacy. It has not been a

great many years since India adopted the silver standard. The

ancient money of the Hindoos was gold, which in 1818 was

supplemented by silver, but gold coins remained legal tender

until 1835, when silver was made the sole standard of value

and legal tender money in British India, and gold was

demonetized. … During the last fifty odd years, India has

absorbed vast quantities of silver."

E. O. Leech,

The Doom of Silver

(The Forum, August, 1893).

----------INDIA: End--------

INDIAN EMPIRE, The Order of the.

An Order instituted by Queen Victoria in 1878.

----------INDIAN TERRITORY: Start--------

INDIAN TERRITORY: 1803.

Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

INDIAN TERRITORY: A. D. 1824.

Set off from Arkansas Territory.

See ARKANSAS: A. D. 1819-1836.

----------INDIAN TERRITORY: End--------

INDIANA.

The Aboriginal Inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,

ALLEGHANS, and DELAWARES.

INDIANA: A. D. 1700-1735.

Occupation by the French.

See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

INDIANA: A. D. 1763.

Cession to Great Britain.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

INDIANA: A. D. 1763.

The King's proclamation excluding settlers.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

INDIANA: A. D. 1765.

Possession taken by the English.

See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.

INDIANA: A. D. 1774.

Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

INDIANA: A. D. 1778-1779.

Conquest from the British by the Virginian General Clark, and

annexation to the Kentucky district of Virginia.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1778-1779, CLARK'S CONQUEST.

INDIANA: A. D. 1784.

Included in the proposed states of Assenisipia, Metropotamia,

Illinoia and Polypotamia.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

INDIANA: A. D. 1786.

Partially covered by the western land claims of Connecticut,

ceded to the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

INDIANA: A. D. 1787.

The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.

Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

INDIANA: A. D. 1790-1795.

Indian War.

Disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair, and Wayne's

decisive victory.

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

INDIANA: A. D. 1800.

The Territory of Indiana organized.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1788-1802.

{1749}

INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.

Successive partitions of the Territory.

Michigan and Illinois detached.

The remaining Indiana admitted as a State.

"Indiana Territory as originally organized [in 1800] …

included the county of Knox, upon the Wabash, from which has

sprung the State of Indiana; the county of St. Clair, on the

Upper Mississippi, or Illinois River, from which has sprung

the State of Illinois; and the county of Wayne, upon the

Detroit River, from which has sprung the State of Michigan.

… At this time, the inhabitants contained in all of them did

not amount to more than 5,640 souls, while the aggregate

number of the Indian tribes within the extreme limits of the

territory was more than 100,000. … By successive treaties,

the Indian title was extinguished gradually to all the country

lying upon the waters of the White River, and upon all the

lower tributaries of the Wabash, upon the Little Wabash, the

Kaskaskia, and east of the Mississippi, below the mouth of the

Illinois. Thus, before the close of the year 1805, nearly all

the southern half of the present State of Indiana, and one

third of the State of Illinois, was open to the advance of the

enterprising pioneer. … In 1807, the Federal government, in

like manner, purchased from the Indians extensive regions west

of Detroit River, and within the present State of Michigan,

far beyond the limits of the white settlements in that

quarter. Meantime, the settlements formerly comprised in Wayne

county, having increased in inhabitants and importance, had

been erected into a separate territorial government, known and

designated as the 'Territory of Michigan.' On the 1st of July,

1805, the territory entered upon the first grade of

territorial government, under the provisions of the ordinance

of 1787; and William Hull, formerly a lieutenant in the

Revolutionary army, was made the first governor. … Detroit

… was made the seat of the territorial government. … By

the close of the year 1808, the Indiana Territory east of the

Wabash had received such an increase in numbers that it was

desirable to assume the second grade of territorial

government. Having a population of 5,000 free white males,

Congress, with a view to a future state government, by an act

approved February 3d, 1809, restricted its limits, and

authorized a territorial Legislature. … The Indiana

Territory, from this time, was bounded on the west by a line

extending up the middle of the Wabash, from its mouth to

Vincennes, and thence by a meridian due north to the southern

extremity of Lake Michigan. On the north, it was bounded by

the southern line of the Michigan Territory. That portion west

of the Wabash was erected into a separate territorial

government of the first grade, known and designated as the

'Illinois Territory.' The inhabitants of the Indiana Territory

soon began to augment more rapidly. … In 1810 the people had

increased in numbers to 24,500, and in the newly-erected

Territory of Illinois there was an aggregate of 12,300

persons." In 1816 "it was ascertained that the Indiana

Territory possessed a population which entitled it to an

independent state government. Congress authorized the election

of a convention to form a state Constitution," and "the new

'State of Indiana' was formally admitted into the Union on the

19th of April, 1816." Two years later, on the 3d of December,

1818, the Territory of Illinois was similarly transformed and

became one of the states of the Union.

J. W. Monette,

The Discovery and Settlement of the Mississippi Valley,

book 5, chapter 16 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

J. B. Dillon,

History of Indiana,

chapters 31-47.

A. Davidson and B. Stuvé,

History of Illinois,

chapters 20-26.

T. M. Cooley,

Michigan,

chapter 8.

INDIANA: A. D. 1811.

General Harrison's campaign against Tecumseh and his League.

The Battle of Tippecanoe.

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

INDIANA: A. D. 1863.

John Morgan's Rebel Raid.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).

----------INDIANS: Start--------

INDIANS:

American: The Name.

"As Columbus supposed himself to have landed on an island at

the extremity of India, he called the natives by the general

appellation of Indians, which was universally adopted before

the true nature of his discovery was known, and has since been

extended to all the aboriginals of the New World."

W. Irving,

Life and Voyages of Columbus,

book 4, chapter 1 (volume 1).

"The Spanish writers from the outset, beginning with Columbus

in his letters, call the natives of America, Indians, and

their English translators do the same. So, too, Richard Eden,

the earliest English writer on American travel, applies the

name to the natives of Peru and Mexico. It is used in the same

way, both in translations and original accounts, during the

rest of the century, but it is always limited to those races

with whom the Spaniards were in contact. In its wider and

later application the word does not seem to have established

itself in English till the next century. The earliest instance

I can find, where it is applied to the natives of North

America generally in any original work, is by Hakluyt. In 1587

he translated Laudonnière's 'History of the French Colony in

Florida,' and dedicated his translation to Sir Walter Raleigh.

In this dedication he once uses the term Indian for the

natives of North America. Heriot and the other writers who

describe the various attempts at settlement in Virginia during

the sixteenth century, invariably call the natives 'savages.'

Perhaps the earliest instance where an English writer uses the

name Indian specially to describe the occupants of the land

afterwards colonized by the English is in the account of

Archer's voyage to Virginia in 1602. This account, written by

James Rosier, is published in Purchas (volume iv. b. viii.).

From that time onward the use of the term in the wider sense

becomes more common. We may reasonably infer that the use of

it was an indication of the growing knowledge of the fact that

the lands conquered by the Spaniards and those explored by the

English formed one continent."

J. A. Doyle,

The English in America: Virginia, &c.,

appendix A.

INDIANS: The tribes and families.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES.

----------INDIANS: End--------

INDICTIONS, The.

The indiction "was a cycle of 15 years, used only by the

Romans, for appointing the times of certain public taxes; as

appears from the title in the Code, 'De tributo indicto.' It

was established by Constantine, A. D. 312, in the room of the

heathen Olympiads; and was used in the acts of the General

Councils, Emperors, and Popes."

W. Hales,

New Analysis of Chronology,

volume 1, book 1.

"The indictions consisted of a revolution of 15 years, which

are separately reckoned as indiction 1, indiction 2, &c., up

to 15; when they recommence with indiction 1. … Doubt exists

as to the commencement of the indictions; some writers

assigning the first indiction to the year 312; the greater

number to the year 313; others to 314; whilst some place it

in the year 315.

{1750}

In 'L'Art de vérifier les Dates,' the year 313 is fixed upon

as that of the first indiction. There are four descriptions of

indictions. The first is that of Constantinople, which was

instituted by Constantine in A. D. 312, and began on the 1st

of September. The second, and more common in England and

France, was the Imperial or Cæsarean indiction, which began on

the 24th of September. The third kind of indiction is called

the Roman or Pontifical, from its being generally used in

papal bulls, at least from the ninth to the fourteenth

century; it commences on the 25th of December or 1st of

January, accordingly as either of these days was considered

the first of the year. The fourth kind of indiction, which is

to be found in the register of the parliaments of Paris, began

in the month of October. … After the 12th century, the

indiction was rarely mentioned in public instruments. … But

in France, in private charters, and in ecclesiastical

documents, the usage continued until the end of the 15th

century."

Sir H. Nicolas,

Chronology of History,

pages 6-7.

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 17.

INDO-EUROPEAN.

INDO-GERMANIC.

See ARYAN.

INDULGENCE: Declarations of: by Charles II.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673.

INDULGENCE: By James II.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.

INDULGENCES: The Doctrine.

Tetzel's sale.

Luther's attack.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517; and 1517.

INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1865-1886.

INE, Laws of (or Dooms of).

See DOOMS OF INE.

INEXPIABLE WAR, The.

See CARTHAGE: B. C. 241-238.

INFALLIBILITY, Promulgation of the Dogma of Papal.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.

INGÆVONES, The.

See GERMANY: AS KNOWN TO TACITUS.

INGAGO, Battle of (1881).

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

INGE I.,

King of Norway, A. D. 1157-1161.

Inge I. (called the Good), King of Sweden, 1090-1112.

Inge II., King of Norway, 1205-1207.

Inge II., King of Sweden, 1118-1129.

INGENUI.

LIBERTINI.

"Free men [among the Romans] might be either persons born free

(ingenui) and who had never been in slavery to a Roman, or

persons who had once been slaves but had been emancipated

(libertini)."

W. Ramsay,

Manual of Roman Antiquity,

chapter 3.

INI, King of West Saxons, A. D. 688-726.

INIS-FAIL.

INIS-EALGA.

See IRELAND: THE NAME.

INITIATIVE, The Swiss.

See REFERENDUM.

INKERMANN, Battle of.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

INNOCENT II., Pope, A. D. 1130-1143.

Innocent III., Pope, 1198-1216.

Innocent IV., Pope, 1243-1254.

Innocent V., Pope, 1276, January to June.

Innocent VI., Pope, 1352-1362.

Innocent VII., Pope, 1404-1406.

Innocent VIII., Pope, 1484-1492.

Innocent IX., Pope, 1591, October to December.

Innocent X., Pope, 1644-1655.

Innocent XI., Pope, 1676-1689.

Innocent XII., Pope, 1691-1700.

Innocent XIII., Pope, 1721-1724.

INNUITS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

----------INQUISITION: Start----------

INQUISITION, The: A. D. 1203-1525.

Origin of the Holy Office.

St. Dominic and the Dominicans.

The Episcopal Inquisition.

The Apostolical or Papal Inquisition.

The Spanish Inquisition and its terrible rule.

Estimate of victims.

Expulsion of Jews and Moors.

"In the earlier ages of the Church, the definition of heresy

had been committed to episcopal authority. But the cognisance

of heretics and the determination of their punishment remained

in the hands of secular magistrates. At the end of the 12th

century the wide diffusion of the Albigensian heterodoxy

through Languedoc and Northern Italy alarmed the chiefs of

Christendom, and furnished the Papacy with a good pretext for

extending its prerogatives. Innocent III. in 1203 empowered

two French Cistercians, Pierre de Castelnau and Raoul, to

preach against the heretics of Provence. In the following year

he ratified this commission by a Bull, which censured the

negligence and coldness of the bishops, appointed the Abbot of

Citeaux Papal delegate in matters of heresy, and gave him

authority to judge and punish misbelievers. This was the first

germ of the Holy Office as a separate Tribunal. … Being a

distinct encroachment of the Papacy upon the episcopal

jurisdiction and prerogatives, the Inquisition met at first

with some opposition from the bishops. The people for whose

persecution it was designed, and at whose expense it carried

on its work, broke into rebellion; the first years of its

annals were rendered illustrious by the murder of one of its

founders, Pierre de Castelnau. He was canonised, and became

the first Saint of the Inquisition. … In spite of

opposition, the Papal institution took root and flourished.

Philip Augustus responded to the appeals of Innocent; and a

crusade began against the Albigenses, in which Simon de

Montfort won his sinister celebrity. During those bloody wars

the Inquisition developed itself as a force of formidable

expansive energy. Material assistance to the cause was

rendered by a Spanish monk of the Augustine order, who settled

in Provence on his way back from Rome in 1206. Domenigo de

Guzman, known to universal history as S. Dominic, organised a

new militia for the service of the orthodox Church between the

years 1215 and 1219. His order, called the Order of the

Preachers, was originally designed to repress heresy and

confirm the faith by diffusing Catholic doctrine and

maintaining the creed in its purity. It consisted of three

sections: the Preaching Friars; nuns living in conventual

retreat; and laymen, entitled the Third Order of Penitence or

the Militia of Christ, who in after years were merged with the

Congregation of S. Peter Martyr, and corresponded to the

familiars of the Inquisition. Since the Dominicans were

established in the heat and passion of a crusade against

heresy, by a rigid Spaniard who employed his energies in

persecuting misbelievers, they assumed at the outset a

belligerent and inquisitorial attitude. Yet it is not strictly

accurate to represent S. Dominic himself as the first Grand

Inquisitor.

{1751}

The Papacy proceeded with caution in its design of forming a

tribunal dependent on the Holy See and independent of the

bishops. Papal Legates with plenipotentiary authority were

sent to Languedoc, and decrees were issued against the

heretics, in which the Inquisition was rather implied than

directly named; nor can I find that S. Dominic, though he

continued to be the soul of the new institution until his

death, in 1221, obtained the title of Inquisitor.

Notwithstanding this vagueness, the Holy Office may be said to

have been founded by S. Dominic; and it soon became apparent

that the order he had formed was destined to monopolise its

functions. … This Apostolical Inquisition was at once

introduced into Lombardy, Romagna and the Marches of Treviso.

The extreme rigour of its proceedings, the extortions of

monks, and the violent resistance offered by the communes, led

to some relaxation of its original constitution. More

authority had to be conceded to the bishops; and the right of

the Inquisitors to levy taxes on the people was modified. Yet

it retained its true form of a Papal organ, superseding the

episcopal prerogatives, and overriding the secular

magistrates, who were bound to execute its biddings. As such

it was admitted into Tuscany, and established in Aragon.

Venice received it in 1289, with certain reservations that

placed its proceedings under the control of Doge and Council.

In Languedoc, the country of its birth, it remained rooted at

Toulouse and Carcassonne; but the Inquisition did not extend

its authority over central and northern France. In Paris its

functions were performed by the Sorbonne. Nor did it obtain a

footing in England, although the statute 'De Haeretico

Comburendo,' passed in 1401 at the instance of the higher

clergy, sanctioned the principles on which it existed. … The

revival of the Holy Office on a new and far more murderous

basis, took place in 1484. We have seen that hitherto there

had been two types of inquisition into heresy. The first,

which remained in force up to the year 1203, may be called the

episcopal. The second was the Apostolical or Dominican: it

transferred this jurisdiction from the bishops to the Papacy,

who employed the order of S. Dominic for the special service

of the tribunal instituted by the Imperial Decrees of

Frederick II. The third deserves no other name than Spanish,

though, after it had taken shape in Spain, it was transferred

to Portugal, applied in all the Spanish and Portuguese

colonies, and communicated with some modifications to Italy

and the Netherlands. Both the second and the third types of

inquisition into heresy were Spanish inventions, patented by

the Roman Pontiffs and monopolised by the Dominican order. But

the third and final form of the Holy Office in Spain

distinguished itself by emancipation from Papal and Royal

control, and by a specific organisation which rendered it the

most formidable of irresponsible engines in the annals of

religious institutions. … Castile had hitherto been free

from the pest. But the conditions of that kingdom offered a

good occasion for its introduction at the date which I have

named. During the Middle Ages the Jews of Castile acquired

vast wealth and influence. Few families but felt the burden of

their bonds and mortgages. Religious fanaticism, social

jealousy, and pecuniary distress exasperated the Christian

population; and as early as the year 1391, more than 5,000

Jews were massacred in one popular uprising. The Jews, in

fear, adopted Christianity. It is said that in the 15th

century the population counted some million of

converts—called New Christians, or, in contempt, Marranos: a

word which may probably be derived from the Hebrew Maranatha.

These converted Jews, by their ability and wealth, crept into

high offices of state, obtained titles of aristocracy, and

founded noble houses. … It was a Sicilian Inquisitor, Philip

Barberis, who suggested to Ferdinand the Catholic the

advantage he might secure by extending the Holy Office to

Castile. Ferdinand avowed his willingness; and Sixtus IV. gave

the project his approval in 1478. But it met with opposition

from the gentler-natured Isabella. … Then Isabella yielded;

and in 1481 the Holy Office was founded at Seville. It began

its work by publishing a comprehensive edict against all New

Christians suspected of Judaising, which offence was so

constructed as to cover the most innocent observance of

national customs. Resting from labour on Saturday; performing

ablutions at stated times; refusing to eat pork or puddings

made of blood; and abstaining from wine, sufficed to colour

accusations of heresy. … Upon the publication of this edict,

there was an exodus of Jews by thousands into the fiefs of

independent vassals of the crown—the Duke of Medina Sidonia,

the Marquis of Cadiz, and the Count of Arcos. All emigrants

were 'ipso facto' declared heretics by the Holy Office. During

the first year after its foundation, Seville beheld 298

persons burned alive, and 79 condemned to perpetual

imprisonment. A large square stage of stone, called the

Quemadero, was erected for the execution of those multitudes

who were destined to suffer death by hanging or by flame. In

the same year, 2,000 were burned and 17,000 condemned to

public penitence, while even a larger number were burned in

effigy, in other parts of the kingdom. … In 1483 Thomas of

Torquemada was nominated Inquisitor General for Castile and

Aragon. Under his rule a Supreme Council was established, over

which he presided for life. … In 1484 a General Council was

held, and the constitution of the Inquisition was established

by articles. … The two most formidable features of the

Inquisition as thus constituted were the exclusion of the

bishops from its tribunal and the secrecy of its procedure.

… In the autumn of 1484 the Inquisition was introduced into

Aragon; and Saragossa became its headquarters in that State.

… The Spanish Inquisition was now firmly grounded. Directed

by Torquemada, it began to encroach upon the crown, to insult

the episcopacy, to defy the Papacy, to grind the Commons, and

to outrage by its insolence the aristocracy. … The Holy

Office grew every year in pride, pretensions and exactions. It

arrogated to its tribunal crimes of usury, bigamy, blasphemous

swearing, and unnatural vice, which appertained by right to

the secular courts. It depopulated Spain by the extermination

and banishment of at least three million industrious subjects

during the first 139 years of its existence. … Torquemada

was the genius of evil who created and presided over this foul

instrument of human crime and folly.

{1752}

During his eighteen years of administration, reckoning from

1480 to 1498, he sacrificed, according to Llorente's

calculation, above 114,000 victims, of whom 10,220 were burned

alive, 6,860 burned in effigy, and 97,000 condemned to

perpetual imprisonment or public penitence. He, too, it was

who in 1492 compelled Ferdinand to drive the Jews from his

dominions. … The edict of expulsion was issued on the last

of March. Before the last of July all Jews were sentenced to

depart, carrying no gold or silver with them. They disposed of

their lands, houses, and goods for next to nothing, and went

forth to die by thousands on the shores of Africa and Italy.

… The exodus of the Jews was followed in 1502 by a similar

exodus of Moors from Castile, and in 1524 by an exodus of

Mauresques from Aragon. To compute the loss of wealth and

population inflicted upon Spain by these mad edicts would be

impossible. … After Torquemada, Diego Deza reigned as second

Inquisitor General from 1498 to 1507. In these years,

according to the same calculation, 2,592 were burned alive,

896 burned in effigy, 34,952 condemned to prison or public

penitence. Cardinal Ximenes de Cisneros followed between 1507

and 1517. The victims of this decade were 3,564 burned alive.

… Adrian, Bishop of Tortosa, tutor to Charles V., and

afterwards Pope, was Inquisitor General between 1516 and 1525.

Castile, Aragon, and Catalonia, at this epoch, simultaneously

demanded a reform of the Holy Office from their youthful

sovereign. But Charles refused, and the tale of Adrian's

administration was 1,620 burned alive, 560 burned in effigy,

21,845 condemned to prison or public penitence. The total,

during 43 years, between 1481 and 1525, amounted to 234,526,

including all descriptions of condemned heretics. These

figures are of necessity vague, for the Holy Office left but

meagre records of its proceedings.".

J. A. Symonds,

Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,

chapter 3 (part 1).

ALSO IN:

H. C. Lea,

History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages.

J. A. Llorente,

History of the Inquisition,

chapters 1-12.

W. H. Rule,

History of the Inquisition,

chapters 1-14.

W. H. Prescott,

History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,

part 1, chapters 7 and 17.

See, also,

JEWS: 8TH-15TH CENTURIES; and MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.

INQUISITION: A. D. 1521-1568.

Introduction and work in the Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555; 1559-1562; and 1568.

INQUISITION: A. D. 1546.

Successful revolt against the Holy Office at Naples.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1528-1570.

INQUISITION: A. D. 1550-1816.

Establishment in Peru.

See PERU: A. D. 1550-1816.

INQUISITION: A. D. 1814-1820.

Restoration and abolition in Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

----------INQUISITION: End----------

INSTITUTES OF JUSTINIAN.

See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (DECEMBER).

INSUBRIANS AND CENOMANIANS, The.

"North of the Po, in the country about Milan, dwelt [3d

century, B. C.] the great people of the Insubrians, while to

the east of these on the Mincio and the Adige lay the

Cenomanians; but these tribes, little inclined, seemingly, to

make common cause with their countrymen [the Boian and

Senonian Gauls] remained neutral in all the hostilities

against Rome." But the Insubrians were attacked and subdued,

B. C. 223.

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 4, chapter 5 (volume 2).

See, also, ROME: B. C. 295-191.

INTERDICTS.

See EXCOMMUNICATIONS.

INTERIM OF CHARLES V., The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.

"INTERNATIONAL," The.

"The year of the London Exhibition, and under the auspices of

the Emperor Napoleon III., a number of Paris working-men

visited the English capital. They were welcomed by a London

Committee of artisans, and on this occasion the wish for a

closer union between the labourers of different countries was

expressed on both sides. Then the Polish insurrection broke

out, and masses of London and Paris working-men took steps

simultaneously to manifest sympathy with the insurgents. A

deputation was again sent over from Paris, and the result of

this measure was a resolution to delay preparations for

co-operation no longer. For some time the international idea

was carefully given prominence in labour circles in various

countries, and on September 28th, 1864, a congress of many

nations was held in St. Martin's Hall, London, under the

presidency of Professor Beesly. A committee was appointed,

representing England, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and

Switzerland, for the drawing up of statutes for an

International Working Men's Association, whose seat should be

London. … It was not long before the International

Association became a power which caused alarm to not a few

European Governments."

W. H. Dawson,

German Socialism and Ferdinand Lassalle,

chapter 13.

INTERREGNUM, The Great.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.

INTERREX.

A temporary king, in ancient Rome.

See ROME: B. C. 509; also, SENATE, ROMAN.

INTRANSIGENTISTS.

In European politics, the extreme radicals—the uncompromising

and irreconcilable factions—are frequently so called.

INVERLOCHY, Battle of (1645).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

INVESTITURES, The War of.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122;

and GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122.

INVISIBLE EMPIRE, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

IONA, Monastery and Schools of.

See COLUMBAN CHURCH;

and EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: IRELAND AND SCOTLAND.

IONIA.

The Ionian cities on the coast of Asia Minor bore collectively

the name Ionia, though no national union was signified by the

designation.

See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES, and after.

IONIAN (DELIAN) CONFEDERACY, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 478-477;

and ATHENS: B. C. 466-454, and after.

----------IONIAN ISLANDS: Start--------

IONIAN ISLANDS:

To 1814.

Under Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Venetian and French rule.

"Acarnania, as a glance at the map will show, is the most

western part of continental Greece. But in close proximity to

the mainland there stretch along the west coast a number of

islands, some of them of considerable area, the history and

traditions of which are inseparably intertwined with those of

Hellas. They have long been known as the Ionian Islands,

deriving the name, in all likelihood, from the sea in which

they are situated; for their ancient inhabitants were not, so

far as is known, of Ionic descent.

{1753}

They are very numerous, but only six of them are of

any historic importance. The most northerly is Corcyra

(Corfu), a long, narrow island, which extends like a lofty

breakwater in front of the coast of Epirus." The other five

are Paxos (Paxo), Leucadia (Santa Maura), Cephallenia

(Cephalonia), Ithaca (Thiaki), Zacynthus (Zante), and Cythera

(Cerigo). "Though not the largest, Corcyra is the most

populous and important of the islands. It has a place in the

mythic tradition, and a still greater one in the ascertained

history, of ancient Hellas.

See KORKYRA;

also, GREECE: B. C. 435-432, and 432.

… With the other islands in the Ionian Sea, Corcyra passed

under the dominion of Rome, and subsequently became part of

the Eastern Empire. In 540 A. D. the fleet of the Gothic

leader Totila ravaged the coasts of the island, but did not

capture the city, the fortifications of which had been greatly

strengthened by the Romans. Five centuries later the island

and its capital fell into the hands of a more formidable

invader—the Norman Robert Guiscard, who captured them on his

way from Italy to prosecute that invasion of the Byzantine

Empire which was at one time so nearly attended with success.

The first Norman supremacy did not last long; but in 1144 A.

D., Roger, the Norman king of Sicily, took occasion of a

rising of the Corcyreans (or, as they now began to be called,

the Corfiotes) against the Byzantine Emperor Manuel to

introduce a garrison into the city. Four years later Manuel,

who was an energetic and warlike prince, laid siege to Corfu,

and was assisted by the Venetians. The Norman garrison offered

a most determined resistance, but were ultimately obliged to

surrender on honourable terms. After the overthrow of the

Byzantine emperors, in the early part of the 13th century,

Corfu, with the other Ionian Islands, became part of the

dominions of the Venetian republic, and so continued, with

brief intervals, for nearly 500 years. The Venetian rule was

on the whole favourable to the material prosperity of the

island: it was admirably cultivated, and became the centre of

a large commerce. Unlike most of the other possessions of

Venice in the eastern Mediterranean, Corfu never fell into the

hands of the Turks. They overran and ravaged the island in

1537, carrying off, according to their custom, many of the

young women and children as slaves; and they besieged the

capital, but its fortifications had been much strengthened by

the Venetians, and the garrison was able to offer a successful

resistance. In 1716 another memorable siege [see TURKS: A. D.

1714-1718] took place, during the war in which Sultan Achmet

III. engaged with Austria and the Venetian republic. A large

Ottoman army under Kara Mustapha beleaguered Corfu; but the

garrison was commanded by a distinguished soldier, Count

Schulemburg, who baffled an the efforts of the Turks, and at

last compelled them to withdraw to their ships after they had

lost 15,000 men. By the Treaty of Campo Formio, dictated in

1797 to Austria by Napoleon after his marvellous Italian

campaign, the Ionian Islands were transferred to France [see

FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER)], the rest of the Venetian

territories falling to the share of Austria. The French

garrisons were, however, expelled in 1799 by a Russo-Turkish

expedition, and the islands constituted a republic [called the

Republic of the Seven Islands]. But in 1807, when the course

of events had changed Russia into an ally of the French

emperor, the latter again obtained possession of the islands

under the Treaty of Tilsit. The English, being masters of the

Mediterranean, soon drove the French out of all the islands

except Corfu. This was under French rule till 1814; and it is

only fair to say that they did much for the improvement of the

island, constructing some substantial roads in the interior.

In 1814, during the general cataclysm of the gigantic empire

of Napoleon, the French garrison was driven out of the island

after a gallant resistance, and in the following year the

Ionian Islands were reconstituted a republic under British

protection and supremacy."

C. H. Hanson,

The Land of Greece,

chapter 4.

IONIAN ISLANDS: A. D. 1815-1862.

The British protectorate.

Its relinquishment.

Annexation to the kingdom of Greece.

"These seven islands [the Ionian] were constituted a sort of

republic or commonwealth by the Treaty of Vienna [1815]. But

they were consigned to the protectorate of Great Britain;

which had the right of maintaining garrisons in them. Great

Britain used to appoint a Lord High Commissioner, who was

generally a military man, and whose office combined the duties

of Commander-in-Chief with those of Civil Governor. The little

republic had a Senate of six members and a Legislative

Assembly of forty members. It seems almost a waste of words to

say that the islanders were not content with British

government. For good or ill, the Hellenes, wherever they are

found, are sure to be filled with an impassioned longing for

Hellenic independence. The people of the Ionian Islands were

eager to be allowed to enter into one system with the kingdom

of Greece. It was idle to try to amuse them by telling them

they constituted an independent republic, and were actually

governing themselves, … while they saw themselves presided

over by an English Lord High Commissioner who was also the

Commander-in-Chief of a goodly British army garrisoned in

their midst. … It is certain that they got a great deal of

material benefit from the presence of the energetic

road-making British power. But they wanted to be, above all

things, Greek. … Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton [who was

then—1858—Secretary for the Colonies in the British

Government] … thought the causes of the complaints and the

dissatisfaction were well worth looking into, and he resolved

on sending a statesman of distinction out to the islands to

make the enquiry. Mr. Gladstone had been for some years out of

office. He had been acting as an independent supporter of Lord

Palmerston's Government. It occurred to Sir Edward Bulwer

Lytton that Mr. Gladstone was the man best fitted to conduct

the enquiry. … He offered, therefore, to Mr. Gladstone the

office of Lord High Commissioner Extraordinary to the Ionian

Islands, and Mr. Gladstone accepted the offer and its duties."

Arriving in Corfu in November, 1858, "he called together the

Senate, and endeavoured to satisfy them as to the real nature

of his mission. He explained that he had not come there to

discuss the propriety of maintaining the English protectorate,

but only to enquire into the manner in which the just claims

of the Ionian Islands might be secured by means of that

protectorate."

{1754}

But "the population of the islands persisted in regarding him,

not as the commissioner of a Conservative English Government,

but as 'Gladstone the Philhellene.' He was received wherever

he went with the honours due to a liberator. … The visit of

Mr. Gladstone, whatever purpose it may have been intended to

fulfil, had the effect of making them [the Ionians] agitate

more strenuously than ever for annexation to the kingdom of

Greece. Their wish, however, was not to be granted yet. A new

Lord High Commissioner was sent out after Mr. Gladstone's

return. … Still … the idea held ground that sooner or

later Great Britain would give up the charge of the islands. A

few years after, an opportunity occurred for making the

cession. The Greeks got rid quietly of their heavy German king

Otho [see GREECE: A. D. 1830-1862], and on the advice chiefly

of England they elected as sovereign a brother of the Princess

of Wales. … The second son of the King of Denmark was made

King of Greece; and Lord John Russell, on behalf of the

English Government, then [1862] handed over to the kingdom of

Greece the islands of which Great Britain had had so long to

bear the unwilling charge."

J. McCarthy,

History of our Own Times,

chapter 39 (volume 3).

----------IONIAN ISLANDS: End--------

IONIAN REVOLT, The.

See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

IONIANS, The.

See DORIANS AND IONIANS.

IONIC (PAN-IONIC) AMPHIKTYONY.

"There existed at the commencement of historical Greece, in

776 B. C., besides the Ionians in Attica and the Cyclades,

twelve Ionian cities of note on or near the coast of Asia

Minor, besides a few others less important. Enumerated from

south to north, they stand—Milêtus, Myûs, Priênê, Samos,

Ephesus, Kolophôn, Lebedus, Teôs, Erythræ, Chios, Klazomenæ,

Phôkæa. … Milêtus, Myûs and Priênê were situated on or near

the productive plain of the river Mæander; while Ephesus was

in like manner planted near the mouth of the Kaïster … :

Kolophon is only a very few miles north of the same river.

Possessing the best means of communication with the interior,

these towns seem to have thriven with greater rapidity than

the rest; and they, together with the neighbouring island of

Samos, constituted in early times the strength of the

Pan-Ionic Amphiktyony. The situation of the sacred precinct of

Poseidôn (where this festival was celebrated) on the north

side of the promontory of Mykalê, near Priênê, and between

Ephesus and Milêtus, seems to show that these towns formed the

primitive centre to which the other Ionian settlements became

gradually aggregated. For it was by no means a centrical site

with reference to all the twelve. … Moreover, it seems that

the Pan-Ionic festival [the celebration of which constituted

the Amphiktyony], though still formally continued, had lost

its importance before the time of Thucydidês, and had become

practically superseded by the more splendid festival of the

Ephesia, near Ephesus, where the cities of Ionia found a more

attractive place of meeting."

G. Grote,

History of Greece

part 2, chapter 13 (volume 3).

----------IOWA: Start--------

IOWA: The Aboriginal Inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS,

and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

IOWA: A. D. 1803.

Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

IOWA: A. D. 1834-1838.

Joined to Michigan Territory;

then to Wisconsin;

then separately organized.

See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

IOWA: A. D. 1845.

Admission into the Union, with Florida for a slave-state

counterweight.

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

----------IOWA: End--------

IOWAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY,

and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

IPSUS, Battle of (B. C. 301).

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.

IQUIQUE, Battle of (1891).

See CHILE: A. D. 1885-1891.

IRACA.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.

IRAK.

At the time of the Mahometan conquest, "Chaldea and Babylonia

occupied the rich region south of the river Tigris, watered by

the Euphrates, and were known as Irak of the Arabs, as

distinguished from Irak of the Persians, which corresponded

somewhat nearly to the modern kingdom of Persia. … Irak of

Arabia was at this time under the jurisdiction of Persia, and

the wandering Arabs who roamed over the broad desert were

tributary to Persia when they pitched their tents on the

eastern side, and to Rome when sojourning on the side towards

Syria; though they were at no time trusty allies or subjects.

The region of Irak contains many relics of a former

civilization; there are the mounds that mark the site of old

Babylon."

A. Gilman,

Story of the Saracens,

pages 226-227.

IRAN, Table-Land of.

"Between the valley of the Indus and the land of the Euphrates

and Tigris, bounded on the south by the ocean and the Persian

Gulf, on the north by the broad steppes which the Oxus and

Jaxartes vainly attempt to fertilise, by the Caspian Sea and

the valley of the Aras [embracing modern Persia, Baluchistan,

Afghanistan and Russian Turkestan], lies the table-land of

Iran. Rising to an average height of 4,000 feet above the

level of the sea, it forms an oblong, the length of which from

east to west is something more than 1,500 miles. … As far

back as our information extends, we find the table-land of

Iran occupied by a group of nations closely related to each

other, and speaking dialects of the same language."

M. Duncker,

History of Antiquity,

book 7, chapter 1.

See, also, ARYANS.

IRDJAR, Russian defeat at.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

----------IRELAND: Start--------

A Logical Outline of Irish History

In Which The Dominant Conditions And

Influences Are Distinguished By Colors.

Physical or material. (Red)

Ethnological. (Blue)

Social and political. (Green)

Intellectual, moral and religious. (Tan)

Foreign. (Black)

(Blue)

In the history of the two islands which form the United

Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland there is a contrast of

fortune which nothing will account for save unexplainable

qualities of race. The Celtic warmth prevailing on one side of

St. George's Channel has worked ill in politics as against the

Teutonic coolness on the other; and it is probable that no

change of circumstances or conditions would have altered

greatly the relations of the two peoples. In their situation

as close neighbors, it was inevitable that one should dominate

the other. It seems to have been no less inevitable that the

mastery should settle where it did; and simply by the force of

more masterful qualities in the English race.

(Red)

If those who dwelt nearer to the mainland of Europe held

advantages over those of the farther island, they took nothing

from them in the earlier generations, but were overleaped and

passed by when the first movements of Christianity and

Christian culture into the West began; and it was Ireland, not

England, for three centuries, which nourished the purest faith

and the highest civilization of the age. If other advantages

belonged to the island which was richer in iron and coal, the

English were not helped by them to an ascendancy which they

had won before the mining of their riches began.

(Green)

In the early years of the eleventh century, when most of the

island had submitted to the rule of Brian Born, and when he

had shaken the grasp of the intruding Danes on the seaports of

the eastern and southern coasts, the state and prospects of

Ireland would have seemed to be well-nigh as good as those of

England at the same time. But that appearance vanished soon,

and it never returned. Among the English, the tendency toward

national union grew stronger with every generation; among the

Irish it got no growth. The political genius of the race,

remarkable to the present day in municipal politics, but

rarely successful in the greater political arenas, has always

been tribal or provincial in its range, and wanting in a

national comprehensiveness.

(Tan)

The Norman conquest of England was helpful to the

consolidation of an English kingdom. The Anglo-Norman conquest

of Ireland occurring a century later, promoted, on the

contrary, the divisions and disorders of the island. It

brought a new faction into Irish quarrels, instead of a new

sovereign to extinguish them. It was complete enough to forbid

the growth of order from any native root of influence or

authority, but not complete enough to carry order with itself.

In the full sense of the term it was never a conquest. It was

rather a persistent invasion, continued and repeated through

more than five centuries. In every generation it inflamed anew

the fierce animosity which an incomplete conquest will not

suffer to die out, until the very descendants of the older

intruders were infected with the native hatred of their

later-coming kindred. After four hundred years of inconclusive

conflict, the English were hardly nearer to mastery, the Irish

hardly nearer to submission, than at first.

Then arose between them a new difference to embitter their

antagonism. The Reformation of religion was accepted by one

race as naturally as it was rejected by the other. But

Protestantism under English patronage assumed a more hateful

aspect in Irish eyes, and Irishmen as Papists became doubly

odious to the English mind. So political hostilities and

religious enmities fomented one another, from that time, while

the primitive antagonism of race gave energy to both.

Under Cromwell and under William of Orange the subjugation was

completed at last in the spirit of a Protestant crusade, and

used as crusading victories have been wont to be used. The

triumphant Church, planting its strong settlements in the

land, assumed to itself all civil and political rights. Every

office and every honorable profession were closed against the

adherents of the defeated faith; its ministrations were

forbidden; its priests were expelled.

(Green)

But this was not all. As British commerce grew and British

industries were built up, they contributed yet another to the

malign confederacy of passions which oppressed the Irish

people. The merchant, the manufacturer, the landowner and the

farmer, on the English side, were banded by common jealousies

to suppress competition in Ireland. They hindered the

improvement of its resources and paralyzed its energies by

atrocious legislation. They reduced its population to

dependence on the most restricted production, leaving little

except husbandry for a vocation, and that under grinding

terms. They created by such measures a nation of peasants, as

poor and as helpless as serfs, living wretchedly on precarious

holdings of soil, at the mercy of landlords who regarded them

with dislike and contempt.

It was under such crushing conditions as these that Ireland

remained until near the end of the eighteenth century, always

hating the oppressors, often resisting the oppression, but

weakly or rashly, without judgment or enduring resolution.

Then began a great change in the tenor of her history. Two

influences of the age came into play, one acting on the

conscience of the English people, the other on the mind and

temper of the Irish. One has worked to the yielding of

justice, the other to the firmer pressing of demands for it.

At this day it may be said that oppression in Ireland, whether

religious or political, is wholly and forever extinct; that

whatever remains in dispute between Celt and Saxon is from

questions such as rise in every nation, and that the

bitterness which stays in Anglo-Irish politics is the

lingering rancor of a hateful past, not quickly to be

extinguished.

----------A Logical Outline of Irish History: End--------

IRELAND:

The name.

"Ireland was known by many names from very early ages. Thus,

in the Celtic it was called Inis-Fall, the isle of destiny;

Inis-Ealga, the noble island; Fiodh-Inis, the woody island;

and Eire, Fodhla, and Banba. By the Greeks it was called

Ierne, probably from the vernacular name of Eire, by

inflection Erin; whence, also, no doubt, its Latin name of

Juverna; Plutarch calls it Ogygia, or the ancient land; the

early Roman writers generally called it Hibernia, probably

from its Iberian inhabitants, and the later Romans and

mediæval writers Scotia, and sometimes Hibernia; and finally

its name of Ireland was formed by the Anglo-Normans from its

native name of Eire."

M. Haverty,

History of Ireland,

page 76, note.

See, also,

SCOTLAND: THE NAME;

and IRELAND: TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

{1755}

IRELAND:

The primitive inhabitants.

"The first people … of whose existence in Ireland we can be

said to know anything are commonly asserted to have been of

Turanian origin, and are known as 'Formorians.' As far as we

can gather, they were a dark, low-browed, stunted race,

although, oddly enough, the word Formorian in early Irish

legend is always used as synonymous with the word giant. They

were, at any rate, a race of utterly savage hunters and

fishermen, ignorant of metal, of pottery, possibly even of the

use of fire; using the stone hammers or hatchets of which vast

numbers remain in Ireland to this day, and specimens of which

may be seen in every museum. How long they held possession no

one can tell, although Irish philologists believe several

local Irish names to date from this almost inconceivably

remote epoch. Perhaps if we think of the Lapps of the present

day, and picture them wandering about the country, … it will

give us a fairly good notion of what these very earliest

inhabitants of Ireland were probably like.

See FOMORIANS.

Next followed a Belgic colony, known as the Firbolgs, who

overran the country, and appear to have been of a somewhat

higher ethnological grade, although, like the Formorians,

short, dark, and swarthy. Doubtless the latter were not

entirely exterminated to make way for the Firbolgs, any more

than the Firbolgs to make way for the Danaans, Milesians, and

other successive races; such wholesale exterminations being,

in fact, very rare, especially in a country which like Ireland

seems specially laid out by kindly nature for the protection

of a weaker race struggling in the grip of a stronger one.

After the Firbolgs, though I should be sorry to be obliged to

say how long after, fresh and more important tribes of

invaders began to appear. The first of these were the

Tuatha-da-Danaans, who arrived under the leadership of their

king Nuad, and took possession of the east of the country.

These Tuatha-da-Danaans are believed to have been large,

blue-eyed people of Scandinavian origin, kinsmen and possibly

ancestors of those Norsemen or 'Danes' who in years to come

were destined to work such woe and havoc upon the island. …

What their end was no man can tell you, save that they, too,

were, in their turn, conquered by the Milesians or 'Scoti,'

who next overran the country, giving to it their own name' of

Scotia, by which name it was known down to the end of the

twelfth century, and driving the earlier settlers before them,

who thereupon fled to the hills, and took refuge in the

forests, whence they emerged, doubtless, with unpleasant

effect upon their conquerors, as another defeated race did

upon their conquerors in later days."

E. Lawless,

The Story of Ireland,

chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

T. Moore,

History of Ireland,

volume 1, chapter 5.

IRELAND:

Tribes of early Celtic inhabitants.

"On the northern coast dwelt the Veniconii, in the modern

county of Donegal, and the Robogdii, in Londonderry and

Antrim. Adjoining to the Veniconii, westward, were the Erdini

or Erpeditani, and next to them the Magnatæ, all in Donegal.

Farther south were the Auteri, in Sligo; the Gangani, in Mayo;

and the Velibori, or Ellebri, in the district between Galway

and the Shannon. The south-west part of the island, with a

great portion of the interior, was inhabited by the Iverni,

who gave name not only to the great river but to the whole

island, and who may, perhaps, be considered as the aboriginal

inhabitants. … In the modern counties of Waterford and

Tipperary, Ptolemy places a tribe called the Usdiæ or Vodiæ,

according to the variations of the manuscripts. In the modern

county of Wexford dwelt the Brigantes; and northward from them

were the Coriondi, in Wicklow; the Menapii, in Dublin; the

Cauci, on the banks of the Boyne; the Blanii, or Eblani, on

the bay of Dundalk; the Voluntii, in Down; and the Darini,

bordering on the Robogdii, in Antrim. Three, at least, of the

tribes who held the eastern coast of Ireland, the Brigantes,

the Menapii, and the Voluntii, were, no doubt, colonies from

the opposite shores of Britain."

T. Wright,

Celt, Roman and Saxon,

chapter 2.

IRELAND:

5th-8th Centuries.

The coming of St. Patrick and the Christianizing of the Island.

Its Schools and its Missionaries.

"Lying on the extreme verge of Europe, the last land then

known to the adventurous Scandinavian, and beyond which fable

had scarcely projected its dreams, it was in the fifth century

since the Redemption that Christianity reached them.

Patricius, a Celt of Gaul it is said, carried into Erin as a

slave by one of the Pagan kings, some of whom made military

expeditions to North and South Britain, and even to the Alps

and the Loire, became the Apostle of Ireland. Patrick escaped

from slavery, was educated at Rome, but in mature manhood

insisted on returning to the place of his bondage, to preach

Christianity to a people who seem to have exercised over the

imagination of the Apostle the same spell of sympathy which in

later times subdued strangers of many nations. He was received

with extraordinary favour, and before his death nearly the

whole island had embraced Christianity. The coming of Patrick

took place in the year of our Lord 432, and he laboured for

sixty years after; planting churches and schools, rooting out

the practices and monuments of Paganism, and disciplining the

people in religion and humanity. It was a noble service, and

it impressed itself for ever on the memory of the race whom he

served. … In the succeeding century the Church which he

planted became possessed by a passion which it has never

entirely lost, the passion for missionary enterprise. Its

fathers projected the conversion of the fierce natives of the

Continent to the new creed of humility and self-denial, and by

the same humane agents which Patrick had employed in

Ireland—persuasion and prayer; a task as generous as any of

which history has preserved the record. In this epoch Ireland

may, without exaggeration, be said to have been a Christian

Greece, the nurse of science and civilisation. The Pagan

annals of the country are overlaid by fable and extravagance,

but the foundation of Oxford or the mission of St. Augustine

does not lie more visibly within the boundaries of legitimate

history than the Irish schools, which attracted students from

Britain and Gaul, and sent out missionaries through the

countries now known as Western Europe.

{1756}

Among the forests of Germany, on the desert shores of the

Hebrides, in the camp of Alfred, at the court of Charlemagne,

in the capital of the Christian world, where Michelet

describes their eloquence as charming the counsellors of the

Emperor, there might be found the fervid preachers and subtle

doctors of the Western Isle. It was then that the island won

the title still fondly cherished, 'insula sanctorum'. The

venerable Bede describes nobles and students at this epoch as

quitting the island of Britain to seek education in Ireland,

and he tells us that the hospitable Celts found them teachers,

books, food and shelter at the cost of the nation. The school

at Armagh, where St. Patrick had established the primacy of

the Church, is reputed to have attracted 7,000 students, and

there were schools at Lismore, Bangor, Clonmacnoise, and Mayo,

which rivalled it in importance. Monasteries multiplied in a

still greater number, and with results as beneficial. …

Writers who are little disposed to make any other concession

to Ireland admit that this was a period of extraordinary

intellectual activity, and of memorable services to

civilization. The arts, as far as they were the handmaidens of

religion, attained a surprising development. The illuminated

copies of the Scripture, the croziers and chalices which have

come down to us from those days, the Celtic crosses and Celtic

harps, the bells and tabernacles, are witnesses of a distinct

and remarkable national culture. The people were still partly

shepherds and husbandmen, partly soldiers, ruled by the Chief,

the Brehon, and the Priest. … After this generous work had

obtained a remarkable success, it was disturbed by contests

with the Sea Kings. … The Cathedral and city of St. Patrick,

the schools of Bangor, the cloisters of Clonmacnoise, and many

more seats of piety and learning, fell into their hands. The

sacred vessels of the altar were turned into drinking cups,

and the missals, blazing with precious stones, were torn from

their costly bindings to furnish ornaments for their sword

hilts, and gifts to the Scalds who sang their achievements.

These pagans burned monasteries, sacked churches, and murdered

women and priests, for plunder or sport. … Before the

dangers and troubles of a long internecine war, the School of

the West gradually dwindled away, and it had fallen into

complete decay before Brian Borhoime, at the beginning of the

11th century, finally subdued the invaders."

Sir C. G. Duffy,

A Bird's Eye View of Irish History, revised edition,

pages 7-12 (or chapter 4, in "Young Ireland").

"Ireland, that virgin island on which proconsul never set

foot, which never knew either the orgies or the exactions of

Rome, was also the only place in the world of which the Gospel

took possession without bloodshed. … From the moment that

this Green Erin, situated at the extremity of the known world,

had seen the sun of faith rise upon her, she had vowed herself

to it with an ardent and tender devotion which became her very

life. The course of ages has not interrupted this; the most

bloody and implacable of persecutions has not shaken it; the

defection of all northern Europe has not led her astray; and

she maintains still, amid the splendours and miseries of

modern civilisation and Anglo-Saxon supremacy, an

inextinguishable centre of faith, where survives, along with

the completest orthodoxy, that admirable purity of manners

which no conqueror and no adversary has ever been able to

dispute, to equal, or to diminish. … The Irish communities,

joined by the monks from Gaul and Rome, whom the example of

Patrick had drawn upon his steps, entered into rivalry with

the great monastic schools of Gaul. They explained Ovid there;

they copied Virgil; they devoted themselves especially to

Greek literature; they drew back from no inquiry, from no

discussion. … A characteristic still more distinctive of the

Irish monks, as of all their nation, was the imperious

necessity of spreading themselves without, of seeking or

carrying knowledge and faith afar, and of penetrating into the

most distant regions to watch or combat paganism. This monastic

nation, therefore, became the missionary nation 'par

excellence'."

Count de Montalembert,

The Monks of the West,

book 7 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

T. Moore,

History of Ireland,

chapter 10-14 (volume 1),

and chapter 18 (volume 2).

D. DeVinné,

The Irish Primitive Church.

See, also, CHRISTIANITY; 5TH-9TH CENTURIES.

IRELAND: 9th-10th Centuries.

The Danish conquests and settlements.

"The people popularly known in our history as Danes comprised

swarms from various countries in the north of Europe, from

Norway, Sweden, Zealand, Jutland, and, in general, from all

the shores and islands of the Baltic. … In the Irish annals

they are variously called Galls, or foreigners; Geinti, or

Gentiles; and Lochlanni, or inhabitants of Lochlann, or

Lake-land, that is, Norway; and they are distinguished as the

Finn Galls, or White Foreigners, who are supposed to have been

the inhabitants of Norway; and the Dubh Galls, or Black

Foreigners, who were probably the people of Jutland, and of

the southern shores of the Baltic Sea. A large tract of

country north of Dublin still retains the name of the former.

… The Danes never obtained the dominion of Ireland as they

did that of England."

M. Haverty,

History of Ireland,

chapters 13-14.

"Ireland was as yet [in the 9th century] a more tempting prey

for the pirates than even Gaul. It was at the monasteries that

these earlier raids were mainly aimed; and nowhere were the

monastic houses so many and so rich. It was in these retreats

indeed, sheltered as men deemed by their holiness from the

greed of the spoiler, that the whole wealth of the country was

stored; and the gold work and jewelry of their shrines, their

precious chalices, the silver-bound horn which king or noble

dedicated at their altars, the curiously-wrought covering of

their mass-books, the hoard of their treasure-chests, fired

the imagination of the northern marauders as the treasures of

the Incas fired that of the soldiers of Spain. News spread

fast up dale and fiord how wealth such as men never dreamed of

was heaped up in houses guarded only by priests and shavelings

who dared not draw sword. The Wikings had long been drawing

closer to this tempting prey. From the coast of Norway a sail

of twenty-four hours with a fair wind brings the sailor in

sight of the Shetlands; Shetlands and Orkneys furnished a base

for the advance of the pirates along the western shores of

Britain, where they found a land like their own in the dales

and lochs of Ross and Argyll, and where the names of Caithness

and Sutherland tell of their conquest and settlement on the

mainland; while the physical appearance of the people still

records their colonization of the Hebrides. Names such as that

of the Orm's Head mark their entrance at last into the Irish

Channel."

J. R. Green,

The Conquest of England,

chapter 2.

{1757}

"The 9th century was the period of Danish plunder, and of

settlement along the coasts and in convenient places for

purposes of plunder. Towards the latter end of this century

the Irish in Ireland, like the English in England, succeeded

in driving out the enemy, and there was peace for forty years.

Then came the Danes again, but bent more definitely than

before on permanent settlement; and their most notable work

was the establishment of the Danish kingdom of Dublin, with

its centre at one of their old haunts, Ath Cliath on the

Liffey, where the city of Dublin was built by them. The

establishment of this kingdom dates from the year 919, and its

extent may be traced to-day as conterminous with the diocese

of Dublin, extending from Holmpatrick and Skerries on the

north, to Arklow and Wicklow on the south, and inland no

farther than seven or eight miles to Leixlip. Until quite

recently this was also the district over which extended the

jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor of Dublin as Admiral of the

Port of Dublin. On College Green used to be held the assembly

of the freemen of the kingdom of Dublin, while the chiefs took

their seats on the steep hill that once stood where St.

Andrew's Church now stands, opposite to 'the old house on

College Green,' which is so dear to the national aspirations

of the modern Irishmen. There the Danes held their

parliaments, agreeing on laws, consenting to judgments and

contracts, feasting and making merry, just as the old Irish

held their parliaments at Tara, Carman, Armagh, and elsewhere.

Nor was Dublin the only Danish city. Limerick, Cork,

Waterford, Wexford, all became the centres of petty Danish

kingdoms, active in commerce, skilful for those times, in

domestic architecture, and with political and legislative

ideas identical in their essence with those of the people

among whom they settled. In the course of the 10th century the

Danes nominally became, for the most part, converts to

Christianity. But it appears that they derived their

Christianity mainly from English sources; and when they began

to organize their Church, they did so after the Roman manner,

and in connection with the see of Canterbury. It was not,

however, till after the wars of Brian Born that Danish

Christianity became either very real or at all organized."

S. Bryant,

Celtic Ireland,

chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

C. Haliday,

The Scandinavian Kingdom of Dublin.

C. F. Keary,

The Vikings in Western Christendom,

chapter 6.

See, also,

NORMANS: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES,

IRELAND: A. D. 1014.

The Battle of Clontarf and the great defeat of the Danes.

By a revolution which occurred in the year 1000, Malachy II.

of the dynasty which had reigned long at Tara, was deposed

from the chief sovereignty, and Brian Boromh or Boru, of the

royal family of Munster, who had fought his way up to

masterful power, became the Ardrigh or over-king of Ireland.

In 1014 Brian was called upon to face a great combination

which the Danes of Dublin had effected with their fellow

Northmen, including those of Denmark, Norway, Scotland and all

the isles. It was the Danish intention now to accomplish

completely the conquest of Ireland and bring their long

struggle with its Celtic inhabitants to an effectual close,

King Brian and his countrymen made equal exertions on their

side to meet the attack, and the great battle of Clontarf,

fought on Good Friday of the year 1014, gave them a decisive

victory. "Clontarf, the lawn or meadow of bulls, stretches

along the crescent-shaped north strand of Dublin harbor, from

the ancient salmon weir at Ballyboght bridge, towards the

promontory of Howth. Both horns of the crescent were held by

the enemy, and communicated with his ships: the inland point

terminating in the roofs of Dublin, and the seaward marked by

the lion-like head of Howth. The meadow land between sloped

gently upward and inward from the beach, and for the myriad

duels which formed the ancient battle, no field could present

less positive vantage ground to combatants on either side. The

invading force had possession of both wings, so that Brian's

army, which had first encamped at Kilmainham, must have

crossed the Liffey higher up, and marched round by the present

Drumcondra in order to reach the appointed field. The day

seems to have been decided on by formal challenge. … The

forces on both sides could not have fallen short of 20,000

men. … The utmost fury was displayed on all sides. …

Hardly a nobly born man escaped, or sought to escape. The ten

hundred in armor, and 3,000 others of the enemy, with about an

equal number of the men of Ireland, lay dead upon the field.

One division of the enemy were, towards sunset, retreating to

their ships, when Brodar the Viking, perceiving the tent of

Brian, standing apart, without a guard, and the aged king on

his knees before the Crucifix, rushed in, cut him down with a

single blow, and then continued his flight. … The deceased

hero took his place at once in history, national and foreign.

… The fame of the event went out through all nations. The

chronicles of Wales, of Scotland, and of Man; the annals of

Ademar and Marianus; the Sagas of Denmark and the Isles, all

record the event. … 'Brian's battle,' as it is called in the

Sagas, was, in short, such a defeat as prevented any general

northern combination for the subsequent invasion of Ireland.

Not that the country was entirely free from their attacks till

the end of the 11th century; but, from the day of Clontarf

forward, the long cherished Northern idea of a conquest of

Ireland seems to have been gloomily abandoned by that

indomitable people."

T. D'Arcy McGee,

Popular History of Ireland,

book 2, chapter 6 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

T. Moore,

History of Ireland,

chapter 21 (volume 2).

See, also,

NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: 10TH-13TH CENTURIES.

IRELAND: 12th Century.

The great tribes and kingdoms and the ruling families.

"Ireland was now [immediately before Strongbow's conquest]

divided into four confederations of tribes. The O'Neils held

Ulidia, which is now called Ulster; the O'Connors Conacia, or

Connaught; the O'Briens and the M'Carthys Mononia, or Munster;

and the Macmurroughs Lagenia, or Leinster—all under the

paramount but often-disputed rule of a branch of the Ulster

O'Neils. The royal demesne of Meath, the appanage of the

Ulster family, which included Westmeath, Longford, and a part

of King's County, was sometimes counted a fifth kingdom. In

the wild north, O'Neil, O'Donnel, O'Kane, O'Hara, O'Sheel,

O'Carrol, were mighty names.

{1758}

On the northern-most peninsula, where the Atlantic runs into

Lough Foyle and Lough Swilly, O'Dogherty reigned supreme. In

Connaught, O'Rourke, O'Reilly, O'Kelly, O'Flaherty, O'Malley,

O'Dowd, were lords. In Meath and Leinster, MacGeogeghan,

O'Farrell, O'Connor, O'Moore, O'Brennan, Macmurrough, ruled.

In Munster, by the western shore, MacCarthy More held sway.

MacCarthy Reagh swayed the south, by the pleasant waters of

Cork Bay. O'Sullivan Beare was lord of the fair promontory

between Bantry Bay and Kenmare River. O'Mahony reigned by

roaring Water Bay. O'Donoghue was chieftain by the haunted

Killarney Lakes. MacMahon ruled north of the Shannon. O'Loglin

looked on Galway Bay. All Ireland, with the exception of a few

seaport towns where the Danes had settled, was in the hands of

Irish chiefs of old descent and famous lineage. They

quarrelled amongst themselves as readily and as fiercely as if

they had been the heads of so many Greek states. The Danes had

been their Persians; their Romans were now to come."

J. H. McCarthy,

Outline of Irish History,

chapter 3.

IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.

The Anglo-Norman conquest.

"The conquest of Ireland is among the most important episodes

in the reign of Henry II. … There were reasons, besides the

mere lust of conquest, why an English king should desire to

reduce Ireland. It had given harbours and recruits to the

Northmen on their expeditions; Irish soldiers had fought at

Brunanbeorh [or Brunnanburgh] against Athelstane; English

exiles, like the sons of Harold, repeatedly fled to the

island, and awaited the opportunity of reprisals upon their

own government. Irish pirates infested the English coasts, and

carried off prisoners, whom they sold as slaves. Accordingly,

William the Conqueror had meditated subjugating Ireland, if he

lived two years longer; William Rufus once declared, as he

stood on the coast of Wales, that he would bridge St. George's

Channel with a fleet of ships. But it was reserved for John of

Salisbury to obtain from his intimate friend, the English

pope, Adrian IV., a grant of Ireland to the English crown [by

the Bull 'Laudabilitur'] as a hereditary fief (A. D. 1154).

… Nevertheless, the difficulty of invading Ireland seemed

greater than any profit likely to result from it. The king's

council opposed the enterprise; and for some years the project

was suffered to sleep. But the wretched disorders of Irish

politics invited the invader." Diarmaid MacMurchad, king of

Leinster, having been driven from his dominions, "repaired to

the court of Henry II. in Aquitaine. The offer to hold

Leinster, if Henry would reinstate him, as an English fief,

procured Diarmaid free quarters in Bristol, to which he

speedily returned, and letters patent authorizing any English

subject to assist him. Diarmaid published these, and promised

large rewards in land to those who would help him to win back

his kingdom. The most powerful ally whom Diarmaid's offers

attracted was Richard de Clare, surnamed Strongbow, earl of

Pembroke, and distant cousin to the king. … Three other

adventurers were enlisted. Two of them, Robert Fitz-Stephen

and Maurice Fitz-Gerald, were sons, by different fathers, of

Nest, a Welsh princess; the third was Maurice de Prendergast."

In May, 1169, Fitz-Stephen, with a small following, crossed

the channel and captured Wexford. Some other successes soon

enabled Diarmaid to make peace with his enemies and recover

his kingdom, even before Strongbow's expedition had left

Wales. "Diarmaid was reinstated, and English subjects had no

authority to carry on war on their own account in Ireland.

Strongbow accordingly went to Normandy, and asked permission

to push the advantages gained. Obtaining only an ambiguous

answer from the king, he determined to consider it in his

favour, and went back into Wales to prepare an expedition. In

May, A. D. 1170, he sent over Raymond le Gros, Fitz-Stephen's

half nephew, as his precursor." Raymond defeated the Irish

with great slaughter, in a battle near Waterford, and savagely

murdered seventy prisoners. "In August, A. D. 1170, as

Strongbow was preparing to embark, he received an explicit

order from the king not to proceed. Quietly disregarding it,

he crossed with a little army of 1,200 men, out of whom 200

were knights. The storm of Waterford was his first exploit;

and it illustrates the Irish architecture of the times, that

the city walls were trenched by cutting away the wooden props

of a house that was built into them. The frightful carnage of

the storm was succeeded by the earl's marriage with Eva

[daughter of King Diarmaid], who brought a kingdom as her

dower. Then the united forces marched upon Dublin." The Danish

city was treacherously stormed in the midst of a negotiation,

and "the inhabitants experienced the worst miseries of the

conquered. Hasculf [the Danish or Norse governor], and Asgall,

king of the Northmen, escaped on board some small vessels to

their countrymen in the Orkneys." The next year Hasculf

reappeared with 60 ships from the Orkneys and Norway and laid

siege to Dublin. He was defeated, taken prisoner and killed;

but another fleet soon arrived and Dublin was again under

siege. Reduced to a desperate strait, the small garrison

sallied and routed the besiegers; but meantime Strongbow had

lost ground elsewhere and Dublin and Waterford were the only

possessions he retained. The anger of King Henry at his

disobedience caused many of his followers to desert him, and

he soon found it necessary to make peace with his offended

sovereign. Crossing over to England, he succeeded in winning

the royal pardon, and Henry returned to Ireland with him, to

assist in the completing of the conquest. They were

accompanied by a fleet of 400 ships and some 4,000 men. The

appearance of the king was followed by a general submission of

the Irish princes, and he made a royal progress to Cashel,

where, in 1172, a synod was held to effect the Church reforms

which were, ostensibly, the chief object of the conquest. "The

court held at Lismore to establish order among the English

settlers is better evidence than any synod of the real objects

of the conquest. The country was partially distributed among

Norman nobles; but as the English conquest of Ireland, more

rapid than the Norman of England, had been effected by fewer

men, and was more insecure, the changes in the property and

laws of the nation were proportionately smaller. Meath, as the

appanage of royalty, of course accrued to the English crown,

and Henry assigned the whole of it to Hugh de Lacy, whom he

made justiciary of the realm and governor of Dublin. The

object of this enormous grant, no doubt, was to balance

Strongbow's power.

{1759}

The families of Desmond, Ormond, and Vernon received other

estates. But the number of those invested was small. … The

slightness of the change, no doubt, mainly contributed to the

readiness with which the supremacy of the English crown was

accepted. In April, A. D. 1172, Henry was able to return to

England, leaving only Ulster behind him nominally unsubdued. A

series of petty wars between Irish chiefs and Norman nobles

soon broke out. The precarious nature of the English dominion

became manifest; and Henry was forced to publish the papal

grant of Ireland, which he had hitherto suppressed. At last,

in A. D. 1175, Roderic O'Connor [king of Connaught, and

previously recognized over-king of Ireland] made a treaty with

the English crown, and agreed to render homage and submission,

and a tribute of every tenth hide, in return for royal rights

in his own kingdom of Connaught. At the same time, the limits

of the English pale, as it was afterwards called, were

defined. This district, which was immediately subject to the

king of England and his barons, comprised Dublin with its

appurtenances, Meath, Leinster, and the country from Waterford

to Dungarvon. … From the English point of view, the kings of

England were henceforth lords-paramount of Ireland, with the

fee of the soil vested in them, and all Irish princes in

future were no more than tenants-in-chief. From the Irish

point of view, the English kings were nothing more than

military suzerains in the districts outside the pale."

C. H. Pearson,

History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,

volume 1, chapter 30.

ALSO IN:

Mrs. J. R. Green,

Henry the Second,

chapter 8.

A. G. Richey,

Short History of the Irish People,

chapters 6-7.

W. A. O'Conor,

History of the Irish People,

book 2, chapters 1-2.

T. Moore,

History of Ireland,

chapters 26-29.

F. P. Barnard, editor,

Strongbow's Conquest of Ireland:

From Contemporary Writers.

IRELAND: 13th-14th Centuries.

Under the Anglo-Norman conquerors.

"The feudal system as established in Ireland differed in

important respects from that existing in England. It is usual

for Irish writers to attribute much of the sufferings of

Ireland to the misgovernment of England and the introduction

of feudalism, whereas most of these evils may be referred

rather to English non-government and to the peculiar anomalies

of the Irish feudal system. The feudal system as introduced

into Ireland, like most other institutions imported from

England, was altered in such a manner as to retain all its

evils, and lose all its advantages. The Crown in Ireland

possessed no power of controlling its vassals. … In Ireland

there were no manor or valuable estates that the Crown could

appropriate—the entire country had to be conquered; and as

the Crown did not assist in the conquest, it received no part

of the spoils. Thus we find the Crown had absolutely no

demesnes of its own, and, being deprived of any military force

of its own, it had to rely upon such of the great feudal

vassals as might remain loyal for the purpose of crushing

those who might be in rebellion. The inevitable result of this

policy was to kindle a civil war and excite personal feuds in

the attempt to maintain order. … We have thus a feudal

system, in which the Crown is powerless to fulfil its duties,

yet active in preventing the greater nobles from exercising

that influence which might have secured a reasonable degree of

order. The whole energy of the nobles was turned away from

government to war; and lest they should become local

potentates, they were allowed to degenerate into local

tyrants. But what, meanwhile, had become of the Irish nation?

As the feudal system ignored their existence, we have

permitted them to fall out of our view; but they still

existed, and still were politically independent. The invaders

had occupied the flat country, suitable for the operation of

their forces, and the original inhabitants had retired into

either the mountainous districts, impassable to cavalry, or

into districts protected by the bogs, and difficult of access;

nay, even in some parts of the island, where the Normans were

not in force, they had re-occupied large portions of the open

country. They did not retire as disorganised fugitives, but

the tribes retreated, keeping their social organisation

unbroken; and, although removed from their original

habitations, still preserved their social identity. The

remarkable point in the conquest was, that the Celtic

population was not driven back upon anyone portion of the

kingdom, but remained as it was, interpolated among the new

arrivals. … The Celtic population possessed no definite

legal position, filled no place in the feudal hierarchy, and

was in the eyes of the English Government hostile and alien;

the only exception to this was the case of the O'Briens, who,

though not actually feudal vassals, had their estates secured

by a charter, and five Irish families, through some unknown

reason, were considered as the king's men and entitled to his

protection; these were known as the five bloods, who enjoyed

the law of England to the extent of the privilege to sue in

the king's courts, viz., O'Neill, O'Molaghlin, O'Connor,

O'Brien, and M'Murrough. … The Irish in Ireland were treated

by the king's courts in Ireland as an alien and hostile

nation; an Irishman out of the king's peace could not bring an

action against an Englishman. … But, though legally ignored,

the Irish tribes could not be politically disregarded. The

English Government used their assistance to repress the

rebellions of insurgent vassals. … They were called on to

furnish assistance to the English armies, and on many

occasions we find their chiefs summoned by writ of Parliament,

as if feudal vassals; but the mode in which they were treated

depended upon the immediate objects and want of the English

Government, and the general course of conduct pursued towards

them was such as has been previously stated. … We thus find

the English and Irish races hopelessly at variance, and it

would seem that one or other must have been crushed out in the

contest; but such was not the result; they both survived, and,

contrary to reasonable expectations, the Irish exhibited the

greater vitality. The expulsion of the English colony was an

effort beyond the power of the disunited Irish tribes; for in

the darkest hours of the English settlement the power of

England was ready, by some sudden effort, to reassert the

English supremacy. But why did the Anglo-Normans wholly fail

to subdue the Irish? …

1. The large extent comprised in the grants made to the first

colonists led to a dispersion of the Norman nobles over the

more fertile portions of the country. The English colony never

formed one compact body capable of combined action. …

{1760}

2. The military equipment of the Normans, and their mode of

carrying on war, rendered their forces wholly inefficient,

when, leaving the flat country, they attempted to penetrate

the fastnesses of the native tribes. …

3. From the absence of any central government, civil wars

continually arose between the several Norman lords; thus the

military power of the colonists was frittered away in

dissensions. …

4. The English Government continually called upon the Irish

barons for aids and military service, to be employed in wars

elsewhere than in Ireland. …

5. Many of the estates of the Norman nobles descended to

heiresses who married Englishmen already possessing estates in

England: hence arose absenteeism.

6. Even the lords who resided constantly upon their Irish

estates gradually lost their Norman habits, and tended to

assimilate themselves to the manners, and to adopt the

language, of the Irish."

A. G. Richey,

Short History of the Irish People,

chapter 8.

ALSO IN:

P. W. Joyce,

Short History of Ireland,

part 3.

See, also,

PALATINE, THE IRISH COUNTIES;

and GERALDINES.

IRELAND:

The Celticizing of the Anglo-Norman conquerors.

"Prior to experience, it would have been equally reasonable to

expect that the modern Englishman would adopt the habits of

the Hindoo or the Mohican, as that the fiery knights of

Normandy would have stooped to imitate a race whom they

despised as slaves; that they would have flung away their very

knightly names to assume a barbarous equivalent [the De Burghs

became Bourkes or Burkes, the M'Sweenies had been Veres in

England, and the Munster Geraldines merged their family name

in that of Desmond.—Foot-note]; and would so utterly have

cast aside the commanding features of their Northern

extraction, that their children's children could be

distinguished neither in soul nor body, neither in look, in

dress, in language, nor in disposition, from the Celts whom

they had subdued. Such, however, was the extraordinary fact.

The Irish who had been conquered in the field revenged their

defeat on the minds and hearts of their conquerors; and in

yielding, yielded only to fling over their new masters the

subtle spell of the Celtic disposition. In vain the government

attempted to stem the evil. Statute was passed after statute

forbidding the 'Englishry' of Ireland to use the Irish

language, or intermarry with Irish families, or copy Irish

habits. Penalties were multiplied on penalties; fines,

forfeitures, and at last death itself, were threatened for

such offences. But all in vain. The stealthy evil crept on

irresistibly. Fresh colonists were sent over to restore the

system, but only for themselves or their children to be swept

into the stream; and from the century which succeeded the

Conquest till the reign of the eighth Henry, the strange

phenomenon repeated itself, generation after generation,

baffling the wisdom of statesmen, and paralysing every effort

at a remedy."

J. A. Froude,

History of England,

chapter 8 (volume 2).

IRELAND: A. D. 1314-1318.

Edward Bruce's invasion.

The crushing defeat of the English by the Scotch at

Bannockburn (1314) rekindled a spirit of rebellion in Ireland,

and the discontented chiefs made haste to solicit aid from

Scotland, offering the sovereignty of their island to Edward

Bruce, brother of king Robert, if he would come to their help

and conquer it. "By consent of king Robert, who was pleased to

make a diversion against England upon a vulnerable point, and

not, perhaps, sorry to be rid of a restless spirit, which

became impatient in the lack of employment, Edward invaded

Ireland at the head of a force of 6,000 Scots. He fought many

battles, and gained them all. He became master of the province

of Ulster, and was solemnly crowned king of Ireland; but found

himself amid his successes obliged to intreat the assistance

of king Robert with fresh supplies; for the impetuous Edward,

who never spared his own person, was equally reckless of

exposing his followers; and his successes were misfortunes, in

so far as they wasted the brave men with whose lives they were

purchased. Robert Bruce led supplies to his brother's

assistance, with an army which enabled him to overrun Ireland,

but without gaining any permanent advantage. He threatened

Dublin, and penetrated as far as Limerick in the west, but was

compelled, by scarcity of provisions, to retire again into

Ulster, in the spring of 1317. He shortly after returned to

Scotland, leaving a part of his troops with Edward, though

probably convinced that his brother was engaged in a desperate

and fruitless enterprise. … After his brother's departure,

Edward's career of ambition was closed at the battle of

Dundalk, where, October 5th, 1318, fortune at length failed a

warrior who had tried her patience by so many hazards. On that

fatal day he encountered, against the advice of his officers,

an Anglo-Irish army ten times more numerous than his own. A

strong champion among the English, named John Maupas, singling

out the person of Edward, slew him, and received death at his

hands. … A general officer of the Scots, called John

Thomson, led back the remnant of the Scottish force to their

own country. And thus ended the Scottish invasion of Ireland,

with the loss of many brave soldiers."

Sir W. Scott,

History of Scotland,

chapter 11 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

T. Moore,

History of Ireland,

volume 3, chapter 36.

IRELAND: A. D. 1327-1367.

Oppressions of the reign of Edward III.

"Of all the legislative measures of this period the most

notable was the Statute of Kilkenny, passed at a Parliament

held in that town, in the last year of the decade, in the Lent

session of 1367. This 'famous, or infamous,' enactment

gathered up into one, and recapitulated with additional

aggravations and insults, all the former oppressive,

exasperating, and iniquitous ordinances by which English

legislation for Ireland had hitherto been disgraced. … Among

the earliest measures passed in the reign of Edward III. was a

statute directed against absenteeism, obliging all Englishmen

who were Irish proprietors either to reside on their estates

or to provide soldiers to defend them. But this enactment was

unproductive of good results. The O'Neills drove the colonists

out of the 'liberty of Ulster,' and the English De Burghs, so

far from helping to uphold English ascendency, appropriated to

themselves the entire lordship of Connaught, made common cause

with the native tribes, and adopting their dress, language,

and customs, became 'Hibernis ipsis Hiberniores,' threw off

their allegiance to King Edward, and bade defiance to the

King's authority. Thus it came to pass that before many years

of this reign had elapsed more than a third part of the

territories of the Pale was again in the hands of its original

possessors. … Edward III. inherited the barbarous and

iniquitous traditions of English rule in Ireland, but he

improved upon them.

{1761}

He ordered all his officers in that country who had Irish

estates to be removed and give place to Englishmen with no

Irish ties. He next declared void every grant of land in

Ireland since the time of Edward II., and made new grants of

the lands thus recovered to the Crown. The tendency of this

monstrous measure was to create two more antagonistic parties

in Ireland, destined by their bitter dissensions to bring

about the result that ere long 'all the King's land in Ireland

was on the point of passing away from the Crown of England,'—

viz., the 'English by blood,' as the established settlers were

called, and the 'English by birth,' or new grantees. Some of

the chief of the former, in despair of a career, or even of a

quiet life, at home, were about to bid good-bye to Ireland and

seek their fortunes elsewhere, when they were arrested by a

proclamation making it penal for any English subject capable

of bearing arms to leave the country. … The 'English by

blood' became more and more intimately connected and

identified with the native Irish, and the 'English by birth'

became more and more powerless to maintain the English

ascendency; till at last, in 1361, the King determined on

sending over a viceroy of the blood royal, and appointed to

the post his son Lionel, created shortly afterwards Duke of

Clarence, whom he had married to Elizabeth de Burgh, daughter

and representative of the last Earl of Ulster. But though

Prince Lionel, on his arrival, took the precaution of

forbidding any man born in Ireland to approach his camp, his

position soon became so critical that the King issued writs

commanding all the absentee Irish lords to hasten to Ireland

to the assistance of the Prince, 'for that his very dear son

and his companions in Ireland were in imminent peril.' The

next step was the passing of the Statute of Kilkenny. It

re-enacted the prohibition of marriage and foster-nursing,

rendered obligatory the adoption of the English language and

customs, forbade the national games of 'hurlings and

quoitings,' and the use of the ancient Gaelic code called the

Senchus Mor; a code by which the native brehons, or judges, of

the Irish septs had decided causes among them since the time

of the conversion of the race to Christianity in the fifth

century."

W. Warburton,

Edward III., 4th decade,

chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

W. Longman,

Life and Times of Edward III.,

volume 2, chapter 1.

T. Leland,

History of Ireland,

book 2, chapters 4-5 (volume 1).

IRELAND: A. D. 1494.

Poynings' Laws.

During the Wars of the Roses, "if Ireland had any preference

for either of the great contending parties in England, it was

… for the House of York; and from this cause chiefly sprang

the change of Henry VII.'s mode of governing the dependency

which on ascending the throne he had found all but severed

from his dominions. At first he had thought it best to employ

the native nobility for this purpose, and had chosen for

Deputy the Earl of Kildare—setting him, as the story ran, to

rule all Ireland, because all Ireland could not rule him.

When, however, he had time to reflect on the dangers springing

from the Irish support of Simnel and Warbeck, from which he

and his dynasty had escaped so narrowly, he perceived the

necessity of bringing the country under a more regular

government. Accordingly he sent over in 1494 (at the time when

Warbeck was preparing for his descent on England) Sir Edward

Poynings as Lord Deputy, a statesman and commander well

experienced in the most important affairs of the time."

C. E. Moberly,

The Early Tudors,

chapter 6.

After some military operations, which he found to be beset

with treacheries and difficulties, the new Lord Deputy held a

Parliament at Drogheda—"perhaps the most memorable that was

ever held in Ireland, as certainly no other Parliament in that

country made laws which endured so long as two which were then

enacted, and were known for centuries afterwards as the

'Poynings Acts.' By the first of these it was ordained that no

Parliament should be held in Ireland in future until the

king's Council in England had approved not only of its being

summoned, but also of the Acts which the Lieutenant and

Council of Ireland proposed to pass in it. By the second the

laws enacted before that time in England were extended to

Ireland also. Thus the Irish legislature was made entirely

dependent upon England. The Irish Parliament had no power to

originate anything, but was only free to accept or (if they

were very bold) to reject measures drawn up by the Irish

Council and approved already by the king and his Council in

England before they were submitted to discussion. Little as

this looks like parliamentary government, such was the state

of subjection in which the Irish Parliament remained by virtue

of this law for nearly three centuries later. Almost the whole

time, that is to say, that Ireland had a separate Parliament

at all it remained in this manner restricted in its action by

the legislation of Sir Edward Poynings. … It should be

remembered, however, that Henry VII. merely sought to do in

Ireland what there is every reason to suppose he practically

did in England. Legislation was not at this time considered to

be the chief business of a Parliament."

J. Gairdner,

Henry the Seventh,

chapter. 8.

ALSO IN:

R. Bagwell,

Ireland Under the Tudors,

chapter 8.

W. A. O'Conor,

History of the Irish People,

book 2, chapter 4, section 7.

H. Hallam,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 18 (volume 3).

IRELAND: A. D. 1515.

The English Pale and the Clans and Chiefs beyond it.

"The events on which we are about to enter require for their

understanding a sketch of the position of the various chiefs,

as they were at this time scattered over the island. The

English pale, originally comprising 'the four shires,' as they

were called, of Dublin, Kildare, Meath, and Uriel or Louth,

had been shorn down to half its old dimensions. The line

extended from Dundalk to Ardee; from Ardee by Castletown to

Kells; thence through Athboy and Trim to the Castle of

Maynooth; from Maynooth it crossed to Claine upon the Liffey,

and then followed up the line of the river to Ballimore

Eustace, from which place it skirted back at the rear of the

Wicklow and Dublin mountains to the forts at Dalkey, seven

miles south of Dublin. This narrow strip alone, some fifty

miles long and twenty broad, was in any sense English. Beyond

the borders the common law of England was of no authority; the

king's writ was but a strip of parchment; and the country was

parcelled among a multitude of independent chiefs, who

acknowledged no sovereignty but that of strength, who levied

tribute on the inhabitants of the pale as a reward for a

nominal protection of their rights, and as a compensation for

abstaining from the plunder of their farms. …

{1762}

These chiefs, with their dependent clans, were distributed

over the four provinces in the following order. The

Geraldines, the most powerful of the remaining Normans, were

divided into two branches. The Geraldines of the south, under

the Earls of Desmond, held Limerick, Cork, and Kerry; the

Geraldines of Leinster lay along the frontiers of the English

pale; and the heads of the house, the Earls of Kildare, were

the feudal superiors of the greater portion of the English

counties. To the Butlers, Earls of Ormond and Ossory, belonged

Kilkenny, Carlow, and Tipperary. The De Burghs, or Bourkes, as

they called themselves, were scattered over Galway, Roscommon,

and the south of Sligo, occupying the broad plains which lie

between the Shannon and the mountains of Connemara and Mayo.

This was the relative position into which these clans had

settled at the Conquest, and it had been maintained with

little variation. The north, which had fallen to the Lacies

and the De Courcies, had been wholly recovered by the Irish.

The Lacies had become extinct. The De Courcies, once Earls of

Ulster, had migrated to the south, and were reduced to the

petty fief of Kinsale, which they held under the Desmonds. The

Celtic chieftains had returned from the mountains to which

they had been driven, bringing back with them, more intensely

than ever, the Irish habits and traditions. … The O'Neils

and O'Donnells had spread down over Ulster to the frontiers of

the pale. The O'Connors and O'Carrolls had recrossed the

Shannon and pushed forwards into Kildare; the O'Connor Don was

established in a castle near Portarlington, said to be one of

the strongest in Ireland; and the O'Carrolls had seized Leap,

an ancient Danish fortress, surrounded by bog and forest, a

few miles from Parsonstown. O'Brien of Inchiquin, Prince—as

he styled himself—of Thomond, no longer contented with his

principality of Clare, had thrown a bridge across the Shannon

five miles above Limerick, and was thus enabled to enter

Munster at his pleasure and spread his authority towards the

south; while the M'Carties and O'Sullivans, in Cork and Kerry,

were only not dangerous to the Earls of Desmond, because the

Desmonds were more Irish than themselves, and were accepted as

their natural chiefs. In Tipperary and Kilkenny only the

Celtic reaction was held in check. The Earls of Ormond,

although they were obliged themselves to live as Irish

chieftains, and to govern by the Irish law, yet … remained

true to their allegiance, and maintained the English authority

as far as their power extended. … Wexford, Wicklow, and the

mountains of Dublin, were occupied by the Highland tribes of

O'Bryne and O'Toole, who, in their wild glens and dangerous

gorges, defied attempts to conquer them, and who were able, at

all times, issuing down out of the passes of the hills, to cut

off communication with the pale. Thus the Butlers had no means

of reaching Dublin except through the county of Kildare, the

home of their hereditary rivals and foes. This is a general

account of the situation of the various parties in Ireland at

the beginning of the 16th century. I have spoken only of the

leading families. … 'There be sixty counties, called

regions, in Ireland,' says the report of 1515, 'inhabited with

the king's Irish enemies.'"

J. A. Froude,

History of England,

chapter 8 (volume 2).

See, also,

PALE, THE ENGLISH.

IRELAND: A. D. 1535-1553.

The reconquest under Henry VIII. and

the fall of the Geraldines.

The political pacification and the religious alienation.

"To Henry VIII. the policy which had been pursued by his

father was utterly hateful. His purpose was to rule in Ireland

as thoroughly and effectively as he ruled in England. … The

Geraldines, who had been suffered under the preceding reign to

govern Ireland in the name of the Crown, were quick to

discover that the Crown would no longer stoop to be their

tool. They resolved to frighten England again into a

conviction of its helplessness; and the rising of Lord Thomas

Fitzgerald followed the usual fashion of Irish revolts. A

murder of the Archbishop of Dublin, a capture of the city, a

repulse before its castle, a harrying of the Pale, ended in a

sudden disappearance of the rebels among the bogs and forests

of the border on the advance of the English forces. …

Unluckily for the Geraldines, Henry had resolved to take

Ireland seriously in hand, and he had Cromwell [Sir Thomas] to

execute his will. Skeffington, the new Lord Deputy, brought

with him a train of artillery, which worked a startling change

in the political aspect of the island. The castles which had

hitherto sheltered rebellion were battered into ruins. … Not

only was the power of the great Norman house which had towered

over Ireland utterly broken, but only a single boy was left to

preserve its name. With the fall of the Geraldines Ireland

felt itself in a master's grasp. … In seven years, partly

through the vigour of Skeffington's successor, Lord Leonard

Grey, and still more through the resolute will of Henry and

Cromwell, the power of the Crown, which had been limited to

the walls of Dublin, was acknowledged over the length and

breadth of Ireland. … Chieftain after chieftain was won over

to the acceptance of the indenture which guaranteed him in the

possession of his lands, and left his authority over his

tribesmen untouched, on conditions of a pledge of loyalty, of

abstinence from illegal wars and exactions on his

fellow-subjects, and of rendering a fixed tribute and service

in war-time to the Crown. … [This] firm and conciliatory

policy must in the end have won, but for the fatal blunder

which plunged Ireland into religions strife at the moment when

her civil strife seemed about to come to an end. … In

Ireland the spirit of the Reformation never existed among the

people at all. They accepted the legislative measures passed

in the English Parliament without any dream of theological

consequences, or of any change in the doctrine or ceremonies

of the Church. … The mission of Archbishop Browne 'for the

plucking-down of idols and extinguishing of idolatry' was the

first step in the long effort of the English Government to

force a new faith on a people who to a man clung passionately

to their old religion. Browne's attempts at 'tuning the

pulpits' were met by a sullen and significant opposition. …

Protestantism had failed to wrest a single Irishman from his

older convictions, but it succeeded in uniting all Ireland

against the Crown. … The population within the Pale and

without it became one, 'not as the Irish nation,' it has been

acutely said, 'but as Catholics.' A new sense of national

identity was found in the identity of religion."

J. R. Green,

Short History of the English People,

chapter 7, section 8.

ALSO IN:

R. Bagwell,

Ireland Under the Tudors,

volume 1, chapters 9-15.

M. Haverty,

History of Ireland,

chapter 30.

{1763}

IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.

The wars of Shane O'Neil and Hugh O'Neil, Earls of Tyrone.

The League of the Geraldines and the Ulster Confederacy.

"The Reformation begun under Henry VIII. was carried out with

pitiless determination under Edward VI., and was met by the

Catholics with unflinching opposition. Under Mary there was a

period of respite, but the strife was renewed with greater

fierceness in the succeeding reign. As authentic Irish history

begins with St. Patrick, so with Elizabeth modern Irish

history may be said to begin. … At her accession, Elizabeth

was too much occupied with foreign complications to pay much

heed to Ireland. Trouble first began in a conflict between the

feudal laws and the old Irish law of Tanistry. Con O'Neil,

Earl of Tyrone, had taken his title from Henry VIII., subject

to the English law of succession; but when Con died, the clan

O'Neil, disregarding the English principle of hereditary

succession, chose Shane O'Neil, an illegitimate son of Con,

and the hero of his Sept, to be The O'Neil. Shane O'Neil at

once put himself forward as the champion of Irish liberty, the

supporter of the Irish right to rule themselves in their own

way and pay no heed to England. Under the pretence of

governing the country, Elizabeth overran it with a soldiery

who, as even Mr. Froude acknowledges, lived almost universally

on plunder, and were little better than bandits. The time was

an appropriate one for a champion of Irish rights. Shane

O'Neil boldly stood out as sovereign of Ulster, and pitted

himself against Elizabeth. … Shane fought bravely against

his fate, but he was defeated [A. D. 1567], put to flight, and

murdered by his enemies, the Scots of Antrim, in whose

strongholds he madly sought refuge. His head was struck off,

and sent to adorn the walls of Dublin Castle. His lands were

declared forfeit, and his vassals, vassals of the Crown.

English soldiers of fortune were given grants from Shane's

escheated territory, but when they attempted to settle they

were killed by the O'Neils. Others came in their place, under

Walter Devereux, Earl of Essex, and did their best to simplify

the process of colonization by exterminating the O'Neils, men,

women, and children, wherever they could be got at. After two

years of struggle Essex was compelled to abandon his

settlement. But other colonizers were not disheartened. Some

West of England gentlemen, under Peter Carew, seized on Cork,

Limerick and Kerry, and sought to hold them by extirpating the

obnoxious natives. Against these English inroads the great

Geraldine League was formed. In the reign of Mary, that boy of

twelve whom Henry VIII. had not been able to include in the

general doom of his house had been allowed to return to

Ireland, and to resume his ancestral honours, Once more the

Geraldines were a great and powerful family in Ireland."

Defeated in their first rising, "the Geraldines and their

companion chiefs got encouragement in Rome and pledges from

Spain, and they rose again under the Earl of Desmond and Sir

James Fitzmaurice Fitzgerald. At first they had some

successes, They had many wrongs to avenge. … Sir Francis

Cosby, the Queen's representative in Leix and Offaly, had

conceived and executed the idea of preventing any further

possible rising of the chiefs in those districts by summoning

them and their kinsmen to a great banquet in the fort of

Mullaghmast, and there massacring them all. Out of 400 guests,

only one man, a Lalor, escaped from that feast of blood. …

With such memories in their minds, the tribes rose in all

directions to the Desmond call. … Elizabeth sent over more

troops to Ireland under the new Lord Deputy, Sir William

Pelham, who had with him as ally Ormonde, the head of the

house of Butler, hereditary foes of the Geraldines, and easily

induced to act against them. Pelham and Ormonde cut their way

over Munster, reducing the province by unexampled ferocity.

Ormonde boasted that he had put to death nearly 6,000

disaffected persons. Just at this moment some of the chiefs of

the Pale rose, and rose too late. They gained one victory over

Lord Grey de Wilton in the pass of Glenmalure [August, 1580].

… Grey immediately abandoned the Pale to the insurgents, and

turned to Smerwick [A. D. 1580], where some 800 Spanish and

Italian soldiers had just landed, too late to be of any

service to the rebellion, and had occupied the dismantled

fort. It was at once blockaded by sea and by land. In Grey's

army Sir Walter Raleigh and Edmund Spenser both held commands.

Smerwick surrendered at discretion, and the prisoners were

killed by Raleigh and his men in cold blood. Flushed by this

success, Grey returned to the Pale and carried all before him.

The Geraldines were disheartened, and were defeated wherever

they made a stand. … Munster was so vigorously laid waste

that Mr. Froude declares that 'the lowing of a cow or the

sound of a ploughboy's whistle was not to be heard from

Valentia to the Rock of Cashel.' Holinshed declares the

traveller would not meet any man, woman, or child, saving in

towns or cities, and would not see any beast; and Spenser

gives a melancholy picture of the misery of the inhabitants,

'as that any stony heart would rue the same.' … The next

step was to confiscate the estates of the rebellious

chieftains. … The estates of Desmond and some 140 of his

followers came to the Crown. The land was then distributed at

the cheapest rate in large tracts to English nobles and

gentlemen adventurers, who were pledged to colonize it with

English labourers and tradesmen. But of these labourers and

tradesmen not many came over, and those who did soon returned,

tired of struggling for their foothold with the dispossessed

Irish." During all this Geraldine or Desmond rebellion Ulster

had remained quiet; but in 1594 it began to show signs of

disturbance. "Hugh O'Neil, the grandson of that Con O'Neil

whom Henry VIII. had made Earl of Tyrone, had been brought up

at the English court, and confirmed in the lordship of Tyrone

by the English Government. In the brilliant court of Elizabeth

the young Irish chief was distinguished for his gifts of mind

and body. When he came of age he was allowed to return to

Ireland to his earldom. Once within his own country, he

assumed his ancestral title of The O'Neil, and revived all the

customs of independent Irish chieftains. For long enough he

took no part in any plots or movements against the Crown; but

many things, the ties of friendship and of love, combined to

drive him into rebellion.

{1764}

… Tyrone in the end consented to give the powerful support

of his name and his arms to a skilfully planned confederation

of the tribes. On all sides the Irish chiefs entered into the

insurrection. O'Neil was certainly the most formidable Irish

leader the English had yet encountered. … Victory followed

victory [that of the Yellow Ford, 1598, being the most

important]. In a little while all Ireland, with the exception

of Dublin and a few garrison towns, was in the hands of the

rebels. Essex, and the largest army ever sent to Ireland,

crossed the Channel to cope with him; but Essex made no

serious move, and after an interview with Tyrone, in which he

promised more than he could perform, he returned to England to

his death. His place was taken by Lord Mountjoy, who, for all

his love of angling and of Elizabethan 'play-books,' was a

stronger man. Tyrone met him, was defeated [at Kinsale, 1601].

From that hour the rebellion was over. … At last Tyrone was

compelled to come to terms. He surrendered his estates,

renounced all claim to the title of The O'Neil, abjured

alliance with all foreign powers, and promised to introduce

English laws and customs into Tyrone. In return he received a

free pardon and a re-grant of his title and lands by letters

patent. Rory O'Donnell, Red Hugh's brother, also submitted,

and was allowed to retain the title of Earl of Tyrconnel.

Elizabeth was already dead, and the son of Mary Stuart [James

I.] was King of England when these terms were made; but they

were not destined to do much good."

J. H. McCarthy,

Outline of Irish History,

chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

T. D. McGee,

Popular History of Ireland,

book 8, chapters 3-11 (volumes 1-2).

M. Haverty,

History of Ireland,

chapters 32-35.

R. Bagwell,

Ireland under the Tudors,

volume 2.

T. Leland,

History of Ireland,

book 4, chapters 1-5 (volume 2).

IRELAND: A. D. 1607-1611.

The flight of the Earls and the Plantation of Ulster.

"With the submission of the Earl of Tyrone terminated the

struggle between the Tudor princes and the native Celtic

tribes. No chieftain henceforward claimed to rule his district

in independence of the Crown of England. The Celtic land

tenure, the Brehon laws, the language, customs, and traditions

of the defeated race were doomed to gradual yet certain

extinction. … Before Elizabeth was laid in the grave, the

object for which during so many years she had striven was thus

at length accomplished; … but between the wars of the Tudors

and the civil government of the Stuarts, still remain (the

intermediate link, as it were, between the two) the fall of

the able man who had created and so long conducted an almost

national resistance, and the colonisation by English settlers

of his demesnes and the adjoining parts of Ulster."

A. G. Richey,

Short History of the Irish People,

chapter 20.

"Lord Bacon, with whom ideas grew plentifully, had a

suggestion at the service of the new king as profitable as the

'princelie policie' which he taught his predecessor. He was of

opinion that a great settlement of English husbandmen in

Ireland, able to guard as well as to till the land, would help

to secure the interest of the Crown. Till this was done

Ireland was not effectually reduced, as Sir Edward Coke

afterwards declared, 'for there was ever a back-door in the

north.' The only question was where to plant them. O'Neill and

Tyrconnell had proved dangerous adversaries; they possessed a

fertile territory, and as their 'loose order of inheritance'

had been duly changed into 'an orderly succession,' they were

quite ripe for confiscation. But they had been ostentatiously

received into favour at the close of the late war, and some

decent pretence for destroying them so soon was indispensable.

It was found in a letter conveniently dropped in the precincts

of Dublin Castle, disclosing a new conspiracy. Of a conspiracy

there was not then, and has not been since discovered, any

evidence worth recording. The letter was probably forged,

according to the practise of the times; but where so noble a

booty was to be distributed by the Crown, one can conceive how

ill-timed and disloyal any doubt of their treason would have

appeared at the Court of James, or of the Lord Deputy. They

were proclaimed traitors, and fled to the Continent to solicit

aid from the Catholic Powers. Without delay James and his

counsellors set to work. The King applied to the City of

London to take up the lands of the wild Irish. They were well

watered, he assured them, plentifully supplied with fuel, with

good store of all the necessaries for man's sustenance; and

moreover yielded timber, hides, tallow, canvas, and cordage

for the purposes of commerce. The Companies of Skinners,

Fishmongers, Haberdashers, Vintners and the like thereupon

became Absentee Proprietors, and have guzzled Irish rents in

city feasts and holiday excursions to Ireland from that day to

this. Six counties in Ulster were confiscated, and not merely

the chiefs, but the entire population dispossessed. The

fruitful plains of Armagh, the deep pastoral glens that lie

between the sheltering hills of Donegal, the undulating meadow

lands stretching by the noble lakes and rivers of Fermanagh,

passed from the race which had possessed them since before the

redemption of mankind. … The alluvial lands were given to

English courtiers whom the Scotch king found it necessary to

placate, and to Scotch partisans whom he dared not reward in

England. The peasants driven out of the tribal lands to burrow

in the hills or bogs were not treated according to any law

known among civilised men. Under Celtic tenure the treason of

the chief, if he committed treason, affected them no more than

the offences of a tenant for life affect a remainder man in

our modern practice. Under the feudal system they were

innocent feudatories who would pass with the forfeited land to

the Crown, with all their personal rights undisturbed. The

method of settlement is stated with commendable simplicity by

the latest historian. The 'plantators' got all the land worth

their having; what was not worth their having—the barren

mountains and trackless morass, which after two centuries

still in many cases yield no human food—were left to those

who in the language of an Act of Parliament of the period were

'natives of the realm of Irish blood, being descended from

those who did inherit and possess the land.' Lest the

frugality of the Celts should enable them to peacefully regain

some of their possessions, it was strictly conditioned that no

plantator or servitor should alienate his portion, or any part

thereof, to the mere Irish. The confiscated territory amounted

to two millions of acres. 'Of these a million and a half' says

Mr. Froude, 'bog, forest, and mountain were restored to the

Irish. The half million acres of fertile land were settled

with families of Scottish and English Protestants.' It was in

this manner that the famous Plantation of Ulster was founded."

Sir C. G. Duffy,

Bird's-Eye View of Irish History, revised edition,

pages 74-78

(or book 1, chapter 4, of "Young Ireland").

{1765}

"The City of London had taken in hand the settlement of Derry,

which was now to be rebuilt under the name of Londonderry, and

to give its name to the county in which it stood, and which

had hitherto been known as the county of Coleraine."

S. R. Gardiner,

History of England, 1603-1642,

chapter 10 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

T. D'Arcy McGee,

Popular History of Ireland,

book 9, chapter 1 (volume 2).

J. Harrison,

The Scot in Ulster,

chapter 3.

C. P. Meehan,

Fate and Fortunes of Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone,

and Rory O'Donel, Earl of Tyrconnel.

IRELAND: A. D. 1625.

The Graces of Charles I.

On the accession of Charles I., "one more effort was made by

the Irish gentry to persuade, or rather to bribe, the

Government to allow them to remain undisturbed in the

possession of their property. They offered to raise by

voluntary assessment the large sum of £120,000 in three annual

instalments of £40,000, on condition of obtaining certain

Graces from the King. These Graces, the Irish analogue of the

Petition of Rights, were of the most moderate and equitable

description. The most important were that undisturbed

possession of sixty years should secure a landed proprietor

from all older claims on the part of the Crown, that the

inhabitants of Connaught should be secured from litigation by

the enrolment of their patents, and that Popish recusants

should be permitted, without taking the Oath of Supremacy, to

sue for livery of their estates in the Court of Arches, and to

practise in the courts of law. The terms were accepted. The

promise of the King was given. The Graces were transmitted by

way of instruction to the Lord Deputy and Council, and the

Government also engaged, as a further security to all

proprietors, that their estates should be formally confirmed

to them and to their heirs by the next Parliament which should

be held in Ireland. The sequel forms one of the most shameful

passages in the history of English government of Ireland. In

distinct violation of the King's solemn promise, after the

subsidies that were made on the faith of that promise had been

duly obtained, without provocation or pretext or excuse,

Wentworth, who now presided with stern despotism over the

government of Ireland, announced the withdrawal of the two

principal articles of the Graces, the limitation of Crown

claims by a possession of sixty years and the legalisation of

the Connaught titles."

W. E. H. Lecky,

History of England, 18th Century,

chapter 6 (volume 2).

IRELAND: A. D. 1633-1639.

Wentworth's system of "Thorough."

In the summer of 1633, Thomas Wentworth, afterwards Earl of

Strafford, was appointed Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. "It was

during his tenure of office as viceroy that he attempted to

establish absolutism in Ireland, in order that, by the thereby

enhanced power of the monarchy, he might be enabled to turn

the scale in favour of a despotic government in England. And,

never at a loss in the choice of his expedients, he contended

for his scheme with an energy and a recklessness

characteristic of the man. In the prosecution of his ends, he

treated some of the most influential English noblemen resident

in Ireland with the utmost indignity, simply with the object

of intimidating them, at the outset, from any further

opposition. One of them, Lord Mountnorris, was even condemned

to death on a charge of sedition and mutiny, merely for having

made use of a disrespectful expression with reference to the

lord-lieutenant, the representative of the sovereign. …

Every longing of the Irish Protestant Church for independence

was suppressed by Wentworth. According to his views, supreme

authority in Church matters belonged absolutely and

unconditionally to the king. He, therefore, abolished, in

1634, the 'Irish Articles,' which granted some concessions to

Puritanism, and which had been introduced by Archbishop Usher

in the reign of James I., and, at the same time, he united the

Irish Established Church indissolubly with that of England.

But above all things he considered it to be his duty to

increase the army, which had hitherto been in a disorganised

condition, and to put it in a state of complete efficiency; in

order to do this, however, it was of the first importance to

augment the revenue of the Crown, and in pursuance of this

object he disdained no means. He extorted large sums of money

from the Catholics by reminding them that, in case their

contributions were too niggardly, there still existed laws

against the Papists which could easily be put into operation

again. The City of London Company, which some years before had

effected the colonization of Londonderry, was suddenly called

to account for not having fulfilled the stipulations contained

in its charter, and condemned to pay a fine of £70,000. In the

same spirit he conceived the idea of obtaining additions to

the royal exchequer by a fresh settlement of Connaught; and,

accordingly, he induced the Government, regardless of the

engagements made some years previously at the granting of the

'graces,' to re-assert the claims it had formerly advanced to

the possession of this province. And now, as in the worst days

of James I., there again prevailed the old system of

investigation into the validity of the titles by which the

landed gentry of Connaught held their estates. Such persons as

were practised in disinterring these unregistered titles were

looked upon with favour, and as a means of inciting to more

vigorous efforts, a premium of 20 per cent. on the receipts

realized during the first year by the confiscation of property

thus imperfectly registered was guaranteed to the presidents

of the commission. With a cynical frankness, Wentworth

declared that no money was ever so judiciously expended as

this, for now the people entered into the business with as

much ardour and assiduity as if it were their own private

concern. … The collective titles of the province of

Connaught were at the unlimited disposal of the

lord-lieutenant; and, although, notwithstanding this result,

he, at the last moment, recoiled from the final act, and

shrank from ejecting the present owners, and re-settling the

province, it was not from any conscientious scruples that he

refrained from taking this last decisive step: to the man

whose motto was 'Thorough,' such scruples were unknown. …

Practical considerations alone … induced Wentworth to pause

in the path upon which he had entered.

{1766}

Just at that time the Crown was engaged in a contest with

Puritanism in Scotland, while, in England, the attempts of

Charles to make his rule absolute had produced a state of

public feeling which was in the highest degree critical. …

In view of these considerations, therefore, Strafford

postponed the colonization of the western province to a more

favourable season. While we turn with just abhorrence from the

contemplation of the reckless and despotic acts of this

remarkable man, we must not, on the other hand, fail to

acknowledge that his administration has features which present

a brighter aspect. … In the exercise of a certain

toleration, dictated, it is true, only by policy, he declined

to meddle directly in the religious affairs of the Catholics.

His greatest merit, however, consists in having advanced the

material well-being of the country. He took a lively interest

in agriculture and cattle-rearing, and by causing the rude and

antiquated methods of husbandry which prevailed among the

Irish agriculturalists to be superseded by more modern

appliances, he contributed very materially to the advancement

of this branch of industry. He also largely encouraged

navigation, in consequence of which the number of Irish ships

increased from year to year; and although it can not be denied

that he endeavoured to suppress the trade in woollen cloth,

from an apprehension that it might come into dangerous

competition with English manufactures, he, nevertheless,

sought to compensate the Irish in other ways, and the

development of the Irish linen industry in the north was

essentially his work. … The Irish revenue annually

increased, and the customs returns alone were trebled during

the administration of Lord Strafford. He was, accordingly, in

a position to place at the disposal of his royal master a

standing army of 9,000 men. … It was, therefore, no idle

boast, but a statement in strict accordance with the truth,

which he made when writing to Archbishop Laud on 16th

December, 1634: 'I can now say that the king is here as truly

absolute as any sovereign in the world can be.'"

R. Hassencamp,

History of Ireland,

chapter 3.

"Of all the suggesters of the infamous counsels of Charles,

Laud and Wentworth were the most sincere:—Laud, from the

intense faith with which he looked forward to the possible

supremacy of the ecclesiastical power, and to which he was

bent upon going, 'thorough', through every

obstacle;—Wentworth, from that strong sense, with which birth

and education had perverted his genius, of the superior

excellence of despotic rule. … The letters which passed

between them partook of a more intimate character, in respect

of the avowal of ulterior designs, than either of them,

probably, chose to avow elsewhere. … Laud had to regret his

position in England, contrasted with that of the Irish deputy.

'My lord,' he writes to Wentworth, speaking of the general

affairs of church and state, 'to speak freely, you may easily

promise more in either kind than I can perform: for, as for

the church, it is so bound up in the forms of the common law,

that it is not possible for me, or for any man, to do that

good which he would, or is bound to do. … And for the state,

indeed, my lord, I am for Thorough; but I see that both thick

and thin stays somebody, where I conceive it should not; and

it is impossible for me to go thorough alone.' … Every new

act of despotism which struck terror into Ireland shot comfort

to the heart of Laud. 'As for my marginal note,' exclaims the

archbishop, 'I see you deciphered it well, and I see you make

use of it too,—do so still; thorow and thorow. Oh that I were

where I might go so too I but I am shackled between delays and

uncertainties. You have a great deal of honour here for your

proceedings. Go on a God's name!' And on Wentworth went,

stopping at no gratuitous quarrel that had the slightest

chance of pleasing the archbishop, even to the demolishing the

family tomb of the earl of Cork,—since his grace, among his

select ecclesiastical researches, had discovered that the spot

occupied by my lord of Cork's family monuments, was precisely

that spot upon which the communion-table, to answer the

purposes of heaven, ought to stand!"

R. Browning,

Thomas Wentworth (Eminent British Statesmen, volume 2,

published under the name of John Forster).

ALSO IN:

S. R. Gardiner,

The First Two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution,

chapter 5, section 4.

S. R. Gardiner,

History of England,

chapter 76 (volume 8) and

chapter 90 (volume 9).

W. A. O'Conor,

History of the Irish People,

volume 2, book 3, chapter 1.

T. Wright,

History of Ireland,

book 4, chapters 22-24.

T. Leland,

History of Ireland,

book 5, chapter 1.

IRELAND: A. D. 1641.

The Catholic rising and alleged Massacres of Protestants.

"The government which Strafford had established in Ireland

fell with him, the office of viceroy was entrusted to some of

the judges, and shorn of the powers which gave it authority

over the whole country. The Irish army, which had been formed

with so much difficulty, and maintained in spite of so much

opposition, was disbanded without any attention being

vouchsafed to the King's wish that it should be allowed to

enter the Spanish service. … Under the influence of events

in England, government based on prerogative, and on its

connexion with the English hierarchy, as it had existed in

Ireland since Elizabeth's time, fell to the ground. This

revolution however might entail important results. The Irish

people was Catholic: while the Protestant settlers were split

into two hostile factions, and thereby the highest authority

in the land, which bore a really Protestant character, was

systematically weakened and almost destroyed, the thought of

ridding themselves of it altogether was sure to arise in the

nation. The steed, never completely broken in, felt itself

suddenly free from the tight rein which hitherto it had

unwillingly obeyed. … It was the common object of all

Catholics, alike of Anglo-Saxon and of Celtic origin, to

restore to the Catholic Church the possession of the goods and

houses that had been taken from her, and above all to put an

end to the colonies established since James I. in which

Puritan tendencies prevailed. The Catholics of the old

settlements were as eager for this as the natives. The idea

originated in a couple of chiefs of old Irish extraction,

Roger O'More and Lord Macguire, who had been involved in

Tyrone's ruin, but were connected by marriage with several

English families. The first man whom O'More won over was Lord

Mayo, the most powerful magnate of old English descent in

Connaught, of the house of De Burgh. … The best military

leader in the confederacy, Colonel Plunkett, was a Catholic of

old English origin. … Among the natives the most notable

personage was Phelim O'Neil, who, after having been long in

England, and learning Protestantism there, on his return to

Ireland went back to the old faith and the old customs: he was

reckoned the rightful heir of Tyrone, and possessed unbounded

popular influence.

{1767}

The plan for which the Catholics of both Irish and English

extraction now united was a very far-reaching one. It involved

making the Catholic religion altogether dominant in Ireland:

even of the old nobility none but the Catholics were to be

tolerated: all the lands that had been seized for the new

settlements were to be given back to the previous possessors

or their heirs. In each district a distinguished family was to

be answerable for order, and to maintain an armed force for

the purpose. They would not revolt from the King, but still

would leave him no real share in the government. Two lords

justices, both Catholic, one of Irish, the other of old

English family, were to be at the head of the government. …

The preparations were made in profound silence: a man could

travel across the country without perceiving any stir or

uneasiness. But on the appointed day, October 23, the day of

St. Ignatius, the insurrection everywhere broke out." Dublin

was saved, by a disclosure of the plot to the government, on

the evening of the 22d, by a Protestant Irishman who had

gained knowledge of it. "Several other places also held out,

as Londonderry and Carrickfergus, and afforded places to which

the Protestants might fly. But no one can paint the rage and

cruelty which was vented, far and wide over the land, upon the

unarmed and defenceless. Many thousands perished: their

corpses filled the land and served as food for the kites. …

Religious abhorrence entered into a dreadful league with the

fury of national hatred. The motives of the Sicilian Vespers

and of the night of St. Bartholomew were united. Sir Phelim,

who at once was proclaimed Lord and Master in Ulster, with the

title of the native princes, as Tyrone had been, and who in

his proclamations assumed the tone of a sovereign, was not at

all the man to check these cruelties. … With all this

letting loose of ancient barbarism there was still some

holding back. The Scottish settlements were spared, although

they were the most hated of all, for fear of incurring the

hostility of the Scottish as well as of the English nation.

Immediately there was a rising in the five counties of the old

English Pale: the gentry of Louth, under the leadership of the

sheriff, took the side of the rebels. The younger men of Meath

assembled on the Boyne, and commenced hostilities against the

Protestants: so completely had their religious sympathies

prevailed over their patriotism."

L. Von Ranke,

History of England, 17th Century,

book 8, chapter 7 (volume 2).

"Some reference to the notorious story of the massacre of 1641

is required, not because the account of it is true and is a

part of history, nor because it is false and needs refutation,

but because it is a State fiction, a falsehood with a purpose,

and as such deserves mention as much as the levying of troops

or the passing of laws. The record of the period is not the

history of a massacre, but of the deliberate invention of a

massacre. … No word of massacre had been heard of in the

first State document that referred to the so-called rebellion.

The Catholic lords of the Pale would never have united their

names and fortunes with those of murderers. … The royalists

again and again urged in their treaties with their opponents

that an investigation of the cruelties committed on both sides

should be made, and the proposal was always absolutely

refused."

W. A. O'Conor,

History of the Irish People,

book 3, chapter 1, section 5 (volume 2).

"There were few places of strength in Ulster which had not

fallen by the end of the first week into the hands of the

insurgents. Sir Phelim O'Neill already found himself at the

head of some 30,000 men, as yet of course undisciplined, and

but few of them efficiently armed; and it is not to be

expected that such an irregular multitude, with wild passions

let loose, and so many wrongs and insults to be avenged, could

have been engaged in scenes of war, even so long, without

committing some deeds of blood which the laws of regular

warfare would not sanction. … Life was taken in some few

instances where the act deserved the name of murder; but the

cases of this nature, on the Irish side, at the commencement

of the rebellion, were isolated ones; and nothing can be more

unjust and false than to describe the outbreak of this war as

a 'massacre'."

M. Haverty,

History of Ireland,

chapter 37.

"This [Sir Wm. Petty's] estimate of 37,000 Protestants

supposed to have been murdered makes no allowance for those

who escaped to England and Scotland, and never returned to

Ireland. It seems to me more likely that about 27,000

Protestants were murdered by the sword, gun, rope, drowning,

&c., in the first three or four years of the rebellion. The

evidence of the depositions, after deducting all doubtful

exaggerations, leaves little doubt that the number so

destroyed could hardly have been less than 25,000 at all

events. But the truth is that no accurate estimate is

possible. After the Portnaw massacre the Protestants,

especially the Scotch, took an awful vengeance on their

enemies. Henceforward one side vied in cruelty with the

other."

M. Hickson,

Ireland in the 17th Century,

introduction, page 163.

ALSO IN:

T. Carte,

Life of James, Duke of Ormond,

book 3 (chapters 1-2).

W. E. H. Lecky,

History of England, 18th Century,

chapter 6 (volume 2).

T. Leland,

History of Ireland,

book 5, chapters 3-4 (volume 3).

IRELAND: A. D. 1643.

The king makes Peace with the rebels.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

IRELAND: A. D. 1645.

King Charles' treaty with the Catholics.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

IRELAND: A. D. 1646-1649.

The Rebels become Royalists.

"The truce [offered by King Charles to the rebels in 1643]

appears to have been well observed by each party, and resulted

in a treaty of peace which was signed in July, 1646, by which

the Roman Catholics obtained every demand which they put

forward. This peace was nevertheless at once broken, and

Ormond (who had been appointed Lord Lieutenant in January,

1643) was closely besieged in Dublin by a force, headed by

Cardinal Rinuccini, the Papal Nuncio, who had assumed the

command of the Irish Catholics. Finding himself in so

dangerous a position, Ormond, by express direction from the

king, offered his submission to the English Parliament, to

whom he surrendered Dublin, Drogheda, Dundalk, and such other

garrisons as remained in his hands. This transaction was

completed on the 25th of July, 1647, when Colonel Jones took

command of Dublin for the Parliament, and was made by them

Commander-in-Chief in Ireland; his total force however

amounted to but 5,000 men. The war now continued with varying

success, the commanders for the Parliament being, in addition

to Jones, Monk in Ulster and Lord Inchiquin in Munster;

{1768}

The latter in 1648 joined Ormond, who in September, upon the

invitation of the Catholics, returned to Ireland, the Papal

Nuncio having been driven from the country by his own party,

who were alienated from him by his folly and insolence. At the

end of 1648 there were therefore two parties in Ireland; the

Parliamentary, which had been the English, holding Dublin and

a few garrisons, and the Catholics, who, formerly rebels, were

now held as Royalists, and whose new leader Ormond, on the

death of Charles I., proclaimed the Prince of Wales, on the

16th of February, 1649, at Carrick, as King of England,

Scotland, France, and Ireland. The English Parliament now at

last resolved to put an end to disorder in Ireland, and with

this object, in March, 1649, appointed Cromwell to the supreme

command." Before Cromwell arrived in Ireland, however, the

Irish Royalists had reduced every garrisoned place except

Dublin and Londonderry, defeating Monk, who held Dundalk, but

being defeated (August 2) by Jones when they laid siege to the

capital. Though fought at the gates of Dublin, this was called

the battle of Rathmines, Ormond retreated with a loss of 4,000

killed and 2,500 prisoners.

N. L. Walford,

Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War,

chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

T. Carte,

Life of James Duke of Ormond,

books 4-5 (volume 3).

D. Murphy,

Cromwell in Ireland,

chapters 1-3.

IRELAND: A. D. 1649-1650.

Cromwell's campaign.

The slaughter at Drogheda and Wexford.

'When Cromwell arrived in Ireland at the head of 12,000 men,

he found almost the whole country under the power of the

Royalists (August 15th). A Parliamentary garrison in Dublin

itself had only escaped a siege by surprising the enemy on the

banks of the Liffey (August 2nd). The general first marched

against Drogheda, then called Droghdagh or Tredah, and

summoned the garrison to surrender; Sir Arthur Ashton, the

governor, refused; he had 3,000 of the choicest troops of the

confederates and enough provisions to enable him to hold out

till winter should compel the enemy to raise the siege. But

within twenty-four hours the English batteries had made a

breach in the wall, Oliver, after twice seeing his soldiers

beaten off, led them on in person and carried the breach. A

terrible massacre followed. 'Being in the heat of action I

forbade them,' Cromwell wrote in his despatch to the

Parliament, 'to spare any that were in arms in the town; and I

think that night they put to the sword about 2,000 men.' Of

these, one-half probably fell in the streets; the other half

Cromwell describes as having been slain at early dawn in St.

Peter's Church. This he looks upon as a judgment for their

previous proceedings there. 'It is remarkable,' he writes,

'that these people at first set up the mass in some places of

the town that had been monasteries; but afterwards grew so

insolent that, the last Lord's day before the storm, the

Protestants were thrust out of the great church called St.

Peter's, and they had public mass there; and in this very

place near 1,000 of them were put to the sword, fleeing

thither for safety. I believe all the friars were knocked on

the head promiscuously but two.' … Royalist accounts assert

that many hundreds of women and children were slain in St.

Peter's Church: It is, of course, possible that some of the

townspeople, fleeing thither for safety, lost their lives in

the general massacre of the garrison. There is, however, no

trustworthy witness for any lives being taken except those of

soldiers and friars. Cromwell did not sanction the killing of

any but those with arms in their hands, though he seems to

have approved of the fate of the friars. The fanatical zeal of

his letter, and the fact that he takes the full credit, or

discredit, for the slaughter of the garrison; makes it

improbable that he concealed anything; and this substantiated

by his subsequent declaration, in which he gives this

challenge:—'Give us an instance of one man, since my coming

into Ireland, not in arms, massacred, destroyed, or banished,

concerning the massacre or the destruction of whom justice

hath not been done, or endeavoured to be done.' With the

enemy's troops Cromwell carried out the determined mode of

warfare which he began at Drogheda. They were mostly scattered

over the country, occupied in garrison duty. Before whatever

town he came he demanded immediate surrender, or threatened to

refuse quarter. Town after town opened its gates to this grim

summons. Wexford, which refused to surrender, was stormed, and

the whole garrison, 2,000 in number, put to the sword (October

11th). … In other respects, while Cromwell's rigour and

determination saved bloodshed in the end by the rapidity and

completeness of his conquests, his conduct in Ireland

contrasted favourably on many points with that of the

Royalists there. His own soldiers, for ill-using the people

contrary to regulations, were sometimes cashiered the army,

sometimes hanged. When a treaty was made, he kept faithfully

to its terms. Garrisons that yielded on summons were allowed

either to march away with arms and baggage, or else to go

abroad and enter the service of any government at peace with

England. Before the war was over he had rid the country, on

these terms, of some 45,000 soldiers. Taking advantage of the

divisions of his enemies, he persuaded several garrisons of

English soldiers to desert the cause of Charles Stuart for the

Commonwealth. His conduct of the war was so successful that,

during the nine months of his stay in Ireland, the forces of

the Royalists were shattered, and the provinces of Leinster

and Munster recovered for the Parliament. Cromwell returned to

England in May, 1650, leaving his son-in-law Ireton to

complete the conquest of the country. The last garrisons in

Ulster and Munster surrendered during the course of the

ensuing summer and autumn. Ireton crossed the Shannon and

drove the Irish back into the bogs and mountain fastnesses of

Connaught, their last refuge, where fighting still continued

for two years after all the rest of the country had been

reduced (1651-2)."

B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,

King and Commonwealth,

chapter 12.

"No admiration for Cromwell, for his genius, courage, and

earnestness—no sympathy with the cause that he upheld in

England—can blind us to the truth, that the lurid light of

this great crime [the massacre at Drogheda] burns still after

centuries across the history of England and of Ireland; that

it is one of those damning charges which the Puritan theology

has yet to answer at the bar of humanity."

F. Harrison,

Oliver Cromwell,

chapter 8.

{1769}

"Oliver's proceedings here [at Drogheda] have been the theme

of much loud criticism, and sibylline execration; into which

it is not our plan to enter at present. … To those who think

that a land overrun with Sanguinary Quacks can be healed by

sprinkling it with rose-water, these letters must be very

horrible. Terrible Surgery this: but is it Surgery and

Judgment, or atrocious Murder merely? That is a question which

should be asked; and answered. Oliver Cromwell did believe in

God's Judgments; and did not believe in the rose-water plan of

Surgery;—which, in fact, is this Editor's case too. … Here

is a man whose word represents a thing! Not bluster this, and

false jargon scattering itself to the winds: what this man

speaks out of him comes to pass as a fact; speech with this

man is accurately prophetic of deed. This is the first King's

face poor Ireland ever saw; the first Friend's face, little as

it recognises him,—poor Ireland! … To our Irish friends we

ought to say likewise that this Garrison of Tredah consisted,

in good part, of Englishmen. Perfectly certain this:—and

therefore let 'the bloody hoof of the Saxon,' &c., forbear to

continue itself on that matter."

T. Carlyle,

Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,

part 5.

"Cromwell met with little resistance: wherever he came, he

held out the promise of life and liberty of conscience; …

liberty of conscience he explained to mean liberty of internal

belief, not of external worship; … but the rejection of the

offer, though it were afterwards accepted, was punished with

the blood of the officers; and, if the place were taken by

force, with indiscriminate slaughter."

J. Lingard,

History of England,

volume 10, chapter 5, with foot-note.

ALSO IN:

D. Murphy,

Cromwell in Ireland.

IRELAND: A. D. 1651.

The Massachusetts colonists invited to Ireland by Cromwell.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1649-1651.

IRELAND: A. D. 1652.

The Kilkenny Articles.

"On 12th May, 1652, the Leinster army of the Irish surrendered

on terms signed at Kilkenny, which were adopted successively

by the other principal armies between that time and the

September following, when the Ulster forces surrendered. By

these Kilkenny articles, all except those who were guilty of

the first blood were received into protection, on laying down

their arms; those who should not be satisfied with the

conclusions the Parliament might come to concerning the Irish

nation, and should desire to transport themselves with their

men to serve any foreign state in amity with the Parliament,

should have liberty to treat with their agents for that

purpose."

J. P. Prendergast,

The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland,

part 1, section 2.

IRELAND: A. D. 1653.

The Cromwellian Settlement.

"By the term Cromwellian Settlement is to be understood the

history of the dealings of the Commonwealth of England with

the lands and habitations of the people of Ireland after their

conquest of the country in the year 1652. … The officers of

the army were eager to take Irish lands in lieu of their

arrears, though it does not appear that the common soldiers

were, who had small debentures and no capital, and no chance

of founding families and leaving estates to their posterity.

But the adventurers [national creditors, who had loaned money

to the government for the Irish War] must be first settled

with, as they had a claim to about one million of acres, to

satisfy the sums advanced for putting down the rebellion on

the faith of the Act of 17 Charles I. (A. D. 1642), and

subsequent Acts and Ordinances, commonly called 'The Acts of

Subscription.' By these, lands for the adventurers must be

first ascertained, before the rest of the country could be

free for disposal by the Parliament to the army. … Towards

the close of the year 1653, the island seemed sufficiently

desolated to allow the English to occupy it. On the 26th of

September in that year, the Parliament passed an Act for the

new planting of Ireland with English. The government reserved

for themselves all the towns, all the church lands and tithes;

for they abolished all archbishops, bishops, deans, and other

officers, belonging to that hierarchy, and in those days the

Church of Christ sat in Chichester House on College-green.

They reserved also for themselves the four counties of Dublin,

Kildare, Carlow, and Cork. Out of the lands and tithes thus

reserved, the government were to satisfy public debts, private

favourites, eminent friends of the republican cause in

Parliament, regicides, and the most active of the English

rebels, not being of the army. They next made ample provision

for the adventurers. The amount due to the adventurers was

£360,000. This they divided into three lots, of which £110,000

was to be satisfied in Munster, £205,000 in Leinster, and

£45,000 in Ulster, and the moiety of ten counties was charged

with their payment:—Waterford, Limerick, and Tipperary, in

Munster; Meath, Westmeath, King's and Queen's Counties, in

Leinster; and Antrim, Down, and Armagh, in Ulster. But, as all

was required by the Adventurers Act to be done by lot, a

lottery was appointed to be held in Grocers' Hall, London, for

the 20th July, 1653. … A lot was then to be drawn by the

adventurers, and by some officer appointed by the Lord General

Cromwell on behalf of the soldiery, to ascertain which

baronies in the ten counties should be for the adventurers,

and which for the soldiers. The rest of Ireland, except

Connaught, was to be set out amongst the officers and

soldiers, for their arrears, amounting to £1,550,000, and to

satisfy debts of money or provisions due for supplies advanced

to the army of the Commonwealth, amounting to £1,750,000.

Connaught was by the Parliament reserved and appointed for the

habitation of the Irish nation; and all English and

Protestants having lands there, who should desire to remove

out of Connaught into the provinces inhabited by the English,

were to receive estates in the English parts, of equal value,

in exchange. … The Earl of Ormond, Primate Bramhall, and all

the Catholic nobility, and many of the gentry, were declared

incapable of pardon of life or estate, and were banished. …

Connaught was selected for the habitation of all the Irish

nation by reason of its being surrounded by the sea and the

Shannon, all but ten miles, and the whole easily made into one

line by a few forts. To further secure the imprisonment of the

nation, and cut them off from relief by sea, a belt four miles

wide, commencing one mile to the west of Sligo, and so winging

along the coast and Shannon, was reserved by the Act of 27th

September, 1653, from being set out to the Irish, and was

given to the soldiery to plant. Thither all the Irish were to

remove at latest by the first day of May, 1654, except Irish

women married to English Protestants before the 2d December,

1650, provided they became Protestants; except, also, boys

under fourteen and girls under twelve, in Protestant service

and to be brought up Protestants; and, lastly, those who had

shown during the ten years' war in Ireland their constant good

affection to the Parliament of England in preference to the

king.

{1770}

There they were to dwell without entering a walled town, or

coming within five miles of some, on pain of death. All were

to remove thither by the 1st of May, 1654, at latest, under

pain of being put to death by sentence of a court of military

officers, if found after that date on the English side of the

Shannon." In the actual enforcement of the law—found

impracticable in all its rigor—there were many special

dispensations granted, and extensions of time.

J. P. Prendergast,

The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland,

preface, and parts 1-2.

ALSO IN:

J. A. Froude,

The English in Ireland in the 18th Century,

book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

J. Lingard,

History of England,

volume 10, chapter 6.

IRELAND: A. D. 1655.

Cromwell's deportation of Girls to Jamaica.

See JAMAICA: A. D. 1655.

IRELAND: A. D. 1660-1665.

The restored Stuarts and their Act of Settlement.

"On the fall of Richard Cromwell, a council of officers was

established in Dublin; these summoned a convention of deputies

from the protestant proprietors; and the convention tendered

to Charles the obedience of his ancient kingdom of Ireland.

… To secure the royal protection, they made the king an

offer of a considerable sum of money, assured him, though

falsely, that the Irish Catholics meditated a general

insurrection, and prayed him to summon a protestant parliament

in Ireland, which might confirm the existing proprietors in

the undisturbed possession of their estates. The present was

graciously accepted, and the penal laws against the Irish

Catholics were ordered to be strictly enforced; but Charles

was unwilling to call a parliament, because it would

necessarily consist of men whose principles, both civil and

religious, he had been taught to distrust. The first measure

recommended to him by his English advisers, with respect to

Ireland, was the re-establishment of episcopacy. For this no

legislative enactment was requisite. His return had given to

the ancient laws their pristine authority. … In a short time

the episcopal hierarchy was quietly restored to the enjoyment

of its former rights, and the exercise of its former

jurisdiction. To this, a work of easy accomplishment,

succeeded a much more difficult attempt,—the settlement of

landed property in Ireland. The military, whom it was

dangerous to disoblige, and the adventurers, whose pretensions

had been sanctioned by Charles I., demanded the royal

confirmation of the titles by which they held their estates;

and the demand was opposed by a multitude of petitioners

claiming restitution or compensation [protestant royalists,

loyal Catholics, &c.]. … Humanity, gratitude, and justice,

called on the king to listen to many of these claims. … From

an estimate delivered to the king, it appeared that there

still remained at his disposal forfeited lands of the yearly

rental of from eighty to one hundred thousand pounds; a fund

sufficiently ample, it was contended, to 'reprize' or

compensate all the Irish really deserving of the royal favour.

Under this impression, Charles published his celebrated

declaration for the settlement of Ireland. It provided that no

person deriving his title from the adventurers under the

parliament, or the soldiers under the commonwealth, should be

disturbed in the possession of his lands, without receiving an

equivalent from the fund for reprisals; that all innocents,

whether protestants or Catholics, that is, persons who had

never adhered either to the parliament or the confederates,

should be restored to their rightful estates." After much

contention between deputations from both sides sent to the

king, an act was passed through the Irish parliament

substantially according to the royal declaration. "But to

execute this act was found to be a task of considerable

difficulty. By improvident grants of lands to the church, the

dukes of York, Ormond, and Albemarle, the earls of Orrery,

Montrath, Kingston, Massarene, and several others, the fund

for reprisals had been almost exhausted." New controversies

and agitations arose, which finally induced the soldiers,

adventurers, and grantees of the crown to surrender one third

of their acquisitions, for the augmenting of the fund for

reprisals. "The king, by this measure, was placed in a

situation [August, 1665], not indeed to do justice, but to

silence the most importunate or most deserving among the

petitioners. … But when compensation had thus been made to a

few of the sufferers, what, it may be asked, became of the

officers who had followed the royal fortune abroad, or of the

3,000 Catholics who had entered their claims of innocence? To

all these, the promises which had been made by the act of

settlement were broken; the unfortunate claimants were

deprived of their rights, and debarred from all hope of future

relief. A measure of such sweeping and appalling oppression is

perhaps without a parallel in the history of civilized

nations. Its injustice could not be denied; and the only

apology offered in its behalf was the stern necessity of

quieting the fears and jealousies of the Cromwellian settlers,

and of establishing on a permanent basis the protestant

ascendancy in Ireland. … The following is the general

result. The protestants were previously [i. e., before the

Cromwellian Settlement] in possession of about one moiety of

all the profitable lands in the island; of the second moiety,

which had been forfeited under the commonwealth, something

less than two-thirds was by the act confirmed to the

protestants; and of the remainder a portion almost equal in

quantity, but not in quality, to one-third, was appropriated

to the Catholics."

J. Lingard,

History of England,

volume 11, chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

J. A. Froude,

The English in Ireland,

book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

T. Carte,

Life of James Duke of Ormond,

book 6 (volume 4).

IRELAND: A. D. 1685-1688.

The reign of James II.

Domination of Tyrconnel and the Catholics.

"At the accession of James II., in 1685, he found the native

Irish, all of whom were Roman Catholics, opposed to the

English rule, as to that of a conquering minority. … Of the

settlers, the Scotch Presbyterians shared the feelings of

their brethren in their native country, and hated

Episcopalians with the true religious fury. In the Irish

Parliament the Presbyterians and Episcopalians were nearly

balanced, whilst the Protestant Nonconformists, in numbers

almost equalling the other two parties, had but few seats in

the Parliament. The Episcopalians alone were hearty supporters

of the house of Stuart; the Presbyterians and Nonconformists

were Whigs. James was in a most favourable position for

tranquilising Ireland, for, as a Roman Catholic, he was much

more acceptable to the native Irish than his predecessors had

been.

{1771}

Had he followed his true interests, he would have endeavoured,

firstly, to unite together, as firmly as possible, the English

settlers in Ireland, and secondly, by wise acts of mediation,

to bridge over the differences between the English and Irish.

Thus he might have welded them into one people. James,

however, followed a directly opposite policy, and the results

of this misgovernment of Ireland are visible at the present

day. The Duke of Ormond was at the time of the death of

Charles II. both lord lieutenant and commander of the forces.

… Soon after his accession James recalled him, and the

office of lord lieutenant was bestowed on his own

brother-in-law, Lord Clarendon, whilst the post of general of

the troops was given to Richard Talbot, Earl of Tyrconnel.

Talbot … was a coarse, vulgar, truculent ruffian, greedy and

unprincipled; but in the eyes of James he had great virtues,

for he was devoted to the Romish Church and to his sovereign.

'Lying Dick Talbot,' as he was called, was raised by James to

the peerage as Earl of Tyrconnel. Lord Clarendon was, from the

time of his appointment, hampered by his associate," who,

finally, in 1687, supplanted him, gathering the reins of

government into his own hands, "not indeed as lord lieutenant,

but with the power which Ormond had formerly held, although

under a new title, that of lord deputy. The rule of Tyrconnel

entirely subverted the old order of things. Protestants were

disarmed and Protestant soldiers were disbanded. The militia

was composed wholly of Roman Catholics. The dispensing power

in the royal prerogative set aside the statutes of the

kingdom, and the bench and privy council were occupied by

Roman Catholics. Vacant bishoprics of the Established Church

remained unfilled, and their revenues were devoted to Romish

priests. Tithes were with impunity withheld from the clergy of

the Establishment. … The hatred of the Irish Roman Catholics

towards the Protestant settlers was excited to the utmost

under Tyrconnel's rule. The former now hoped to mete out to

the latter a full measure of retaliation. The breach was

widened owing to the fear and distrust openly showed by the

Protestants, and has never since been effectually repaired."

Before the occurrence of the Revolution which drove James from

his throne, in 1688, "Tyrconnel had disarmed all the

Protestants, except those in the North. He had a large force

of 20,000 men under arms, and of this force all the officers

were trustworthy and Papists. He had filled the corporations

of the towns with adherents of James. He had shown himself to

be, as ever, tyrannical and unscrupulous. It was universally

believed by the Protestants that a general massacre, a second

St. Bartholomew, was intended. Even a day, December 9, was,

they thought, fixed for the expected outbreak. The garrison of

Londonderry had been temporarily withdrawn. On December 8,

Lord Antrim arrived in command of 12,000 [1,200?] soldiers to

form the new garrison. Without any warning, the Protestant

apprentices ('the prentice boys of Derry') shut the gates of

the city in his face. The inhabitants, in spite of the

entreaties of the bishop and of the town council, refused to

allow them to be opened. Antrim was compelled to withdraw.

Thus one rallying-point was gained for the opponents of James.

Another was found in Enniskillen, sixty miles south of

Londonderry. Into these two towns poured all the Protestants

from the surrounding districts. With these two exceptions, the

boast of Tyrconnel that Ireland was true, was well founded."

E. Hale,

The Fall of the Stuarts,

chapters 10 and 13.

"He [James II.] deliberately resolved, not merely to give to

the aboriginal inhabitants of Ireland the entire dominion of

their own country, but also to use them as his instruments for

setting up arbitrary government in England. The event was such

as might have been foreseen. The colonists turned to bay with

the stubborn hardihood of their race. The mother country

justly regarded their cause as her own. Then came a desperate

struggle for a tremendous stake. … The contest was terrible

but short. The weaker went down. His fate was cruel; and yet

for the cruelty with which he was treated there was, not

indeed a defence, but an excuse: for though he suffered all

that tyranny could inflict, he suffered nothing that he would

not himself have inflicted. The effect of the insane attempt

to subjugate England by means of Ireland was that the Irish

became hewers of wood and drawers of water to the English. …

The momentary ascendency of Popery produced such a series of

barbarous laws against Popery as made the statute book of

Ireland a proverb of infamy throughout Christendom. Such were

the bitter fruits of the policy of James."

Lord Macaulay,

History of England,

chapter 6 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

J. R. O'Flanagan,

Lives of the Lord Chancellors of Ireland,

chapter 28 (volume 1).

IRELAND: A. D. 1688-1689.

Enniskillen and the Battle of Newton Butler.

Enniskillen, then a village, surrounding an ancient castle,

was, in 1688-89, one of the two rallying points of the

Protestant colonists in Ireland, who supported the Revolution

by which James II. was dethroned and William and Mary were

crowned. The chief stronghold of their cause was Londonderry;

but Enniskillen bore a scarcely less important part. "In

December, 1688, Tyrconnel's troops, being two companies of

Popish infantry, advanced upon Enniskillen. The inhabitants,

reinforced by 200 foot and 150 horse, contributed by the

neighbouring gentry, marched out to oppose them. Tyrconnel's

men fled to Cavan. The Enniskilleners, then, arming themselves

as well as they could, and converting all the country-houses

round Lough Erne into garrisons, appointed Gustavus Hamilton

their governor and resolved upon defence. … Early in May,

1689, the Enniskilleners routed Tyrconnel's troops, sent from

Connaught into Donegal. They next drove 1,500 men out of the

County Cavan—destroyed the Castle of Ballincarrig—and then

entered the County Meath, whence they carried off oxen and

sheep. Colonel Hugh Sutherland was sent with a regiment of

dragoons and two regiments of foot against the Enniskilleners,

who, however, defeated them, and took Belturbet, where they

found muskets, gunpowder, and provisions; but unfortunately

they were unable to relieve Derry, then beleaguered and sorely

distressed. The Enniskilleners held out against all attacks,

and refused all terms of surrender. They were now assailed

from various points; by Macarthy (then by James created

Viscount Mountcashel) from the east, by another body from the

west, and by the Duke of Berwick from the north.

{1772}

The Enniskilleners sent to Colonel Kirke [commanding the

English forces first sent to Ireland by William of Orange] who

had arrived in Lough Foyle, and received from him some arms

and ammunition; and Colonel Wolseley and Lieutenant-Colonel

Berry came from him to their assistance. Colonel Wolseley took

the command." Under Wolseley, the men of Enniskillen, 3,000

strong, encountered 5,000 of the enemy, under Mountcashel,

near the town of Newton Butler, on the 31st of July, three

days after Derry had been relieved. Their victory was

complete. "The whole Irish force was totally and hopelessly

routed. Their slaughter was dreadful—l,500 killed, and 500

drowned in Lough Erne, whither they were driven. Mountcashel

was wounded and taken prisoner. The Enniskilleners lost only

twenty killed and fifty wounded. They took 400 prisoners, some

cannons, fourteen barrels of gunpowder, and all the colours

and drums. … The victory became known at Strabane to the

Irish army retreating from Derry, which thereupon broke up in

confusion and fled to Omagh, and thence to Charlemont."

W. H. Torriano,

William the Third,

chapter 21.

ALSO IN:

Lord Macaulay,

History of England,

chapter 12 (volume 3).

IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

The War of the Revolution.

The Orange conquest.

Supported by a French fleet, supplied moderately with French

gold, and accompanied by a picked body of French officers, for

the organizing and disciplining of raw Irish troops, James II.

landed in Ireland, at Kinsale, on the 12th of March, 1689, to

take personal possession of the government still maintained

there in his name. From Kinsale he hastened to Dublin, "and

summoned a Parliament, which met on May 7, 1689, and sat until

July 18. This Parliament of James has been described as a

Parliament of Irish Celts, yet out of the 228 members of the

House of Commons about one-fourth only belonged to the native

race, and even including members of families Anglicized or of

doubtful origin, not one-third of the House of Commons

belonged to the so-called Celts. Of the thirty-two lay peers

who attended, not more than two or three bore old Irish names.

The four spiritual peers were Protestant bishops."

W. K. Sullivan,

part 1, of Two Centuries of Irish History

chapter 1.

"The members of the House of Commons were almost all new men,

completely inexperienced in public business and animated by

the resentment of the bitterest wrongs. Many of them were sons

of some of the 3,000 proprietors who without trial and without

compensation had been deprived by the Act of Settlement of the

estates of their ancestors. To all of them the confiscations

of Ulster, the fraud of Strafford, the long train of

calamities that followed were recent and vivid events. … It

will hardly appear surprising to candid men that a Parliament

so constituted and called together amid the excitement of a

civil war, should have displayed much violence, much disregard

for vested interests. Its measures, indeed, were not all

criminal. By one Act which was far in advance of the age, it

established perfect religious liberty in Ireland. … By

another Act, repealing Poynings' law, and asserting its own

legislative independence, it anticipated the doctrine of

Molyneux, Swift, and Grattan. … A third measure abolished

the payments to Protestant clergy in the corporate towns,

while a fourth ordered that the Catholics throughout Ireland

should henceforth pay their tithes and other ecclesiastical

dues to their own priests and not to the Protestant clergy.

The Protestants were still to pay their tithes to their own

clergy. … Several other measures—most of them now only

known by their titles—were passed for developing the

resources of the country or remedying some great abuse. … If

these had been the only measures of the Irish Parliament it

would have left an eminently honourable reputation. But,

unfortunately, one of its main objects was to re-establish at

all costs the descendants of the old proprietors in their

land, and to annul by measures of sweeping violence the

grievous wrongs and spoliations their fathers and their

grandfathers had undergone. The first and most important

measure with this object was the repeal of the Acts of

Settlement and Explanation. … The preamble asserts that the

outbreak of 1641 had been solely due to the intolerable

oppression and to the disloyal conduct of the Lords Justices

and Puritan party, that the Catholics of Ireland before the

struggle had concluded had been fully reconciled to the

sovereign, that they had received from the sovereign a full

and formal pardon, and that the royal word had been in

consequence pledged to the restitution of their properties.

This pledge by the Act of Settlement had been to a great

extent broken, and the Irish legislators maintained that the

twenty-four years which had elapsed since that Act had not

annulled the rights of the old proprietors or their

descendants. They maintained that these claims were not only

valid but were prior to all others, and they accordingly

enacted that the heirs of all persons who had possessed landed

property in Ireland on October 22, 1641, and who had been

deprived of their inheritance by the Act of Settlement, should

enter at once into possession of their old properties. … The

long succession of confiscations of Irish land which had taken

place from the days of Mary to the Act of Settlement had been

mainly based upon real or pretended plots of the owners of the

soil, which enabled the Government, on the plea of high

treason, to appropriate the land which they desired. In 1689

the great bulk of the English proprietors of Irish soil were

in actual correspondence with William, and were therefore

legally guilty of high treason. The Irish legislators now

proceeded to follow the example of the British Governments,

and by a clause of extreme severity they pronounced the real

estates of all Irish proprietors who dwelt in any part of the

three kingdoms which did not acknowledge King James, or who

aided, abetted or corresponded with the rebels, to be

forfeited and vested in the Crown, and from this source they

proposed to compensate the purchasers under the Act of

Settlement. … The measure of repeal, however, was speedily

followed by another Act of much more sweeping and violent

injustice. The Act of Attainder, which was introduced in the

latter part of June, aimed at nothing less than a complete

overthrow of the existing land system in Ireland. A list

divided into several groups, but containing in all more than

2,000 names, was drawn up of landowners who were to be

attainted of high treason. …

{1773}

Few persons will question the tyranny of an Act which in this

manner made a very large proportion of the Irish landlords

liable to the penalties of high treason, unless they could

prove their innocence, even though the only crime that could

be alleged against them was that of living out of Ireland in a

time of civil war. … It is … a curious illustration of the

carelessness or partiality with which Irish history is

written, that no popular historian has noticed that five days

before this Act, which has been described as 'without a

parallel in the history of civilised countries,' was

introduced into the Irish Parliament, a Bill which appears, in

its essential characteristics, to have been precisely similar

was introduced into the Parliament of England; that it passed

the English House of Commons; that it passed, with slight

amendments, the English House of Lords; and that it was only

lost, in its last stage, by a prorogation. … These facts

will show how far the Irish Act of Attainder was from having

the unique character that has been ascribed to it. It is not

possible to say how that Act would have been executed, for the

days of Jacobite ascendency were now few and evil. The

Parliament was prorogued on the 20th of July, one of its last

Acts being to vest in the King the property of those who were

still absentees."

W. E. H. Lecky,

History of England in the 18th Century,

chapter 6 (volume 2).

While James' Irish Parliament sat, "sufficient men had

presented themselves to form fifty regiments of infantry and a

proportionate number of cavalry. But … these levies were

undisciplined, and their officers, with few exceptions, were

without military training and experience. There were no

arsenals, and in the government stores only about 1,000

serviceable firearms were found; there was no artillery and no

supply of ammunition. … What coin was in circulation was

small in quantity and debased in quality. James's Government

issued a brass coinage, which had no currency outside the

kingdom, and even within it practically circulated only among

the partisans of James, and could not consequently help in

purchasing arms, ammunition, and military stores, which had to

be imported from without. Under such unfavourable

circumstances the war began. The first campaign comprised the

siege, or rather blockade, of Derry—for the Irish, having no

artillery, could not undertake a regular siege—which was

gallantly defended by the Scoto-English colonists; the check

of Mountcashel by the Enniskilleners, who had followed the

example of Derry; the landing of Schomberg with an army of

Dutch, French Protestants, and English, who went into winter

quarters near Dundalk, where he lost nearly half his troops

from sickness; and, lastly, the military parade of James, who

marched out from Dublin, and, failing to force Schomberg to

fight, went into winter quarters himself. The result of the

campaign was the successful defence of Derry, and the signal

exhibition of James's incapacity as a general. At the opening

of the second campaign, an exchange of troops was made between

James and Louis XIV., with the view of giving prestige to the

cause of the former. Six thousand French troops, under a

drawing-room general, the well-known Comte de Lauzun, arrived

in Ireland, and the same ships carried back an equal number of

Irish troops—the brigade of Mountcashel, the best-trained and

best-equipped body of troops in the Irish army. … The wasted

army of Schomberg was strengthened by the arrival of William

himself on June 14, 1690, with a considerable force. The

united armies, composed of the most heterogeneous materials,

one-half being foreigners of various nationalities, amounted

to between 36,000 and 48,000 men. … To meet William, James

set out from Dublin with an army of about 23,000 men. The

French troops and the Irish cavalry were good, but the

infantry was not well trained, and the artillery consisted

only of twelve field-pieces. The battle took place on July 1,

1690, at the passage of the River Boyne, a few miles above

Drogheda the rout of James's army being complete and its loss

about 1,500 men. William lost but 500; but the number included

Schomberg, one of the great soldiers of his age. James was

among the first in the flight, and he scarcely paused until he

had put himself on board of a French frigate and quitted

Ireland forever]. The Irish fell back on Dublin and thence

retired behind the line of the Shannon. About 20,000

half-armed infantry and about 3,500 horse concentrated at

Limerick. The English having failed in taking Athlone, the key

of the upper Shannon, William gathered together about 38,000

men in the neighbourhood of Limerick. Lauzun having declared

that Limerick could not be defended, and might be taken with

roasted apples, withdrew with the whole of the French troops

to Galway, to await the first opportunity of returning to

France. On August 9, 1690, William moved his whole army close

to the town and summoned the garrison to surrender; but having

failed, with a loss of 2,000 men, to carry the town by

assault, he raised the siege and went to England. The third

and last campaign began late in 1691. The Irish received many

promises of assistance from Louis XIV., but his ministers

fulfilled few or none of them. With scarcely any loss of men,

and with a small expenditure of stores and money, the Irish

war enabled Louis to keep William and a veteran army of 40,000

men out of his way. … The campaign opened in the beginning

of June with the advance of Ginkel [William's general] on

Athlone. The chief defence of the place was the River Shannon,

the works being weak, and mounting only a few field-pieces;

yet so obstinately was the place defended that, but for the

discovery of a ford, and some neglect on the part of D'Usson,

who commanded, it is probable that the siege would have been

raised. As it was, Ginkel became master of the heap of ruins.

… St. Ruth [the French officer commanding the Irish] moved

his camp to Aughrim [or Aghrim], and there was fought the

final battle of the war on Sunday, July 12, 1691. … St. Ruth

was killed at a critical moment, and his army defeated, with a

loss of about 4,000 men, the English loss being about half

that number. Part of the defeated Irish infantry retreated to

Galway; but the bulk of the troops, including the whole of the

cavalry, fell back on Limerick, which surrendered, after a

gallant resistance, in October, 1691."

W. K. Sullivan,

part 1 of Two Centuries of Irish History,

chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

Lord Macaulay,

History of England,

chapters 12, 16 and 17.

W. H. Torriano,

William the Third,

chapters 5 and 21-23.

J. A. Froude,

The English in Ireland,

chapter 3 (volume 1).

W. A. O'Conor,

History of the Irish People,

book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).

Sir J. Dalrymple,

Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland,

part 2, books 2-5 (volume 2).

{1774}

IRELAND: A. D. 1691.

The Treaty of Limerick and its violation.

The surrender of Limerick was under the terms of a treaty—or

of two treaties, one military, the other civil—formally

negotiated for the terminating of the war. This Treaty of

Limerick was signed, October 3, 1691, by Baron De Ginkel,

William's general, and by the lords justices of Ireland, on

behalf of the English, and by Sarsfield and other chieftains

on behalf of the Irish. "Its chief provisions were: 'The Roman

Catholics of this kingdom shall enjoy such privileges in the

exercise of their religion as are consistent with the laws of

Ireland; or as they did enjoy in the reign of King Charles

II.; and their Majesties, as soon as their affairs will permit

them to summon a Parliament in this kingdom, will endeavour to

procure the said Roman Catholics such further security in that

particular as may preserve them from any disturbance upon the

account of their said religion. All the inhabitants or

residents of Limerick, or any other garrison now in the

possession of the Irish, and all officers and soldiers now in

arms under any commission of King James, or those authorized

by him to grant the same in the several counties of Limerick,

Clare, Kerry, Cork, and Mayo, or any of them, and all the

commissioned officers in their Majesties' quarters that belong

to the Irish regiments now in being that are treated with and

who are not prisoners of war, or having taken protection, and

who shall return and submit to their Majesties' obedience, and

their and every of their heirs shall hold, possess, and enjoy

all and every their estates of freehold and inheritance; and

all the rights, titles, and interest, privileges and

immunities, which they, or every or any of them, held,

enjoyed, and were rightfully and lawfully entitled to in the

reign of King Charles II.' … A general pardon was to be

granted to all persons comprised within the treaty, and the

Lords Justices and the generals commanding King William's army

were to use their best endeavours to get the attainders of any

of them attainted repealed. … In the copy of the rough draft

engrossed for signature the following words, 'and all such as

are under their protection in the said counties,' which

immediately followed the enumeration of the several counties

in the second article, were omitted. This omission, whether

the result of design or accident, was, however, rectified by

King William when confirming the treaty in February, 1692. The

confirming instrument stated that the words had been casually

omitted; that the omission was not discovered till the

articles were signed, but was taken notice of before the town

was surrendered; and that the Lords Justices or General

Ginkel, or one of them, had promised that the clause should be

made good, since it was within the intention of the

capitulation, and had been inserted in the rough draft.

William then for himself did 'ratify and confirm the said

omitted words.' The colonists, or at all events the 'new

interests'—that is, those who shared or expected to share in

the confiscations—were indignant at the concessions made to

the native race."

W. K. Sullivan,

part 1 of Two Centuries of Irish History,

chapter 1.

"The advantages secured to Catholics by the Treaty of Limerick

were moderate. But when the flower of the Irish army had

withdrawn to France, and the remnant could be hanged without

ceremony, they began to look inordinate. The parliament of

Cromwellian settlers and Government officials in Dublin having

excluded Catholic members, by requiring from them an oath of

abjuration, in direct infringement of one of the articles of

surrender, were free to proceed at their discretion. They

first passed a stringent statute depriving Catholics of arms,

and another ordering all 'Popish archbishops, bishops,

vicars-general, deans, Jesuits, monks, friars, and regulars of

whatever condition to depart from the kingdom on pain of

transportation,' and then proceeded to consider the treaty.

They … resolved by a decisive majority not to keep the

conditions affecting the Catholics. William … struggled for

a time to preserve his honour; but it is not convenient for a

new king to be in conflict with his friends, and after a time

he gave way. … In Ireland the Treaty of Limerick can never

be forgotten; it is one of the title deeds of the Irish race

to their inheritance in their native land. For more than a

century its sordid and shameless violation was as common a

reproach to England on the Continent as the partition of

Poland has been a reproach to Russia in our own day."

Sir C. G. Duffy,

Bird's-Eye View of Irish History, revised edition,

pages 155-156

(or book 1, chapter 4, of "Young Ireland").

"The Protestant rancour of parliament was more powerful than

the good will of the prince. The most vital articles of the

capitulation were ignored, especially in all cases where the

Catholic religion and the liberties granted to its professors

were concerned; and 4,000 Irish were denounced as traitors and

rebels,—by which declamation a fresh confiscation of

1,060,000 acres was immediately effected. … It has been

calculated that in 1692 the Irish Catholics, who quadrupled

the Protestants in number, owned only one-eleventh of the

soil, and that the most wretched and unproductive portion."

A. Perraud,

Ireland under English Rule,

introduction, section 8.

IRELAND: A. D. 1691-1782.

The peace of despair.

A century of national death.

Oppression of the Penal Laws.

"By the military treaty [of Limerick], those of Sarsfield's

soldiers who would were suffered to follow him to France; and

10,000 men, the whole of his force, chose exile rather than

life in a land where all hope of national freedom was lost.

When the wild cry of the women who stood watching their

departure was hushed, the silence of death settled down upon

Ireland. For a hundred years the country remained at peace,

but the peace was a peace of despair. The most terrible legal

tyranny under which a nation has ever groaned avenged the

rising under Tyrconnell. The conquered people, in Swift's

bitter words of contempt, became 'hewers of wood and drawers

of water' to their conquerors; but till the very eve of the

French Revolution Ireland ceased to be a source of terror and

anxiety to England."

J. H. Green,

Short History of England,

chapter 9, section 8.

"In Ireland there was peace. The domination of the colonists

was absolute. The native population was tranquil with the

ghastly tranquillity of exhaustion and of despair. There were

indeed outrages, robberies, fireraisings, assassinations. But

more than a century passed away without one general

insurrection. During that century, two rebellions were raised

in Great Britain by the adherents of the House of Stuart. But

neither when the elder Pretender was crowned at Scone, nor

when the younger held his court at Holyrood, was the standard

of that House set up in Connaught or Munster.

{1775}

In 1745, indeed, when the Highlanders were marching towards

London, the Roman Catholics of Ireland were so quiet that the

Lord Lieutenant could, without the smallest risk, send several

regiments across Saint George's Channel to reinforce the army

of the Duke of Cumberland. Nor was this submission the effect

of content, but of mere stupefaction and brokenness of heart.

The iron had entered into the soul. The memory of past

defeats, the habit of daily enduring insult and oppression,

had cowed the spirits of the unhappy nation. There were indeed

Irish Roman Catholics of great ability, energy and ambition;

but they were to be found everywhere except in Ireland,—at

Versailles and at Saint lldefonso, in the armies of Frederic

and in the armies of Maria Theresa. One exile became a Marshal

of France. Another became Prime Minister of Spain. If he had

staid in his native land he would have been regarded as an

inferior by all the ignorant and worthless squireens who had

signed the Declaration against Transubstantiation. …

Scattered over all Europe were to be found brave Irish

generals, dexterous Irish diplomatists, Irish Counts, Irish

Barons, Irish Knights … who, if they had remained in the

house of bondage, could not have been ensigns of marching

regiments or freemen of petty corporations. These men, the

natural chiefs of their race, having been withdrawn, what

remained was utterly helpless and passive. A rising of the

Irishry against the Englishry was no more to be apprehended

than a rising of the women and children against the men."

Lord Macaulay,

History of England,

chapter 17.

"An act of 1695 'deprived the Roman Catholics of the means of

educating their children, either at home or abroad, and of the

privilege of being guardians either of their own or of any

other person's children.' Another Act of the same year

deprived the Roman Catholics of the right of bearing arms, or

of keeping any horse which was worth more than £5. An Act of

1697 ordered the expulsion of every Roman Catholic priest from

Ireland. The Parliament, which had imposed these disabilities

on Irish Roman Catholics, proceeded to confirm the Articles of

Limerick, or 'so much of them as may consist with the safety

and welfare of your Majesty's subjects of this kingdom,' and

by a gross act of injustice omitted the whole of the first of

these articles, and the important paragraph in the second

article which had been accidentally omitted from the original

copy of the Treaty, and subsequently restored to it by letters

patent under the Great Seal. Reasonable men may differ on the

propriety or impropriety of the conditions on which the

surrender of Limerick was secured; but it is difficult to read

the story of their repudiation without a deep sense of shame.

Three other acts relating to the Roman Catholics were passed

during the reign of William. An Act of 1697 forbade the

intermarriage of Protestants and Papists. An Act of 1698

prevented Papists from being solicitors. Another Act of the

same year stopped their employment as gamekeepers. William

died; and the breach of faith which he had countenanced was

forgotten amidst the pressure of the legislation which

disgraced the reign of his successor. Two Acts passed in this

reign, for preventing the further growth of Popery, were

styled by Burke the 'ferocious Acts of Anne.' By the first of

these Acts a Papist having a Protestant son was debarred from

selling, mortgaging, or devising any portion of his estate:

however young the son might be, he was to be taken from his

father's hands and confided to the care of a Protestant

relation. The estate of a Papist who had no Protestant heir

was to be divided equally among his sons. The Papist was

declared incapable of purchasing real estate or of taking land

on lease for more than thirty-one years. A Papist was declared

incapable of inheriting real estate from a Protestant. He was

disqualified from holding any office, civil or military. With

twenty exceptions, a Papist was forbidden to reside in

Limerick or Galway. Advowsons the property of Papists were

vested in the Crown. Religious intolerance had now apparently

done its uttermost. … But the laws failed. Their severity

insured their failure. … The first of the ferocious Acts of

Anne was almost openly disregarded. … Its failure only

induced the intolerant advisers of Anne to supplement it with

harsher legislation. The Act of 1704 had deprived the Papist

of the guardianship of his apostate child. An Act of 1709

empowered the Court of Chancery to oblige the Papist to

discover his estate, and authorized the Court to make an order

for the maintenance of the apostate child out of the proceeds

of it. The Act of 1704 had made it illegal for a Papist to

take lands on lease; the Act of 1709 disabled him from

receiving a life annuity. An Act of 1704 had compelled the

registry of priests. The Act of 1709 forbade their officiating

in any parish except that in which they were registered.

These, however, were the least reprehensible features in the

Act of 1709. Its worst features were the encouragement which

it gave to the meaner vices of human nature. The wife of a

Papist, if she became a Protestant, was to receive a jointure

out of her husband's estate. A Popish priest abandoning his

religion was to receive an annuity of £30 a year. Rewards were

to be paid for 'discovering' Popish prelates, priests, and

schoolmasters. Two justices might compel any Papist to state

on oath where and when he had heard mass, who had officiated

at it, and who had been present at it. Encouragement was thus

given to informers; bribes were thus held out to apostates;

and Parliament trusted to the combined effects of bribery and

intimidation to stamp out the last remnant of Popery. The

penal code, however, was not yet complete. The armoury of

intolerance was not yet exhausted. An Act of George I.

disabled Papists from serving in the Irish militia, but

compelled them to find Protestant substitutes; to pay double

towards the support of the militia, and rendered their horses

liable to seizure for militia purposes. By Acts of George II.

the Papists were disfranchised; barristers or solicitors

marrying Papists were deemed Papists; all marriages between

Protestants and Papists were annulled; and Popish priests

celebrating any illegal marriages were condemned to be hanged.

By an Act of George III. Papists refusing to deliver up or

declare their arms were liable to be placed in the pillory or

to be whipped, as the Court should think proper. Such were the

laws which the intolerance of a minority imposed on the

majority of their fellow-subjects. Utterly unjust, they had

not even the bare merit of success. …

{1776}

'The great body of the people,' wrote Arthur Young [1780],

'stripped of their all, were more enraged than converted: they

adhered to the persuasion of their forefathers with the

steadiest and the most determined zeal; while the priests,

actuated by the spirit of a thousand inducements, made

proselytes among the common Protestants in defiance of every

danger. … Those laws have crushed all the industry and

wrested most of the property from the Catholics; but the

religion triumphs; it is thought to increase.'"

S. Walpole,

History of England from 1815,

chapter 8 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

R. R. Madden,

Historical Notice of Penal Laws against Roman Catholics.

A. Perraud,

Ireland under English Rule: introduction.

E. Burke,

Letter to a Peer of Ireland on the Penal Laws

(Works, volume 4).

E. Burke,

Fragments of a Tract on the Popery Laws

(Works, volume 6).

A. J. Thébaud,

The Irish Race,

chapter 12.

IRELAND: A. D, 1710.

Colonization of Palatines in Munster.

See PALATINES.

IRELAND: A. D. 1722-1724.

Wood's halfpence.

The Drapier's Letters.

"A patent had been given [1722, by the Walpole administration]

to a certain William Wood for supplying Ireland with a copper

coinage. Many complaints had been made, and in September,

1723, addresses were voted by the Irish Houses of Parliament,

declaring that the patent had been obtained by clandestine and

false representations; that it was mischievous to the country;

and that Wood had been guilty of frauds in his coinage. They

were pacified by vague promises; but Walpole went on with the

scheme on the strength of a favourable report of a committee

of the Privy Council; and the excitement was already serious

when (in 1724) Swift published the Drapier's Letters, which

give him his chief title to eminence as a patriotic agitator.

Swift either shared or took advantage of the general belief

that the mysteries of the currency are unfathomable to the

human intelligence. … There is, however, no real mystery

about the halfpence. The small coins which do not form part of

the legal-tender may be considered primarily as counters. A

penny is a penny, so long as twelve are change for a shilling.

It is not in the least necessary for this purpose that the

copper contained in the twelve penny pieces should be worth or

nearly worth a shilling. … At the present day bronze worth

only twopence is coined into twelve penny pieces. … The

effect of Wood's patent was that a mass of copper worth about

£60,000 became worth £100,800 in the shape of halfpenny

pieces. There was, therefore, a balance of about £40,000, to

pay for the expenses of coinage. It would have been waste to

get rid of this by putting more copper in the coins; but if so

large a profit arose from the transaction, it would go to

somebody. At the present day it would be brought into the

national treasury. This was not the way in which business was

done in Ireland. Wood was to pay £1,000 a year for fourteen

years to the Crown. But £14,000 still leaves a large margin

for profit. 'What was to become of it. According to the

admiring biographer of Sir R. Walpole the patent had been

originally given by Lord Sunderland to the Duchess of Kendal,

a lady whom the King delighted to honour. … It was right and

proper that a profit should be made on the transaction, but

shameful that it should be divided between the King's mistress

and William Wood, and that the bargain should be struck

without consulting the Irish representatives, and maintained

in, spite of their protests. The Duchess of Kendal was to be

allowed to take a share of the wretched halfpence in the

pocket of every Irish beggar. A more disgraceful transaction

could hardly be imagined, or one more calculated to justify

Swift's view of the selfishness and corruption of the English

rulers. Swift saw his chance and went to work in

characteristic fashion, with unscrupulous audacity of

statement, guided by the keenest strategical instinct. … The

patent was surrendered, and Swift might congratulate himself

upon a complete victory. … The Irish succeeded in rejecting

a real benefit at the cost of paying Wood the profit which he

would have made, had he been allowed to confer it."

L. Stephen,

Swift (English Men of Letters),

chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

Dean Swift,

Works (Scott's edition),

volume 6.

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),

History of England, 1713-1783,

chapter 13 (volume 2).

J. McCarthy,

History of the Four Georges,

chapter 15.

IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.

Whiteboys.

Oak Boys.

Steel Boys.

Peep of Day Boys.

Catholic Defenders.

"The peasantry continued to regard the land as their own; and

with the general faith that wrong cannot last forever, they

waited for the time when they would once more have possession

of it. 'The lineal descendants of the old families,' wrote

Arthur Young in 1774, 'are now to be found all over the

kingdom, working as cottiers on the lands which were once

their own.' … With the growth of what was called

civilization, absenteeism, the worst disorder of the country,

had increased. … The rise in prices, the demand for salt

beef and salt butter for exportation and for the fleets, were

revolutionizing the agriculture of Munster. The great

limestone pastures of Limerick and Tipperary, the fertile

meadow universally, was falling into the hands of capitalist

graziers, in whose favour the landlords, or the landlords'

agents, were evicting the smaller tenants. … To the

peasantry these men were a curse. Common lands, where their

own cows had been fed, were inclosed and taken from them. The

change from tillage to grazing destroyed their employment.

Their sole subsistence was from their potato gardens, the

rents of which were heavily raised, while, by a curious

mockery of justice, the grass lands were exempt from tithe,

and the burden of maintaining the rectors and vicars of the

Established Church was cast exclusively on the Catholic poor.

Among a people who are suffering under a common wrong there is

a sympathy of resentment which links them together without

visible or discoverable bond. In the spring of 1760 Tipperary

was suddenly overrun by bands of midnight marauders. Who they

were was a mystery. Rumours reached England of insurgent

regiments drilling in the moonlight; of French officers

observed passing and repassing the Channel; but no French

officer could be detected in Munster. The most rigid search

discovered no stands of arms, such as soldiers use or could

use. This only was certain, that white figures were seen in

vast numbers, like moving clouds, flitting silently at night

over field and moor, leaving behind them the tracks of where

they had passed in levelled fences and houghed and moaning

cattle; where the owners were specially hateful, in blazing

homesteads, and the inmates' bodies blackening in the ashes.

Arrests were generally useless. The country was sworn to

secrecy.

{1777}

Through the entire central plains of Ireland the people were

bound by the most solemn oaths never to reveal the name of a

confederate, or give evidence in a court of justice. … Thus

it was long uncertain how the movement originated, who were

its leaders, and whether there was one or many. Letters

signed by Captain Dwyer or Joanna Meskell were left at the

doors of obnoxious persons, ordering lands to be abandoned

under penalties. If the commands were uncomplied with, the

penalties were inexorably inflicted. … Torture usually being

preferred to murder, male offenders against the Whiteboys were

houghed like their cattle, or their tongues were torn out by

the roots."

J. A. Froude,

The English in Ireland,

book 5, chapter 1 (volume 2).

The Whiteboys took their name from the practice of wearing a

white shirt drawn over their other clothing, when they were

out upon their nocturnal expeditions. "The Oak Boy movement

took place about 1761-2. … The injustice which led to the

formation of the 'Oak Boys,' one of the best known of the

colonial societies, was duty work on roads. Every householder

was bound to give six days' labour in making and repairing the

public roads; and if he had a horse, six days' labour of his

horse. It was complained that this duty work was only levied

on the poor, and that they were compelled to work on private

job roads, and even upon what were the avenues and farm roads

of the gentry. The name Oak Boys, or Hearts of Oak Boys, was

derived from the members in their raids wearing an oak branch

in their hats. The organization spread rapidly over the

greater part of Ulster. Although the grievances were common to

Protestant and Catholic workmen, and there was nothing

religious in the objects or constitution of the Oak Boys, the

society was an exclusively Protestant body, owing to the total

absence at the period of any association between the

Protestants and Catholics. … The Steel Boys, or Hearts of

Steel Boys, followed the Oak Boys [about 1771]. They also were

exclusively Protestant; the origin of this organization was

the extravagance and profligacy of a bad landlord, the

representative of the great land thief, Chichester, of the

Plantation of King James I. … The Oak Boys and Steel Boys

did not last long."

W. K. Sullivan,

part 1 of Two Centuries of Irish History,

chapter 5, with foot-note.

The landlord here referred to, as having provoked the

organization of the Steel Boys, was the Marquis of Donegal.

"Many of his Antrim leases having fallen in simultaneously, he

demanded £100,000 in fines for the renewal of them. The

tenants, all Protestants, offered the interest of the money in

addition to the rent.' It could not be. Speculative Belfast

capitalists paid the fine and took the lands over the heads of

the tenants, to sublet. … The most substantial of the

expelled tenantry gathered their effects together and sailed

to join their countrymen in the New World. … Between those

who were too poor to emigrate, and the Catholics who were in

possession of their homes, there grew a protracted feud, which

took form at last in the conspiracy of the Peep of Day Boys;

in the fierce and savage expulsion of the intruders, who were

bidden to go to hell or Connaught; and in the

counter-organization of the Catholic Defenders, which spread

over the whole island, and made the army of insurrection in

1798."

J. A. Froude,

The English in Ireland,

book 5, chapter 2, section 6 (volume 2).

IRELAND: A. D. 1778-1794.

Concession of Legislative independence by the

so-called Constitution of 1782.

"England's difficulty was Ireland's opportunity. Over in the

American colonies Mr. Washington and his rebels were pressing

hard upon the troops of King George. More than one garrison

had been compelled to surrender, more than one general had

given up his bright sword to a revolutionary leader. On the

hither side of the Atlantic the American flag was scarcely

less dreaded than at Yorktown and Saratoga. … Ireland,

drained of troops, lay open to invasion. The terrible Paul

Jones was drifting about the seas; descents upon Ireland were

dreaded; if such descents had been made the island was

practically defenceless. An alarmed Mayor of Belfast,

appealing to the Government for military aid, was informed

that no more serious and more formidable assistance could be

rendered to the chief city of the North than might be given by

half a troop of dismounted cavalry and half a troop of

invalids. If the French-American enemy would consent to be

scared by such a muster, well and good; if not Belfast, and

for the matter of that, all Ireland, must look to itself.

Thereupon Ireland, very promptly and decisively, did look to

itself. A Militia Act was passed empowering the formation of

volunteer corps—consisting, of course, solely of

Protestants—for the defence of the island. A fever of

military enthusiasm swept over the country; north and south

and east and west men caught up arms, nominally to resist the

French, really, though they knew it not, to effect one of the

greatest constitutional revolutions in history. Before a

startled Government could realise what was occurring 60,000

men were under arms. For the first time since the surrender of

Limerick there was an armed force in Ireland able and willing

to support a national cause. Suddenly, almost in the twinkling

of an eye, Ireland found herself for the first time for

generations in the possession of a well-armed,

well-disciplined, and well-generalled military force. The

armament that was organised to insure the safety of England

was destined to achieve the liberties of Ireland. … All talk

of organisation to resist foreign invasion was silenced; in

its place the voice of the nation was heard loudly calling for

the redress of its domestic grievances. Their leader was

Charlemont; Grattan and Flood were their principal colonels."

J. H. McCarthy,

Ireland Since the Union,

chapter 3.

"When the Parliament met, Grattan moved as an amendment to the

Address, 'that it was by free export and import only that the

Nation was to be saved from impending ruin'; and a corps of

Volunteers, commanded by the Duke of Leinster, lined Dame

Street as the Speaker and the Commons walked in procession to

the Castle. Another demonstration of Volunteers in College

Green excited Dublin a little later on, and (15th November,

1779) a riotous mob clamoured for Free Trade at the very doors

of the House. … These events resulted in immediate success.

Lord North proposed in the British Parliament three articles

of relief to Irish trade—

(1) to allow free export of wool, woollens, and wool-flocks;

(2) to allow a free export of glass;

(3) to allow, under certain conditions, a free trade to all

the British colonies.

{1778}

When the news reached Ireland excessive joy prevailed. … But

this was only a beginning. Poynings' Law, and the 6th of

George I., required to be swept away too, so that Ireland

might enjoy not only Free Trade, but also Self-government.

Grattan moved his two famous resolutions:—

1. That the King, with the consent of the Lords and Commons of

Ireland, is alone competent to enact laws to bind Ireland.

2. That Great Britain and Ireland are inseparably united under

one Sovereign.

In supporting these resolutions, Grattan cited England's

dealings with America, to show what Ireland too might effect

by claiming her just rights. … The Earl of Carlisle became

Viceroy in 1781, with Mr. Eden as Secretary. Viewing England's

embroilment in war—in America, in India, with France, and

Spain, and Holland—the Irish Volunteers, whose numbers had

swelled, Grattan said, to well-nigh 100,000 men, held meetings

and reviews in various parts of the country. … The 16th of

April, 1782, was a memorable day for Dublin. On that date, in

a city thronged with Volunteers, with bands playing, and

banners blazoned with gilded harps fluttering in the wind,

Grattan, in an amendment to the Address which was always

presented to the King at the opening of Parliament, moved,

'That Ireland is a distinct Kingdom, with a separate

Parliament, and that this Parliament alone has a right to make

laws for her.' On the 17th of May, the two Secretaries of

State, Lord Shelburne in the Lords, and Charles James Fox in

the Commons of Great Britain—proposed the repeal of the 6th

of George I., a statute which declared the right of the

English Parliament to make laws for Ireland. The English

Government frankly and fully acceded to the demands of

Ireland. Four points were granted—

(1) an Independent Irish Parliament;

(2) the abrogation of Poynings' Law, empowering the English

Privy Council to alter Irish Bills;

(3) the introduction of a Biennial Mutiny Bill;

(4) the abolition of the right of appeal to England from the

Irish law courts.

These concessions were announced to the Irish Parliament at

once: in their joy the Irish Houses voted £100,000, and 20,000

men to the navy of Great Britain. Ireland had at last achieved

political freedom. Peace and prosperity seemed about to bless

the land. … That there might be no misunderstanding as to

the deliberate intention of the English Parliament in granting

Irish legislative independence, Lord Shelburne had passed an

Act of Renunciation, declaring that 'the Right claimed by the

people of Ireland, to be bound only by laws enacted by His

Majesty and the Parliament of that Kingdom, is hereby declared

to be established and ascertained for ever, and shall at no

time hereafter be questioned or questionable.' During the same

session (1782), the two Catholic Relief Bills proposed by Luke

Gardiner, who afterwards became Viscount Mountjoy, were

passed. These measures gave Catholics the right to buy

freeholds, to teach schools, and to educate their children as

they pleased. The Habeas Corpus Act was now extended to

Ireland; and marriages by presbyterian ministers were made

legal."

W. F. Collier,

History of Ireland for Schools,

period 5, chapter 3.

"Had the Irish demanded a complete separation it would have

been yielded without resistance. It would have been better had

it been. The two countries would have immediately joined on

terms of equality and of mutual confidence and respect. But

the more the English Cabinet gave way the less were the Irish

disposed to press their advantage. A feeling of warm

attachment to England rapidly took the place of distrust.

There never existed in Ireland so sincere and friendly a

spirit of spontaneous union with England as at this moment,

when the formal bond of union was almost wholly dissolved.

From the moment when England made a formal surrender of her

claim to govern Ireland a series of inroads commenced on the

various interests supposed to be left to their own free

development by that surrender. Ireland had not, like England,

a body of Cabinet Ministers responsible to her Parliament. The

Lord Lieutenant and the Irish Secretary held their offices and

received their instructions from the English minister. There

was greater need than ever before for a bribed majority in the

Irish Commons, and the machinery for securing and managing it

remained intact."

W. A. O'Conor,

History of the Irish People,

book 4, chapter 2, section 2 (volume 2).

"The history of these memorable eighteen years [1782-1800] has

never been written, and yet these years are the … key to

Irish political opinion in the 19th [century]. The Government

which granted the constitution of 1782 began to conspire

against it immediately. They had taken Poynings' Act away from

the beginning of its proceedings, and they clapped it on to

the end of its proceedings, as effectually as if the change

had not been made. They developed in the Irish mind that

distrust of all government which has made it so turbulent and

so docile—turbulent to its administrators, docile to its

popular leaders."

J. E. Thorold Rogers,

Ireland

(A. Reid, editor), p. 25.

ALSO IN:

W. E. H. Lecky,

Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland: Henry Grattan.

J. G. MacCarthy,

Henry Grattan.

IRELAND: A. D. 1784.

Peep-o'-Day Boys and Defenders.

"Disturbances … commenced in the north between two parties

called Peep-o'-Day Boys and Defenders. They originated in 1784

among some country people, who appear to have been all

Protestants or Presbyterians; but Catholics having sided with

one of the parties, the quarrel quickly grew into a religious

feud, and spread from the county of Armagh, where it

commenced, to the neighbouring districts of Tyrone and Down.

Both parties belonged to the humblest classes of the

community. The Protestant party were well armed, and

assembling in numbers, attacked the houses of Catholics under

pretence of searching for arms; insulting their persons, and

breaking their furniture. These wanton outrages were usually

committed at an early hour in the morning, whence the name of

Peep-o'-Day Boys; but the faction was also known as

'Protestant Boys,' and 'wreckers,' and ultimately merged in

the Orange Society."

M. Haverty,

History of Ireland,

p. 722.

IRELAND: A. D. 1793.

Passage of the Catholic Relief Bill.

"On February 4 (1793) Hobart [Chief Secretary] moved for leave

to bring in his Catholic Relief Bill, and stated the nature of

its provisions. It was of a kind which only a year before

would have appeared utterly impossible, and which was in the

most glaring opposition to all the doctrines which the

Government and its partisans had of late been urging. … This

great measure was before Parliament, with several

intermissions, for rather more than five weeks. …

{1779}

The vast preponderance of speakers were in favour of relief to

Catholics, though there were grave differences as to the degree,

and speakers of the highest authority represented the genuine

Protestant feeling of the country as being in its favour. …

Few things in Irish parliamentary history are more remarkable

than the facility with which this great measure was carried,

though it was in all its aspects thoroughly debated. It passed

its second reading in the House of Commons with only a single

negative. It was committed with only three negatives, and in

the critical divisions on its clauses the majorities were at

least two to one. The qualification required to authorise a

Catholic to bear arms was raised in committee on the motion of

the Chancellor, and in addition to the oath of allegiance of

1774, a new oath was incorporated in the Bill, copied from one

of the declarations of the Catholics, and abjuring certain

tenets which had been ascribed to them, among others the

assertion that the infallibility of the Pope was an article of

their faith. For the rest the Bill became law almost exactly

in the form in which it was originally designed. It swept away

the few remaining disabilities relating to property which grew

out of the penal code. It enabled Catholics to vote like

Protestants for members of Parliament and magistrates in

cities or boroughs; to become elected members of all

corporations except Trinity College; to keep arms subject to

some specified conditions; to hold all civil and military

offices in the kingdom from which they were not specifically

excluded; to hold the medical professorships on the foundation

of Sir Patrick Dun; to take degrees and hold offices in any

mixed college connected with the University of Dublin that

might hereafter be founded. It also threw open to them the

degrees of the University, enabling the King to alter its

statutes to that effect. A long clause enumerated the prizes

which were still withheld. Catholics might not sit in either

House of Parliament; they were excluded from almost all

Government and judicial positions; they could not be Privy

Councillors, King's Counsel, Fellows of Trinity College,

sheriffs or sub-sheriffs, or generals of the staff. Nearly

every post of ambition was still reserved for Protestants, and

the restrictions weighed most heavily on the Catholics who

were most educated and most able. In the House of Lords as in

the House of Commons the Bill passed with little open

opposition, but a protest, signed among other peers by

Charlemont, was drawn up against it. … The Catholic Relief

Bill received the royal assent in April, 1793, and in the same

month the Catholic Convention dissolved itself. Before doing

so it passed a resolution recommending the Catholics 'to

co-operate in all loyal and constitutional means' to obtain

parliamentary reform. … The Catholic prelates in their

pastorals expressed their gratitude for the Relief Bill. The

United Irishmen on their side issued a proclamation warmly

congratulating the Catholics on the measure for their relief,

but also urging in passionate strains that parliamentary

reform was the first of needs."

W. E. H. Lecky,

History of England in the 18th Century,

chapter 25 (volume 6).

IRELAND: A. D. 1793-1798.

Organization of the United Irishmen.

Attempted French invasions.

The rising of '98.

"Nothing could be less sinister than the original aims and

methods of the Society of United Irishmen, which was conceived

in the idea of uniting Catholics and Protestants 'in pursuit

of the same object—a repeal of the penal laws, and a

(parliamentary) reform including in itself an extension of the

right of suffrage.' This union was founded at Belfast, in

1791, by Theobald Wolfe Tone, a young barrister of English

descent, and, like the majority of the United Irishmen, a

Protestant. Some months later a Dublin branch was founded, the

chairman being the hon. Simon Butler, a Protestant gentleman

of high character, and the secretary a tradesman named James

Napper Tandy. The society grew rapidly, and branches were

formed throughout Ulster and Leinster. The religious strife of

the Orange boys and Defenders was a great trouble to the

United men, who felt that these creed animosities among

Irishmen were more ruinous to the national cause than any

corruption of parliament or coercion of government could

possibly be. Ireland, united, would be quite capable of

fighting her own battles, but these party factions rendered

her contemptible and weak. The society accordingly set itself

the impossible task of drawing together the Defenders and the

Orange men. Catholic emancipation—one of the great objects of

the union—naturally appealed very differently to the rival

parties: it was the great wish of the Defenders, the chief

dread of the Orangemen. Both factions were composed of the

poorest and most ignorant peasantry in Ireland, men whose

political views did not soar above the idea that 'something

should be done for old Ireland.' The United Irishmen devoted

themselves to the regeneration of both parties, but the

Orangemen would have none of them, and the Protestant United

men found themselves drifting into partnership with the

Catholic Defenders. To gain influence with this party, Tandy

took the Defenders' oath. He was informed against; and, as to

take an illegal oath was then a capital offence in Ireland, he

had to fly for his life to America. This adventure made Tandy

the hero of the Defenders, who now joined the union in great

numbers; but the whole business brought the society into

disrepute, and connected it with the Defenders, who, like the

Orange boys, were merely a party of outrage. … One night in

the May of '94 a government raid was made upon the premises of

the union. The officers of the society were arrested, their

papers seized, the type of their newspaper destroyed, and the

United Irish Society was proclaimed as an illegal

organisation. Towards the close of this year all need for a

reform society seemed to have passed. Fitzwilliam was made

viceroy, and emancipation and reform seemed assured. His

sudden recall, the reversal of his appointments, the rejection

of Grattan's Reform Bill, and the renewal of the old coercive

system, convinced the United men of the powerlessness of

peaceful agitation to check the growth of the system of

government by corruption. They accordingly reorganised the

union, but as a secret society, and with the avowed aim of

separating Ireland from the British empire. The Fitzwilliam

affair had greatly strengthened the union, which was joined by

many men of high birth and position, among them lord Edward

Fitzgerald, brother of the duke of Leinster, and Arthur

O'Connor, nephew to lord Longueville, both of whom had been

members of the House of Commons. … But the ablest man of the

party was Thomas Addis Emmet, a barrister, and the elder

brother of Robert Emmet.

{1780}

The society gradually swelled to the number of 5,000 members,

but throughout its existence it was perfectly riddled with

spies and informers, by whom government was supplied with a

thorough knowledge of its doings. It became known to Pitt that

the French government had sent an Englishman, named Jackson,

as an emissary to Ireland. Jackson was convicted of treason,

and hanged, and Wolfe Tone was sufficiently implicated in his

guilt … to find it prudent to fly to America. But before

leaving Ireland he arranged with the directors of the union to

go from America to France, and to try to persuade the French

government to assist Ireland in a struggle for separation.

While Tone was taking his circuitous route to Paris,

government, to meet the military development of the society,

placed Ulster and Leinster under a stringent Insurrection Act;

torture was employed to wring confession from suspected

persons, and the Protestant militia and yeomanry were drafted

at free quarters on the wretched Catholic peasantry. The

barbarity of the soldiers lashed the people of the northern

provinces into a state of fury. … In the meantime the

indomitable Tone—unknown, without credentials, without

influence, and ignorant of the French language—had persuaded

the French government to lend him a fleet, 10,000 men, and

40,000 stand of arms, which armament left Brest for Bantry Bay

on the 16th December, 1796. Ireland was now in the same

position as England had been when William of Orange had

appeared outside Torbay. Injustice, corruption, and oppression

had in both cases goaded the people into rebellion. A calm sea

and a fierce gale made the difference between the English

patriot of 1688 and the Irish traitor of 1796. Had the sea

been calm in the Christmas week of '96, nothing could have

stopped the French from marching on to Dublin, but just as the

ships put in to Bantry Bay, so wild a wind sprang up that they

were driven out to sea, and blown and buffetted about. For a

month they tossed about within sight of land, but the storm

did not subside, and, all chance of landing seeming as far off

as ever, they put back into the French port."

Wm. S. Gregg,

Irish History for English Readers,

chapter 23.

"After the failure of Hoche's expedition, another great

armament was fitted out in the Texel, where it long lay ready

to come forth, while the English fleet, the only safeguard of

our coasts, was crippled by the mutiny at the Nore. But the

wind once more fought for England, and the Batavian fleet came

out at last only to be destroyed at Camperdown. Tone was

personally engaged in both expeditions, and his lively Diary,

the image of his character, gives us vivid accounts of both.

The third effort of the French Government was feeble, and

ended in the futile landing of a small force under Humbert.

… In the last expedition Tone himself was taken prisoner,

and, having been condemned to death, committed suicide in

prison. … It was well for Ireland, as well as for England,

that Tone failed in his enterprise. Had he succeeded, his

country would for a time have been treated as Switzerland and

the Batavian Republic were treated by their French

regenerators, and, in the end, it would have been surely

reconquered and punished by the power which was mistress of

the sea. … But now that all is over, we can afford to say

that Tone gallantly ventured his life in what naturally

appeared to him, and would to a high-spirited Englishman under

the same circumstances have appeared, a good cause. One of his

race had but too much reason then to 'hate the very name of

England,' and to look forward to the burning of her cities

with feelings in which pity struggled with revenge for

mastery, but revenge prevailed. … From the Republicans the

disturbance spread, as in 1641, to that mass of blind

disaffection and hatred, national, social, agrarian, and

religious, which was always smouldering among the Catholic

peasantry. With these sufferers the political theories of the

French Revolutionists had no influence; they looked to French

invasion, as well as to domestic insurrection, merely as a

deliverance from the oppression under which they groaned. …

The leading Roman Catholics, both clerical and lay, were on

the side of the government. The mass of the Catholic

priesthood were well inclined to take the same side, They

could have no sympathy with an Atheist Republic, red with the

blood of priests, as well as with the blood of a son of St.

Louis. If some of the order were concerned in the movement, it

was as demagogues, sympathizing with their peasant brethren,

not as priests. Yet the Protestants insisted on treating the

Catholic clergy as rebels by nature. They had assuredly done

their best to make them so. … No sooner did the Catholic

peasantry begin to move and organize themselves than the

Protestant gentry and yeomanry as one man became Cromwellians

again. Then commenced a Reign of Terror scarcely less savage

than that of the Jacobins, against whom Europe was in arms, as

a hideous and portentous brood of evil, the scourge and horror

of the whole human race. The suspected conspirators were

intimidated, and confessions, or pretended confessions, were

extorted by loosing upon the homes of the peasantry the

license and barbarity of an irregular soldiery more cruel than

a regular invader. Flogging, half-hanging, pitch-capping,

picketing, went on over a large district, and the most

barbarous scourgings, without trial, were inflicted in the

Riding-house at Dublin, in the very seat of government and

justice. This was styled, 'exerting a vigour beyond the law;'

and to become the object of such vigour, it was enough, as

under Robespierre, to be suspected of being suspect. No one

has yet fairly undertaken the revolting but salutary task of

writing a faithful and impartial history of that period; but

from the accounts we have, it appears not unlikely that the

peasantry, though undoubtedly in a disturbed state, and to a

great extent secretly organized, might have been kept quiet by

measures of lenity and firmness; and that they were

gratuitously scourged and tortured into open rebellion. When

they did rebel, they shewed, as they had shewn in 1641, what

the galley-slave is when, having long toiled under the lash,

he contrives in a storm to slip his chains and become master

of the vessel. The atrocities of Wexford and Vinegar-Hill

rivalled the atrocities of Portnadown. Nor when the rebellion

was vanquished did the victors fail to renew the famous feats

of Sir Charles Coote and of the regiment of Cole. We now

possess terrible and overwhelming evidence of their sanguinary

ferocity in the correspondence of Lord Cornwallis, who was

certainly no friend to rebels, having fought against them in

America, but who was a man of sense and heart, most wisely

sent over to quench the insurrection, and pacify the country.

…

{1781}

The murders and other atrocities committed by the Jacobins

were more numerous than those committed by the Orangemen, and

as the victims were of higher rank they excited more

indignation and pity; but in the use of torture the Orangemen

seem to have reached a pitch of fiendish cruelty which was

scarcely attained by the Jacobins. … The Jacobin party was

almost entirely composed of men taken from the lowest of the

people, whereas among the Irish terrorists were found men of

high social position and good education."

Goldwin Smith,

Irish History and Irish Character,

pages 166-175.

ALSO IN:

R. R. Madden,

The United Irishmen, their Lives and Times.

Theobald Wolfe Tone,

Memoirs.

Marquis Cornwallis,

Correspondence,

chapter 19 (volume 2).

A. Griffiths,

French Revolutionary Generals,

chapter 16.

Viscount Castlereagh,

Memoirs and Correspondence,

volume 1.

W. H. Maxwell,

History of the Irish Rebellion in 1798.

IRELAND: A. D. 1795-1796.

Formation of the Orange Society.

Battle of the Diamond.

Persecution of Catholics by Protestant mobs.

"The year 1795 is very memorable in Irish history, as the year

of the formation of the Orange Society, and the beginning of

the most serious disturbances in the county of Armagh. … The

old popular feud between the lower ranks of Papists and

Presbyterians in the northern counties is easy to understand,

and it is not less easy to see how the recent course of Irish

politics had increased it. A class which had enjoyed and

gloried in uncontested ascendency, found this ascendency

passing from its hands. A class which had formerly been in

subjection, was elated by new privileges, and looked forward

to a complete abolition of political disabilities. Catholic

and Protestant tenants came into a new competition, and the

demeanour of Catholics towards Protestants was sensibly

changed. There were boasts in taverns and at fairs, that the

Protestants would speedily be swept away from the land and the

descendants of the old proprietors restored, and it was soon

known that Catholics all over the country were forming

themselves into committees or societies, and were electing

representatives for a great Catholic convention at Dublin. The

riots and outrages of the Peep of Day Boys and Defenders had

embittered the feeling on both sides. … Members of one or

other creed were attacked and insulted as they went to their

places of worship. There were fights on the high roads, at

fairs, wakes, markets, and country sports, and there were

occasionally crimes of a much deeper dye. … In September

1795 riots broke out in this county [Armagh], which continued

for some days, but at length the parish priest on the one

side, and a gentleman named Atkinson on the other, succeeded

in so far appeasing the quarrel that the combatants formally

agreed to a truce, and were about to retire to their homes,

when a new party of Defenders, who had marched from the

adjoining counties to the assistance of their brethren,

appeared upon the scene, and on September 21 they attacked the

Protestants at a place called the Diamond. The Catholics on

this occasion were certainly the aggressors, and they appear

to have considerably outnumbered their antagonists, but the

Protestants were better posted, better armed, and better

organised. A serious conflict ensued, and the Catholics were

completely defeated, leaving a large number—probably twenty

or thirty—dead upon the field. It was on the evening of the

day on which the battle of the Diamond was fought, that the

Orange Society was formed. It was at first a league of mutual

defence, binding its members to maintain the laws and the

peace of the country, and also the Protestant Constitution. No

Catholic was to be admitted into the society, and the members

were bound by oath not to reveal its secrets. The doctrine of

Fitzgibbon, that the King, by assenting to Catholic

emancipation, would invalidate his title to the throne, was

remarkably reflected in the oath of the Orangemen, which bound

them to defend the King and his heirs, 'so long as he or they

support the Protestant ascendency.' The society took its name

from William of Orange, the conqueror of the Catholics, and it

agreed to celebrate annually the battle of the Boyne. In this

respect there was nothing in it particularly novel. Protestant

associations, for the purpose of commemorating the events and

maintaining the principles of the Revolution, had long been

known. … A very different spirit, however, animated the

early Orangemen. The upper classes at first generally held

aloof from the society; for a considerable time it appears to

have been almost confined to the Protestant peasantry of

Ulster, and the title of Orangemen was probably assumed by

numbers who had never joined the organisation, who were simply

Peep of Day Boys taking a new name, and whose conduct was

certainly not such as those who instituted the society had

intended. A terrible persecution of the Catholics immediately

followed. The animosities between the lower orders of the two

religions, which had long been little bridled, burst out

afresh, and after the battle of the Diamond, the Protestant

rabble of the county of Armagh, and of part of the adjoining

counties, determined by continuous outrages to drive the

Catholics from the country. Their cabins were placarded, or,

as it was termed, 'papered,' with the words, 'To hell or

Connaught,' and if the occupants did not at once abandon them,

they were attacked at night by an armed mob. The webs and

looms of the poor Catholic weavers were cut and destroyed.

Every article of furniture was shattered or burnt. The houses

were often set on fire, and the inmates were driven homeless

into the world. The rioters met with scarcely any resistance

or disturbance. Twelve or fourteen houses were sometimes

wrecked in a single night. Several Catholic chapels were

burnt, and the persecution, which began in the county of

Armagh, soon extended over a wide area in the counties of

Tyrone, Down, Antrim, and Derry. … The outrages continued

with little abatement through a great part of the following

year. As might have been expected, there were widely differing

estimates of the number of the victims. According to some

reports, which were no doubt grossly exaggerated, no less than

1,400 families, or about 7,000 persons, were driven out of the

county of Armagh alone. Another, and much more probable

account, spoke of 700 families, while a certain party among

the gentry did their utmost to minimise the persecutions."

W. E. H. Lecky,

History of England in the 18th Century,

chapter 27 (volume 7).

{1782}

IRELAND: A. D. 1798-1800.

The Legislative Union with Great Britain.

"No sooner had the rebellion been suppressed than the

Government proposed, to the Parliament of each country, the

union of Great Britain and Ireland under a common legislature.

This was no new idea. It had frequently been in the minds of

successive generations of statesmen on both sides of the

Channel; but had not yet been seriously discussed with a view

to immediate action. Nothing could have been more safely

predicted than that Ireland must, sooner or later, follow the

precedent of Scotland, and yield her pretensions to a separate

legislation. The measures of 1782, which appeared to establish

the legislative independence of Ireland, really proved the

vanity of such a pretension. … On the assembling of the

British Parliament at the commencement of the year [1799], the

question of the Union was recommended by a message from the

Crown; and the address, after some opposition, was carried

without a division. Pitt, at this, the earliest stage,

pronounced the decision at which the Government had arrived to

be positive and irrevocable. … Lord Cornwallis [then Lord

Lieutenant of Ireland] also expressed his conviction that

union was the only measure which could preserve the country.

… The day before the intended Union was signified by a royal

message to the English Parliament, the Irish Houses assembled;

and the Viceroy's speech, of course, contained a paragraph

relative to the project. The House of Lords, completely under

the control of the Castle, agreed to an address in conformity

with the speech, after a short and languid debate, by a large

majority; but the Commons were violently agitated. … An

amendment to the address pledging the House to maintain the

Union was lost by one vote, after the House had sat twenty-one

hours; but, on the report, the amendment to omit the paragraph

referring to the Union was carried by a majority of four. …

When it was understood that the Government was in earnest …

there was little difficulty in alarming a people among whom

the machinery of political agitation had, for some years, been

extensively organised. The bar of Dublin took the lead, and it

at once became evident that the policy of the Government had

effected a union among Irishmen far more formidable than that

which all the efforts of sedition had been able to accomplish.

The meeting of the bar included not merely men of different

religious persuasions, but, what was of more importance in

Ireland, men of different sides in politics. … However

conclusive the argument in favour of Union may appear to

Englishmen, it was difficult for an Irishman to regard the

Union in any other view than as a measure to deprive his

country of her independent constitution, and to extinguish her

national existence. Mr. Foster, the Speaker, took this view.

… Sir John Parnell, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,

followed the Speaker. Mr. Fitzgerald, the Prime Serjeant, a

law officer of the Crown, was on the same side. Ponsonby, the

leader of the Whigs, was vehement against the scheme; so was

Grattan; so was Curran. Great efforts were made by the

Government to quiet the Protestants, and to engage the

Catholics to support the Union. These efforts were so far

successful that most of the Orange lodges were persuaded to

refrain from expressing any opinion on the subject. The

Catholic hierarchy were conciliated by the promise of a

provision for the clergy, and of an adjustment of the Tithe

question. Hopes were held out, if promises were not actually

made, to the Catholic community, that their civil disabilities

would be removed. … If the Union was to be accomplished by

constitutional means, it could be effected only by a vote of

the Irish Parliament, concurring with a vote of the English

Parliament; and if the Irish assembly were to pronounce an

unbiased judgment on the question of its extinction, it is

certain that a very small minority, possibly not a single

vote, would be found to support the measure. … The vote on

the address was followed, in a few days, by an address to the

Crown, in which the Commons pledged themselves to maintain the

constitution of 1782. The majority in favour of national

independence had already increased from five to twenty. …

The votes of the Irish Commons had disposed of the question

for the current session; but preparations were immediately

made for its future passage through the Irish Houses. The

foremost men in Ireland … had first been tempted, but had

indignantly refused every offer to betray the independence of

their country. Another class of leading persons was then

tried, and from these, for the most part, evasive answers were

received. The minister understood the meaning of these dubious

utterances. There was one mode of carrying the Union, and one

mode only. Bribery of every kind must be employed without

hesitation and without stint."

W. Massey,

History of England: Reign of George. III.,

chapter 38 (volume 4).

"Lord Cornwallis had to work the system of 'negotiating and

jobbing,' by promising an Irish Peerage, or a lift in that

Peerage, or even an English Peerage, to a crowd of eager

competitors for honours. The other specific for making

converts was not yet in complete operation. Lord Castlereagh

[the Irish Chief Secretary] had the plan in his

portfolio:—borough proprietors to be compensated; … fifty

barristers in parliament, who always considered a seat as the

road to preferment, to be compensated; the purchasers of seats

to be compensated; individuals connected either by residence

or property with Dublin to be compensated. 'Lord Castlereagh

considered that £1,500,000 would be required to effect all

these compensations.' The sum actually paid to the

borough-mongers alone was £1,260,000. Fifteen thousand pounds

were allotted to each borough; and 'was apportioned amongst

the various patrons.' … It had become a contest of bribery

on both sides. There was an 'Opposition stock-purse,' as Lord

Castlereagh describes the fund against which he was to

struggle with the deeper purse at Whitehall. … During the

administration of Lord Cornwallis, 29 Irish Peerages were

created; of which seven only were unconnected with the

question of Union. Six English Peerages were granted on

account of Irish services; and there were 19 promotions in the

Irish Peerage, earned by similar assistance." The question of

Union was virtually decided in the Irish House of Commons on

the 6th of February, 1800. Lord Castlereagh, on the previous

day, had read a message from the Lord Lieutenant,

communicating resolutions adopted by the parliament of Great

Britain in the previous year. "The question was debated from

four o'clock in the afternoon of the 5th to one o'clock in the

afternoon of the 6th.

{1783}

During that time the streets of Dublin were the scene of a

great riot, and the peace of the city was maintained only by

troops of cavalry. … On the division of the 6th there was a

majority of 43 in favour of the Union." It was not, however,

until the 7th of June, that the final legislative

enactment—the Union Bill—was passed in the Irish House of

Commons. The first article provided "that the kingdoms of

Great Britain and Ireland should, upon the 1st of January,

1801, be united into one kingdom, by the name of The United

Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The United Kingdom was

to be represented in one and the same parliament. In the

United Parliament there were to be 28 temporal Peers, elected

for life by the Irish Peerage; and four spiritual Peers,

taking their places in rotation. There were to be 100 members

of the Lower House; each county returning two, as well as the

cities of Dublin and Cork. The University returned one, and 31

boroughs each returned one. Of these boroughs 23 remained

close boroughs till the Reform Bill of 1831. … The Churches

of England and Ireland were to be united. The proportion of

Revenue to be levied was fixed at fifteen for Great Britain

and two for Ireland, for the succeeding twenty years.

Countervailing duties upon imports to each country were fixed

by a minute tariff, but some commercial restrictions were to

be removed."

C. Knight,

Popular History of England,

volume 7, chapter 21.

"If the Irish Parliament had consisted mainly, or to any

appreciable extent, of men who were disloyal to the

connection, and whose sympathies were on the side of rebellion

or with the enemies of England, the English Ministers would, I

think, have been amply justified in employing almost any means

to abolish it. … But it cannot be too clearly understood or

too emphatically stated, that the legislative Union was not an

act of this nature. The Parliament which was abolished was a

Parliament of the most unqualified loyalists; it had shown

itself ready to make every sacrifice in its power for the

maintenance of the Empire, and from the time when Arthur

O'Connor and Lord Edward Fitzgerald passed beyond its walls,

it probably did not contain a single man who was really

disaffected. … It must be added, that it was becoming

evident that the relation between the two countries

established by the Constitution of 1782 could not have

continued unchanged. … Even with the best dispositions, the

Constitution of 1782 involved many and grave probabilities of

difference. … Sooner or later the corrupt borough ascendency

must have broken down, and it was a grave question what was to

succeed it. … An enormous increase of disloyalty and

religious animosity had taken place during the last years of

the century, and it added immensely to the danger of the

democratic Catholic suffrage, which the Act of 1793 had called

into existence. This was the strongest argument for hurrying

on the Union; but when all due weight is assigned to it, it

does not appear to me to have justified the policy of Pitt."

W. E. H. Lecky,

History of England in the 18th Century,

chapter 32 (volume 8).

ALSO IN:

T. D. Ingram,

History of the Legislative Union.

R. Hassencamp,

History of Ireland,

chapter 14.

Marquis Cornwallis,

Correspondence,

chapters 19-21 (volumes 2-3).

Viscount Castlereagh,

Memoirs and Correspondence,

volumes 2-3.

IRELAND: A. D. 1801.

Pitt's promise of Catholic Emancipation broken by the king.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1806.

IRELAND: A. D. 1801-1803.

The Emmet insurrection.

"Lord Hardwicke succeeded Lord Cornwallis as viceroy in May

[1801]; and for two years, so far as the British public knew,

Ireland was undisturbed. The harvest of 1801 was abundant. The

island was occupied by a military force of 125,000 men.

Distant rumours of disturbances in Limerick, Tipperary, and

Waterford were faintly audible. Imports and exports increased.

The debt increased likewise, but, as it was met by loans and

uncontrolled by any public assembly, no one protested, and few

were aware of the fact. Landlords and middlemen throve on high

rents, and peasants as yet could live. … Early in 1803 the

murmurs in the southwest became louder. Visions of a fixed

price for potatoes began to shape themselves, and the invasion

of 'strangers' ready to take land from which tenants had been

ejected was resisted. The magistrates urged the viceroy to

obtain and exercise the powers of the Insurrection Act; but

the evil was not thought of sufficient magnitude, and their

request was refused: Amidst the general calm, the insurrection

of Robert Emmett in July broke like a bolt from the blue. A

young republican visionary, whose brother had taken an active

part in the rebellion, he had inspired a few score comrades

with the quixotic hope of rekindling Irish nationality by

setting up a factory of pikes in a back street of Dublin. On

the eve of St. James's Day, Quigley, one of his associates,

who had been sowing vague hopes among the villages of Kildare,

brought a mixed crowd into Dublin. When the evening fell, a

sky-rocket was fired. Emmett and his little band sallied from

Marshalsea Lane into St. James's Street, and distributed pikes

to all who would take them. The disorderly mob thus armed

proceeded to the debtors' prison, which they attacked, killing

the officer who defended it. Emmett urged them on to the

Castle. They followed, in a confused column, utterly beyond

his power to control. On their war they fell in with the

carriage of the Chief Justice, Lord Kilwarden, dragged him

out, and killed him. By this time a few handfuls of troops had

been collected. In half an hour two subalterns, with fifty

soldiers each, had dispersed the whole gathering. By ten

o'clock all was over, with the loss of 20 soldiers and 50

insurgents. Emmett and Russell, another of the leaders who had

undertaken the agitation of Down and Antrim, were shortly

afterwards taken and executed; Quigley escaped. Such was the

last reverberation of the rebellion of 1798, or rather of the

revolutionary fervour that led the way to that rebellion,

before it had been tainted with religious animosity. Emmett

died as Shelley would have died, a martyr and an enthusiast;

but he knew little of his countrymen's condition, little of

their aspirations, nothing of their needs. He had no

successors."

J. H. Bridges,

Two Centuries of Irish History,

part 3, chapter 2.

"Emmet might easily have escaped to France if he had chosen,

but he delayed till too late. Emmet was a young man, and Emmet

was in love. 'The idol of his heart,' as he calls her in his

dying speech, was Sarah Curran, the daughter of John Philpot

Curran. … Emmet was determined to see her before he went. He

placed his life upon the cast and lost it. … The White

Terror which followed upon the failure of Emmet's rising was

accompanied by almost all the horrors which marked the hours

of repression after the rebellion of '98. … The old devil's

dance of spies and informers went merrily forward; the prisons

were choked with prisoners."

J. H. McCarthy,

Ireland Since the Union,

chapters 5-6.

ALSO IN:

R. R. Madden,

The United Irishmen, their Lives and Times,

volume 3.

J. Wills,

History of Ireland in the Lives of Irishmen,

volume 6, pages 68-80.

{1784}

IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829.

O'Connell and the agitation for Catholic Emancipation

and the Repeal of the Union.

Catholic disabilities removed.

"There is much reason to believe that almost from the

commencement of his career" Daniel O'Connell, the great Irish

agitator, "formed one vast scheme of policy which he pursued

through life with little deviation, and, it must be added,

with little scruple. This scheme was to create and lead a

public spirit among the Roman Catholics; to wrest emancipation

by this means from the Government; to perpetuate the agitation

created for that purpose till the Irish Parliament had been

restored; to disendow the Established Church; and thus to open

in Ireland a new era, with a separate and independent

Parliament and perfect religious equality. It would be

difficult to conceive a scheme of policy exhibiting more

daring than this. The Roman Catholics had hitherto shown

themselves absolutely incompetent to take any decisive part in

politics. … O'Connell, however, perceived that it was

possible to bring the whole mass of the people into the

struggle, and to give them an almost unexampled momentum and

unanimity by applying to politics a great power that lay

dormant in Ireland—the power of the Catholic priesthood. To

make the priests the rulers of the country, and himself the

ruler of the priests, was his first great object. … There

was a party supported by Keogh, the leader in '93, who

recommended what was called 'a dignified silence'—in other

words, a complete abstinence from petitioning and agitation.

With this party O'Connell successfully grappled. His advice on

every occasion was, 'Agitate, agitate, agitate!' and Keogh was

so irritated by the defeat that he retired from the society."

O'Connell's leadership of the movement for Catholic

Emancipation became virtually established about the beginning

of 1811. "He avowed himself repeatedly to be an agitator with

an 'ulterior object,' and declared that that object was the

repeal of the Union. 'Desiring, as I do, the repeal of the

Union,' he said in one of his speeches, in 1813, 'I rejoice to

see how our enemies promote that great object. … They delay

the liberties of the Catholics, but they compensate us most

amply because they advance the restoration of Ireland. By

leaving one cause of agitation, they have created, and they

will embody and give shape and form to, a public mind and a

public spirit.' … Nothing can be more untrue than to

represent the Repeal agitation as a mere afterthought designed

to sustain his flagging popularity. Nor can it be said that

the project was first started by him. The deep indignation

that the Union had produced in Ireland was fermenting among

all classes, and assuming the form, sometimes of a French

party, sometimes of a social war, and sometimes of a

constitutional agitation. … It would be tedious to follow

into minute detail the difficulties and the mistakes that

obstructed the Catholic movement, and were finally overcome by

the energy or the tact of O'Connell. … Several times the

movement was menaced by Government proclamations and

prosecutions. Its great difficulty was to bring the public

opinion of the whole body of the Roman Catholics actively and

habitually into the question. … All preceding movements

since the Revolution (except the passing excitement about

Wood's halfpence) had been chiefly among the Protestants or

among the higher order of the Catholics. The mass of the

people had taken no real interest in politics, had felt no

real pain at their disabilities, and were politically the

willing slaves of their landlords. For the first time, under

the influence of O'Connell, the great swell of a really

democratic movement was felt. The simplest way of

concentrating the new enthusiasm would have been by a system

of delegates, but this had been rendered illegal by the

Convention Act. On the other hand, the right of petitioning

was one of the fundamental privileges of the constitution. By

availing himself of this right O'Connell contrived, with the

dexterity of a practised lawyer, to violate continually the

spirit of the Convention Act, while keeping within the letter

of the law. Proclamation after proclamation was launched

against his society, but by continually changing its name and

its form he generally succeeded in evading the prosecutions of

the Government. These early societies, however, all sink into

insignificance compared with that great Catholic Association

which was formed in 1824. The avowed objects of this society

were to promote religious education, to ascertain the

numerical strength of the different religions, and to answer

the charges against the Roman Catholics embodied in the

hostile petitions. It also 'recommended' petitions

(unconnected with the society) from every parish, and

aggregate meetings in every county. The real object was to

form a gigantic system of organisation, ramifying over the

entire country, and directed in every parish by the priests,

for the purpose of petitioning and in every other way

agitating in favour of emancipation. The Catholic Rent [a

system of small subscriptions—as small as a penny a

month—collected from the poorest contributors, throughout

Ireland] was instituted at this time, and it formed at once a

powerful instrument of cohesion and a faithful barometer of

the popular feeling. … The success of the Catholic

Association became every week more striking. The rent rose

with an extraordinary rapidity [from £350 a week in October to

£700 a week in December, 1824]. The meetings in every county

grew more and more enthusiastic, the triumph of priestly

influence more and more certain. The Government made a feeble

and abortive effort to arrest the storm by threatening both

O'Connell and Sheil [Richard Lalor] with prosecution for

certain passages in their speeches. … The formation of the

Wellington Ministry [Wellington and Peel, 1828] seemed

effectually to crush the present hopes of the Catholics, for

the stubborn resolution of its leader was as well known as his

Tory opinions. Yet this Ministry was destined to terminate the

contest by establishing the principle of religious equality.

… On the accession of the Wellington Ministry to power the

Catholic Association passed a resolution to the effect that

they would oppose with their whole energy any Irish member who

consented to accept office under it. …

{1785}

An opportunity for carrying the resolution into effect soon

occurred. Mr. Fitzgerald, the member for Clare, accepted the

office of President of the Board of Trade, and was

consequently obliged to go to his constituents for

re-election." O'Connell entered the lists against him. "The

excitement at this announcement rose at once to fever height.

It extended over every part of Ireland, and penetrated every

class of society. The whole mass of the Roman Catholics

prepared to support him, and the vast system of organisation

which he had framed acted effectually in every direction." For

the first time, the landlords found that the voting of their

tenants could not be controlled. Fitzgerald withdrew from the

contest and O'Connell was elected. "Ireland was now on the

very verge of revolution. The whole mass of the people had

been organised like a regular army, and taught to act with the

most perfect unanimity. … The Ministers, feeling further

resistance to be hopeless, brought in the Emancipation Bill,

confessedly because to withhold it would be to kindle a

rebellion that would extend over the length and breadth of the

land."

W. E. H. Lecky,

Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland: O'Connell.

"Peel introduced the Relief Bill on the 5th March [1829]. The

king had given to it a reluctant assent. At the last hour, the

intrigues of Eldon and the Duke of Cumberland had so far

influenced his weak and disingenuous mind that he withdrew his

assent to his ministers' policy, on the pretence that he had

not expected, and could not sanction, any modification of the

Oath of Supremacy. He parted from his ministers with kisses

and courtesy, and, for a few hours their resignation was in

his hands. But with night his discretion waxed as his courage

waned; his ministers were recalled, and their measure

proceeded. In its main provisions it was thorough and

far-reaching. It admitted the Roman Catholic to Parliament,

and to all lay offices under the Crown, except those of

Regent, Lord Chancellor, whether of England or of Ireland, and

Lord Lieutenant. It repealed the oath of abjuration, it

modified the oath of supremacy. … It approximated the Irish

to the English county franchise by abolishing the

forty-shilling freeholder, and raising the voters'

qualifications to £10. All monasteries and institutions of

Jesuits were suppressed; and Roman Catholic bishops were

forbidden to assume titles of sees already held by bishops of

the Church of Ireland. Municipal and other officials were

forbidden to wear the insignia of their office at Roman

Catholic ceremonies. Lastly, the new Oath of Supremacy was

available only for persons thereafter to be elected to

Parliament"—which nullified O'Connell's election at Clare.

This petty stroke of malice is said to have been introduced in

the bill for the gratification of the king. The vote in the

Commons on the Bill was 353 against 180, and in the Lords 217

to 112. It received the Royal assent on the 13th of April.

J. A. Hamilton,

Life of Daniel O'Connell,

chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

J. McCarthy,

Sir Robert Peel,

chapters 2-7.

W. J. Fitzpatrick,

Correspondence of Daniel O'Connell,

with notices of his Life and Times,

volume 1, chapters 1-5.

W. J. Amherst,

History of Catholic Emancipation.

W. C. Taylor,

Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,

volume 1, chapters 16-18

and volume 2, chapters 1-2.

IRELAND: A. D. 1820-1826.

Rise of the Ribbon Society.

"Throughout the half-century extending from 1820 to 1870, a

secret oath-bound agrarian confederacy, known as the 'Ribbon

Society,' was the constant affliction and recurring terror of

the landed classes of Ireland. The Vehmgericht itself was not

more dreaded. … It is assuredly strange—indeed, almost

incredible—that although the existence of this organisation

was, in a general way, as well and as widely known as the fact

that Queen Victoria reigned, or that Daniel O'Connell was once

a living man; although the story of its crimes has thrilled

judge and jury, and parliamentary committees have filled

ponderous blue-books with evidence of its proceedings, there

is to this hour the widest conflict of assertion and

conclusion as to what exactly were its real aims, its origin,

structure, character, and purpose. … I long ago satisfied

myself that the Ribbonism of one period was not the Ribbonism

of another; that the version of its aims and character

prevalent amongst its own members in one county or district

differed widely from that existing elsewhere. In Ulster it

professed to be a defensive or retaliatory league against

Orangeism. In Munster it was at first a combination against

tithe-proctors. In Connaught it was an organisation against

rack-renting and evictions. In Leinster it often was mere

trade-unionism. … The Ribbon Society seems to have been

wholly confined to small farmers, cottiers, labourers, and, in

the towns, petty shopkeepers, in whose houses the 'lodges'

were held. … Although from the inception, or first

appearance, of Ribbonism the Catholic clergy waged a

determined war upon it … the society was exclusively

Catholic. Under no circumstances would a Protestant be

admitted to membership. … The name 'Ribbon Society' was not

attached to it until about 1826. It was previously known as

'Liberty Men'; the 'Religious Liberty System'; the 'United

Sons of Irish Freedom'; 'Sons of the Shamrock'; and by other

names. … It has been said, and probably with some truth,

that it has been too much the habit to attribute erroneously

to the Ribbon organisation every atrocity committed in the

country, every deed of blood apparently arising out of

agrarian combination or conspiracy. … But vain is all

pretence that the Ribbon Society did not become, whatever the

original design or intention of its members may have been, a

hideous organisation of outrage and murder. … There was a

period when Ribbon outrages had, at all events, a conceivable

provocation; but there came a time when they sickened the

public conscience by their wantonness. The vengeance of the

society was ruthless and terrible. … From 1835 to 1855 the

Ribbon organisation was at its greatest strength. … With the

emigration of the labouring classes it was carried abroad, to

England and to America. At one time the most formidable lodges

were in Lancashire."

A. M. Sullivan,

New Ireland,

chapter 4.

IRELAND: A. D. 1831.

Establishment of National Schools.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—IRELAND.

IRELAND: A. D. 1832.

Parliamentary Representation increased by the Reform Bill.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

{1786}

IRELAND: A. D. 1840-1841.

Discontent with the results of the Union.

Condition of the people.

O'Connell's revival of agitation for Repeal.

"The Catholics were at length emancipated in 1829; and now,

surely, their enemies suggested, they must be contented and

grateful for evermore? Perverse must the people be who, having

got what they asked, are not satisfied. Let us see. What they

asked was to be admitted to their just share, or, at any rate

to some share, of the government of their native country, from

which they had been excluded for five generations. But on the

passing of the Emancipation Act not a single Catholic was

admitted to an office of authority, great or small. The door

was opened, indeed, but not a soul was permitted to pass in.

There were murmurs of discontent, and the class who still

enjoyed all the patronage of the State, the Church, the army,

the magistracy, and the public service, demanded if there was

any use in attempting to conciliate a people so intractable

and unreasonable? The Catholic Association, which had won the

victory, was rewarded for its public spirit by being dissolved

by Act of Parliament. Its leader, who had been elected to the

House of Commons, had his election declared void by a phrase

imported into the Emancipation Act for this special purpose.

The forty-shilling freeholders, whose courage and magnanimity

had made the cause irresistible, were immediately deprived of

the franchise. By means of a high qualification and an

ingeniously complicated system of registry, the electors in

twelve counties were reduced from upwards of 100,000 to less

than 10,000. Englishmen cannot comprehend our dissatisfaction.

… Emancipation was speedily followed by a Reform of the

House of Commons. In England a sweeping and salutary change

was made both in the franchise, and in the distribution of

seats; but Ireland did not obtain either the number of

representatives she was demonstrably entitled to by population

and resources, or such a reduction of the franchise as had

been conceded to England. The Whigs were in power, and Ireland

was well-disposed to the party. … But the idea of treating

Ireland on perfectly equal terms, and giving her the full

advantage of the Union which had been forced on her, did not

exist in the mind of a single statesman of that epoch. After

Emancipation and Reform, O'Connell had a fierce quarrel with

the Whigs, during which he raised the question of Ireland's

right to be governed exclusively by her own Parliament. The

people responded passionately to his appeal. The party of

Protestant Ascendancy had demanded the Repeal of the Union

before Emancipation, but that disturbing event altered their

policy, and they withheld all aid from O'Connell. After a

brief time he abandoned the experiment, to substitute for it

an attempt to obtain what was called 'justice to Ireland.' In

furtherance of this project he made a compact with the Whigs

that the Irish Party under his lead should support them in

parliament. The Whigs in return made fairer appointments to

judicial and other public employments, restrained jury

packing, and established an unsectarian system of public

education; but the national question was thrown back for more

than a generation. In 1840-1 O'Connell revived the question of

Repeal, on the ground that the Union had wholly failed to

accomplish the end for which it was said to be designed.

Instead of bringing Ireland prosperity, it had brought her

ruin. The social condition of the country during the

half-century, then drawing to a close was, indeed, without

parallel in Europe. The whole population were dependent on

agriculture. There were minerals, but none found in what

miners call 'paying quantities.' There was no manufacture

except linen, and the remnant of a woollen trade, slowly dying

out before the pitiless competition of Yorkshire. What the

island chiefly produced was food; which was exported to richer

countries to enable the cultivator to pay an inordinate rent.

Foreign travellers saw with amazement an island possessing all

the natural conditions of a great commerce, as bare of

commerce as if it lay in some byeway of the world where

enterprise had not yet penetrated. … The great proprietors

were two or three hundred—the heirs of the Undertakers, for

the most part, and Absentees; the mass of the country was

owned by a couple of thousand others, who lived in splendour,

and even profusion; and for these the peasant ploughed, sowed,

tended, and reaped a harvest which he never shared. Rent, in

other countries, means the surplus after the farmer has been

liberally paid for his skill and labour; in Ireland it meant

the whole produce of the soil except a potato-pit. If a farmer

strove for more, his master knew how to bring him to speedy

submission. He could carry away his implements of trade by the

law of distress, or rob him of his sole pursuit in life by the

law of eviction. He could, and habitually did, seize the

growing crop, the stools and pots in his miserable cabin, the

blanket that sheltered his children, the cow that gave them

nourishment. There were just and humane landlords, men who

performed the duties which their position imposed, and did not

exaggerate its rights; but they were a small minority. …

Famines were frequent, and every other year destitution killed

a crowd of peasants. For a hundred and fifty years before,

whoever has described the condition of Ireland—English

official, foreign visitor, or Irish patriot—described a

famine more or less acute. Sometimes the tortured serfs rose

in nocturnal jacquerie against the system; and then a cry of

'rebellion' was raised, and England was assured that these

intractable barbarians were again (as the indictment always

charged) 'levying war against the King's majesty.' There were

indeed causes enough for national disaffection, but of these

the poor peasant knew nothing; he was contending for so much

miserable food as would save his children from starvation.

There were sometimes barbarous agrarian murders—murders of

agents and bailiffs chiefly, but occasionally of landlords. It

would be shameful to forget that these savage crimes were

often the result of savage provocation. … The country was

naked of timber, the cabins of the peasantry were squalid and

unfurnished. Mr. Carlyle reproves a lazy, thriftless people,

who would not perform the simple operation of planting trees;

and Mr. Froude frowns upon cottages whose naked walls are

never draped by climbing roses or flowering creepers. But how

much more eloquent is fact than rhetoric? The Irish landlords

made a law that when the tenant planted a tree it became not

his own property but his master's; and the established

practice of four-fifths of the Irish landlords, when a tenant

exhibited such signs of prosperity as a garden, or a

white-washed cabin, was to reward his industry by increasing

his rent.

{1787}

Peasants will not plant or make improvements on these

conditions, nor, I fancy, would philosophers. … It was

sometimes made a boast in those days that rank, property,

station, and professional success distinguished the minority

in Ireland who were imperialists and Protestants. It was not

an amazing phenomenon, that those upon whom the law had

bestowed a monopoly of rank, property, and station, for a

hundred and fifty years, should have still maintained the

advantage a dozen years after Emancipation. It was a subject

of scornful reproach that the districts inhabited by

Protestants were peaceful and prosperous, while the Catholic

districts were often poor and disorderly. There is no doubt of

the facts; the contrast certainly existed. But the mystery

disappears when one comes to reflect that in Down and Antrim

the Squire regarded his tenantry with as much sympathy and

confidence as a Squire in Devon or Essex, that their sons were

trained to bear arms, and taught from the pulpit and platform

that they belonged to a superior race, that all the local

employments, paid out of the public purse, were distributed

among them, that they had certain well understood rights over

their holdings on which no landlord could safely trench, and

that they met their masters, from time to time, in the

friendly equality of an Orange lodge; while in Tipperary, the

farmer was a tenant at will who never saw his landlord except

when he followed the hounds across his corn, or frowned at him

from the bench; whose rent could be raised, or his tenancy

terminated at the pleasure of his master; who, on the smallest

complaint, was carried before a bench of magistrates, where he

had no expectation, and little chance, of justice; and who

wanted the essential stimulus to thrift and industry, the

secure enjoyment of his earnings. As a set-off to this long

catalogue of discouragements, there were two facts of happy

augury. In 1842 half a million of children were receiving

education in the National Schools under a system designed to

establish religious equality, and administered by Catholic and

Protestant Commissioners. And the Teetotal movement was at its

height. Thousands were accepting every week a pledge of total

abstinence from Father Mathew, a young priest whom the gifts

of nature and the accidents of fortune combined to qualify for

the mission of a Reformer. … There was the beginning of

political reforms also. The Whigs sent a Lord Lieutenant and

Chief Secretary to Ireland who, for the first time since the

fall of Limerick, treated the bulk of the nation as the social

and political equals of the minority. The minority had been so

long accustomed to make and administer the laws, and to occupy

the places of authority and distinction, that they regarded

the change as a revolt; and Lord Mulgrave and Thomas Drummond

as the successors of Tyrconnel and Nugent. In the interval,

since Emancipation, a few Catholics were elected to

Parliament, two Catholic lawyers were raised to the bench, and

smaller appointments distributed among laymen. … The

exclusion of Catholics from juries was restrained, and the

practice of appointing partisans of too shameful antecedents

to public functions was interrupted. … It was under these

circumstances that O'Connell for the second time summoned the

Irish people to demand a Repeal of the Union."

Sir C. G. Duffy,

A Bird's-Eye View of Irish History, revised edition,

pages 242-275.

ALSO IN:

Lord E. Fitzmaurice and J. R. Thursfield,

Two Centuries of Irish History,

part 4, chapters 1-2.

R. M. Martin,

Ireland before and after the Union.

IRELAND: A. D. 1841-1848.

O'Connell's last agitation.

His trial, imprisonment and release.

His death.

The "Young Ireland" Party and its rebellion.

In 1841, O'Connell "left England and went to Ireland, and

devoted himself there to the work of organization. A

succession of monster meetings were held all over the country,

the far-famed one on Tara Hill being, as is credibly asserted,

attended by no less than a quarter of a million of people.

Over this vast multitude gathered together around him the

magic tones of the great orator's voice swept triumphantly;

awakening anger, grief, passion, delight, laughter, tears, at

its own pleasure. They were astonishing triumphs, but they

were dearly bought. The position was, in fact, an impossible

one to maintain long. O'Connell had carried the whole mass of

the people with him up to the very brink of the precipice, but

how to bring them safely and successfully down again was more

than even he could accomplish. Resistance he had always

steadily denounced, yet every day his own words seemed to be

bringing the inevitable moment of collision nearer and nearer.

The crisis came on October the 5th. A meeting had been

summoned to meet at Clontarf, near Dublin, and on the

afternoon of the 4th the Government suddenly came to the

resolution of issuing a proclamation forbidding it to

assemble. The risk was a formidable one for responsible men to

run. Many of the people were already on their way, and only

O'Connell's own rapid and vigorous measures in sending out in

all directions to intercept them hindered the actual shedding

of blood. His prosecution and that of some of his principal

adherents was the next important event. By a Dublin jury he

was found guilty, sentenced to two years' imprisonment, and

conveyed to prison, still earnestly entreating the people to

remain quiet, an order which they strictly obeyed. The jury by

which he had been condemned was known to be strongly biassed

against him, and an appeal had been forwarded against his

sentence to the House of Lords. So strong there, too, was the

feeling against O'Connell, that little expectation was

entertained of its being favourably received. Greatly to its

honour, however, the sentence was reversed and he was set

free. … The enthusiasm shown at his release was frantic and

delirious. None the less those months in Richmond prison

proved the death-knell of his power. He was an old man by this

time; he was already weakened in health, and that buoyancy

which had hitherto carried him over any and every obstacle

never again revived. The 'Young Ireland' party, the members of

which had in the first instance been his allies and

lieutenants, had now formed a distinct section, and upon the

vital question of resistance were in fierce hostility to all

his most cherished principles. The state of the country, too,

preyed visibly upon his mind. By 1846 had begun that

succession of disastrous seasons which, by destroying the

feeble barrier which stood between the peasant and a cruel

death, brought about a national tragedy, the most terrible

perhaps with which modern Europe has been confronted. This

tragedy, though he did not live to see the whole of it,

O'Connell—himself the incarnation of the people—felt

acutely.

{1788}

Deep despondency took hold of him. He retired, to a great

degree, from public life, leaving the conduct of his

organization in the hands of others. … In 1847 he resolved

to leave Ireland, and to end his days in Rome. His last public

appearance was in the House of Commons, where an attentive and

deeply respectful audience hung upon the faltering and barely

articulate accents which fell from his lips. In a few deeply

moving words he appealed for aid and sympathy for his

suffering countrymen, and left the House. … The camp and

council chamber of the 'Young Ireland' party was the editor's

room of 'The Nation' newspaper. There it found its

inspiration, and there its plans were matured—so far, that

is, as they can be said to have been ever matured. For an

eminently readable and all things considered a wonderfully

impartial account of this movement, the reader cannot do

better than consult Sir Charles Gavan Duffy's 'Four Years of

Irish History,' which has the immense advantage of being

history taken at first hand, written that is by one who

himself took a prominent part in the scenes which he

describes. The most interesting figure in the party had,

however, died before those memorable four years began. Thomas

Davis, who was only thirty at the time of his death in 1845,

was a man of large gifts, nay, might fairly be called a man of

genius. … The whole movement in fact was, in the first

instance; a literary quite as much as a political one. Nearly

all who took part in it Gavan Duffy, John Mitchell, Meagher,

Dillon, Davis himself—were very young men, many fresh from

college, all filled with zeal for the cause of liberty and

nationality. The graver side of the movement only showed

itself when the struggle with O'Connell began. At first no

idea of deposing, or even seriously opposing the great leader

seems to have been intended. The attempt on O'Connell's part

to carry a formal declaration against the employment under any

circumstances of physical force was, the origin of that

division, and what the younger spirits considered 'truckling

to the Whigs' helped to widen the breach. When, too, O'Connell

had partially retired into the background, his place was

filled by his son, John O'Connell, the 'Head conciliator,'

between whom and the 'Young Irelanders' there waged a fierce

war, which in the end led to the indignant withdrawal of the

latter from the Repeal council. Before matters reached this

point, the younger camp had been strengthened by the adhesion

of Smith O'Brien, who, though not a man of much intellectual

calibre, carried no little weight in Ireland. … Early in

January, 1847, O'Connell left on that journey of his which was

never completed, and by the middle of May Ireland was suddenly

startled by the news that her great leader was dead. The

effect of his death was to produce a sudden and immense

reaction. A vast revulsion of love and reverence sprang up all

over the country; an immense sense of his incomparable

services, and with it a vehement anger against all who had

opposed him. Upon the 'Young Ireland' party, as was

inevitable, the weight of that anger fell chiefly, and from

the moment of O'Connell's death whatever claim they had to

call themselves a national party vanished utterly. The men

'who killed the Liberator' could never again hope to carry

with them the suffrages of any number of their countrymen.

This contumely, to a great degree undeserved, naturally

reacted upon the subjects of it. The taunt of treachery and

ingratitude flung at them wherever they went stung and

nettled. In the general reaction of gratitude and affection

for O'Connell, his son John succeeded easily to the position

of leader. The older members of the Repeal Association

thereupon rallied about him, and the split between them and

the younger men grew deeper and wider. A wild, impracticable

visionary now came to play a part in the movement. A deformed

misanthrope, called James Lalor, endowed with a considerable

command of vague, passionate rhetoric, began to write

incentives to revolt in 'The Nation.' These growing more and

more violent were by the editor at length prudently

suppressed. The seed, however, had already sown itself in

another mind. John Mitchell is described by Mr. Justin

McCarthy as 'the one formidable man amongst the rebels of '48;

the one man who distinctly knew what he wanted, and was

prepared to run any risk to get it.' … To him it was

intolerable that any human being should be willing to go

further and to dare more in the cause of Ireland than himself,

and the result was that after awhile he broke away from his

connection with The Nation,' and started a new organ under

the name of 'The United Irishmen,' one definitely pledged from

the first to the policy of action. From this point matters

gathered speedily to a head. Mitchell's newspaper proceeded to

fling out challenge after challenge to the Government, calling

upon the people to gather and to 'sweep-this island clear of

the English name and nation.' For some months these challenges

remained unanswered. It was now, however, '48,' and nearly all

Europe was in revolution. The necessity of taking some step

began to be evident, and a Bill making all written incitement

of insurrection felony was hurried through the House of

Commons, and almost immediately after Mitchell was arrested.

Even then he seems to have believed that the country would

rise to liberate him. The country, however, showed no

disposition to do anything of the sort. He was tried in

Dublin, found guilty, sentenced to fourteen years'

transportation, and a few days afterwards put on board a

vessel in the harbour and conveyed to Spike Island, whence he

was sent to Bermuda, and the following April in a convict

vessel to the Cape, and finally to Tasmania. The other 'Young

Irelanders,' stung apparently by their own previous inaction,

thereupon rushed frantically into rebellion. The

leaders—Smith O'Brien, Meagher, Dillon, and others—went

about the country holding reviews of 'Confederates,' as they

now called themselves, a proceeding which caused the

Government to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, and to issue a

warrant for their arrest. A few more gatherings took place in

different parts of the country, a few more ineffectual

attempts were made to induce the people to rise, one very

small collision with the police occurred, and then the whole

thing was over. All the leaders in the course of a few days

were arrested and Smith O'Brien and Meagher were sentenced to

death, a sentence which was speedily changed into

transportation. Gavan Duffy was arrested and several times

tried, but the jury always disagreed, and in the end his

prosecution was abandoned. The 'Young Ireland' movement,

however, was dead, and never again revived."

E. Lawless,

The Story of Ireland,

chapters 55-56.

ALSO IN:

Sir C. G. Duffy,

Young Ireland.

Sir C. G. Duffy,

Four Years of Irish History, 1845-1849.

Sir C. G. Duffy,

Thomas Davis: Memoirs of an Irish Patriot, 1840-1846.

{1789}

IRELAND: A. D. 1843-1848.

The Devon Commission.

The Encumbered Estates Act.

In 1843, Mr. Sharman Crawford "succeeded in obtaining the

appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the

'occupation of land in Ireland.' This Commission, known from

its chairman, Lord Devon, as the Devon Commission, marks a

great epoch in the Irish land question. The Commissioners, in

their Report, brought out strongly the facts that great misery

existed in Ireland, and that the cause of the misery was the

system of land tenure. The following extract from the Report

indicates the general nature of its conclusions: 'A reference

to the evidence of most of the witnesses will show that the

agricultural labourer of Ireland continues to suffer the

greatest privations and hardships; that he continues to depend

upon casual and precarious employment for subsistence; that he

is badly housed, badly fed, badly clothed, and badly paid for

his labour. Our personal experience and observations during

our enquiry have afforded us a melancholy confirmation of

these statements, and we cannot forbear expressing our strong

sense of the patient endurance which the labouring classes

have generally exhibited under sufferings greater, we believe,

than the people of any other country in Europe have to

sustain.' And the remedy for the evil is to be found,

continues the Report, in 'an increased and improved

cultivation of the soil,' to be gained by securing for the

tenant' fair remuneration for the outlay of his capital and

labour.' No sooner was this Report issued than great numbers

of petitions were presented to the House of Lords, and

supported by Lord Devon, praying for legislative reform of the

land evils; and in June, 1845, a bill was introduced into the

House of Lords by Lord Stanley, on behalf of the government of

Sir Robert Peel, for 'the purpose of providing compensation to

tenants in Ireland, in certain cases, on being dispossessed of

their holdings, for such improvements as they may have made

during their tenancy.' By the selfish opposition of the Irish

landlords this bill was thrown out. Two days after its

rejection in the House of Lords Mr. Sharman Crawford brought

into the House of Commons a Tenant Right Bill, and met with as

little success. In 1846 a government bill was introduced,

bearing a strong resemblance to that of Lord Stanley; but the

ministry was overthrown, and the bill was dropped. A Liberal

ministry under Lord John Russell came into power in July,

1846, and Irish hopes again began to rise. In 1847 the

indefatigable Mr. Crawford brought in a bill, whose purpose

was to extend the Ulster custom to the whole of Ireland; it

was thrown out. A well-meant but in the end unsuccessful

attempt to relieve the burdens of embarrassed landlords

without redressing the grievances of rack-rented tenants, was

made in 1848 by the measure well known as the Encumbered

Estates Act. This Act had for its object to restore capital to

the land; but with capital it brought in a class of

proprietors who lacked the virtues as well as the vices of

their predecessors, and were even more oppressive to the

tenantry."

E. Thursfield,

England and Ireland,

chapter 10.

ALSO IN:

H. L. Jephson,

Notes on Irish Questions,

chapter 15.

D. B. King,

The Irish Question,

chapter 9.

IRELAND: A. D. 1844.

The Maynooth Grant.

Towards the close of the session of Parliament in 1844, Sir

Robert Peel undertook a measure "dealing with higher education

in Ireland. Means were to be found, in some way, for the

education of the upper classes of the Irish, and for the more

efficient education of candidates for the Roman Catholic

priesthood. Some provision already existed for the education

of the Irish people. Trinity College, with its considerable

endowments, afforded opportunities to wealthy Irish. The

National Board, which Stanley had instituted, had under its

control 3,153 schools, and 395,000 scholars. But Trinity

College retained most of its advantages for the benefit of its

Protestant students, and the 395,000 scholars, whom the

National Board was educating, did not, after all, include one

person in every twenty alive in Ireland. The Roman Catholic,

since 1793, had been allowed to graduate at Trinity; but he

could hold neither scholarship nor professorship. … Some

steps had, indeed, been taken for the education of the Roman

Catholic priesthood. In 1795, Fitzwilliam had proposed, and

his successor, Camden, had approved, the appropriation of an

annual sum of money to a college formed at Maynooth for the

education of Roman Catholic priests. The Irish parliament had

readily sanctioned the scheme; the payment of the grant had

been continued, after the Union, by the Parliament of the

United Kingdom, and, though the sums voted had been reduced to

£9,000 a year in 1808, this amount had been thenceforward

regularly allotted to Maynooth. In some respects the grant was

actually disadvantageous to the college; it was too small to

maintain the institution; it was large enough to discourage

voluntary contributions. The surroundings of the college were

squalid; its professors were wretchedly paid; it was even

impossible to assign to each of the 440 students a separate

room; it was dubbed by Macaulay, in a memorable speech, a

'miserable Dotheboys' Hall,' and it was Peel's deliberate

opinion that the absolute withdrawal of the grant would be

better than the continuance of the niggardly allowance." The

Government "asked Parliament to vote a sum of £30,000 to

improve the buildings at Maynooth; it proposed that the Board

of Works should in future be responsible for keeping them in

repair; it suggested that the salaries of professors should be

more than doubled; that the position of the students should be

improved; that the annual grant should be raised from about

£9,000 to about £26,000, and that this sum, instead of being

subject to the approval of the legislature once a year, should

be placed on the Consolidated Fund. Then arose a series of

debates which have no parallel in the history of the British

Parliament. … 'The Orangeman raises his howl,' said

Macaulay, 'and Exeter Hall sets up its bray, and Mr. MacNeile

is horrified to think that a still larger grant is intended

for the priests of Baal at the table of Jezebel, and the

Protestant operatives of Dublin call for the impeachment of

Ministers in exceedingly bad English.'

{1790}

A few years later a man, who was both a Christian and a

gentleman, declared the Irish famine to be a dispensation of

Providence in return for the Maynooth grant. … Night after

night it rained petitions; 298 petitions against the bill were

presented on the 3rd of April, when Peel explained his scheme;

148 on the 8th; 254 on the 9th; 552 on the 10th; 2,262 on the

11th, when the bill was put down for a second reading; 662 on

the 14th; 581 on the 15th; 420 on the 16th; 335 on the 17th;

371 on the 18th. The petitions hardly allowed a doubt to

remain as to the opinion of the country. Peel, indeed, was

again exposed to the full force of the strongest power which

any British Minister can encounter. The Mussulman, driven to

his last defence, raises the standard of the Prophet, and

proclaims a holy war. But the Englishman, if Protestantism be

in danger, shouts, 'No Popery!' and creates equal enthusiasm.

… Yet, vast as was the storm which the Minister had

provoked, the issues which he had directly raised were of the

smallest proportions. Hardly anyone ventured to propose that

the original vote to Maynooth should be withdrawn. A grant,

indeed, which had been sanctioned by George III., which had

been fixed by Perceval, which had been voted in an unreformed

Parliament, almost without debate, and which had been

continued for fifty years, could not be withdrawn. Peel's

opponents, therefore, were compelled to argue that there was

no harm in sacrificing £9,000 a year to Baal, but that a

sacrifice of £26,000 was full of harm. … They debated the

second reading of the bill for six nights, the third reading

for three nights, and they seized other opportunities for

protracting the discussion. Even the Lords forgot their

customary habits and sat up till a late hour on three

successive evenings to discuss an amendment for inquiring into

the class of books used at Maynooth. But this unusual display

of zeal proved useless. A majority in both Houses steadily

supported the Minister, and zealous Protestants and

old-fashioned Tories were unable to defeat a scheme which was

proposed by Peel and supported by Russell."

S. Walpole,

History of England from 1815,

chapter 19 (volume 4).

ALSO IN;

H. Martineau,

History of the Thirty Years' Peace,

book 6, chapter 8.

IRELAND: A. D. 1845-1847.

The Famine.

"In 1841 the population of Ireland was 8,175,124 souls. By

1845 it had probably reached to nearly nine millions. … To

anyone looking beneath the surface the condition of the

country was painfully precarious. Nine millions of a

population living at best in a light-hearted and hopeful

hand-to-mouth contentment, totally dependent on the hazards of

one crop, destitute of manufacturing industries, and utterly

without reserve or resource to fall back upon in time of

reverse; what did all this mean but a state of things critical

and alarming in the extreme? Yet no one seemed conscious of

danger. The potato crop had been abundant for four or five

years, and respite from dearth and distress was comparative

happiness and prosperity. Moreover, the temperance movement

[of Father Mathew] had come to make the 'good times' still

better. Everything looked bright. No one concerned himself to

discover how slender and treacherous was the foundation for

this general hopefulness and confidence. Yet signs of the

coming storm had been given. Partial famine caused by failing

harvests had indeed been intermittent in Ireland, and, quite

recently, warnings that ought not to have been mistaken or

neglected had given notice that the esculent which formed the

sole dependence of the peasant millions was subject to some

mysterious blight. In 1844 it was stricken in America, but in

Ireland the yield was healthy and plentiful as ever. The

harvest of 1845 promised to be the richest gathered for many

years. Suddenly, in one short month, in one week it might be

said, the withering breath of a simoom seemed to sweep the

land, blasting all in its path. I myself saw whole tracts of

potato growth changed in one night from smiling luxuriance to

a shrivelled and blackened waste. A shout of alarm arose. But

the buoyant nature of the Celtic peasant did not yet give way.

The crop was so profuse that it was expected the healthy

portion would reach an average result. Winter revealed the

alarming fact that the tubers had rotted in pit and

store-house. Nevertheless the farmers, like hapless men who

double their stakes to recover losses, made only the more

strenuous exertions to till a larger breadth in 1846. Although

already feeling the pinch of sore distress, if not actual

famine, they worked as if for dear life; they begged and

borrowed on any terms the means whereby to crop the land once

more. The pawn-offices were choked with the humble finery that

had shone at the village dance or the christening feast; the

banks and local money-lenders were besieged with appeals for

credit. Meals were stinted, backs were bared. Anything,

anything to tide over the interval to the harvest of

'Forty-six.' O God, it is a dreadful thought that all this

effort was but more surely leading them to ruin! It was this

harvest of Forty-six that sealed their doom. Not partially but

completely, utterly, hopelessly, it perished. As in the

previous year, all promised brightly up to the close of July.

Then, suddenly, in a night, whole areas were blighted; and

this time, alas! no portion of the crop escaped. A cry of

agony and despair went up all over the land. The last

desperate stake for life had been played, and all was lost.

The doomed people realised but too well what was before them.

Last year's premonitory sufferings had exhausted them, and

now?—they must die! My native district figures largely in the

gloomy record of that dreadful time. I saw the horrible

phantasmagoria—would God it were but that!—pass before my

eyes. Blank stolid dismay, a sort of stupor, fell upon the

people, contrasting remarkably with the fierce energy put

forth a year before. It was no uncommon sight to see the

cottier and his little family seated on the garden fence

gazing all day long in moody silence at the blighted plot that

had been their last hope. Nothing could arouse them. You

spoke; they answered not. You tried to cheer them; they shook

their heads. I never saw so sudden and so terrible a

transformation. When first in the autumn of 1845 the partial

blight appeared, wise voices were raised in warning to the

Government that a frightful catastrophe was at hand; yet even

then began that fatal circumlocution and inaptness which it

maddens one to think of. It would be utter injustice to deny

that the Government made exertions which judged by ordinary

emergencies would be prompt and considerable.

{1791}

But judged by the awful magnitude of the evil then at hand or

actually befallen, they were fatally tardy and inadequate.

When at length the executive did hurry, the blunders of

precipitancy outdid the disasters of excessive deliberation.

… In October 1845 the Irish Mansion House Relief Committee

implored the Government to call Parliament together and throw

open the ports. The Government refused. Again and again the

terrible urgency of the case, the magnitude of the disaster at

hand, was pressed on the executive. It was the obstinate

refusal of Lord John Russell to listen to these remonstrances

and entreaties, and the sad verification subsequently of these

apprehensions, that implanted in the Irish mind the bitter

memories which still occasionally find vent in passionate

accusation of 'England.' Not but the Government had many and

weighty arguments in behalf of the course they took. … The

situation bristled with difficulties. … At first the

establishment of public soup-kitchens under local relief

committees, subsidised by Government, was relied upon to

arrest the famine. I doubt if the world ever saw so huge a

demoralisation, so great a degradation, visited upon a once

high-spirited and sensitive people. All over the country large

iron boilers were set up, in which what was called 'soup' was

concocted; later on Indian-meal stirabout was boiled. Around

these boilers on the roadside there daily moaned and shrieked

and fought and scuffled crowds of gaunt, cadaverous creatures

that once had been men and women made in the image of God. The

feeding of dogs in a kennel was far more decent and orderly.

… I frequently stood and watched the scene till tears

blinded me and I almost choked with grief and passion. … The

conduct of the Irish landlords throughout the famine period

has been variously described, and has been, I believe,

generally condemned. I consider the censure visited on them

too sweeping. … On many of them no blame too heavy could

possibly fall. A large number were permanent absentees; their

ranks were swelled by several who early fled the post of duty

at home—cowardly and selfish deserters of a brave and

faithful people. Of those who remained, some may have grown

callous; it is impossible to contest authentic instances of

brutal heartlessness here and there. But … the overwhelming

balance is the other way. The bulk of the resident Irish

landlords manfully did their best in that dread hour. … In

the autumn of 1846 relief works were set on foot, the

Government having received parliamentary authority to grant

baronial loans for such undertakings. There might have been

found many ways of applying these funds in reproductive

employment, but the modes decided on were draining and

road-making. … The result was in every sense deplorable

failure. The wretched people were by this time too wasted and

emaciated to work. The endeavour to do so under an inclement

winter sky only hastened death. They tottered at day-break to

the roll-call; vainly tried to wheel the barrow or ply the

pick, but fainted away on the 'cutting,' or lay down on the

wayside to rise no more. As for the roads on which so much

money was wasted, and on which so many lives were sacrificed,

hardly any of them were finished. Miles of grass-grown earth

works throughout the country now mark their course and

commemorate for posterity one of the gigantic blunders of the

famine time. The first remarkable sign of the havoc which

death was making was the decline, and disappearance of

funerals. … Soon, alas! neither coffin nor shroud could be

supplied. Daily in the street and on the footway some poor

creature lay down as if to sleep, and presently was stiff and

stark. In our district it was a common occurrence to find, on

opening the front door in early morning, leaning against it,

the corpse of some victim who in the night-time had 'rested'

in its shelter. We raised a public subscription, and employed

two men with horse and cart to go around each day and gather

up the dead. One by one they were taken to a great pit at

Ardnabrahair Abbey and dropped through the hinged bottom of a

'trap-coffin' into a common grave below. In the remoter rural

districts even this rude sepulture was impossible. In the

field and by the ditchside the victims lay as they fell, till

some charitable hand was found to cover them with the adjacent

soil. It was the fever which supervened on the famine that

wrought the greatest slaughter and spread the greatest terror.

… To come within the reach of this contagion was certain

death. Whole families perished unvisited and unassisted. By

levelling above their corpses the sheeling in which they died,

the neighbours gave them a grave."

A. M. Sullivan,

New Ireland,

chapter 6.

"In July 1847 as many as three millions of persons were

actually receiving separate rations. A loan of £8,000,000 was

contracted by the Government, expressly to supply such wants,

and every step was taken by two successive administrations,

Sir Robert Peel's and Lord John Russell's, to alleviate the

sufferings of the people. Nor was private benevolence lacking.

The Society of Friends, always ready in acts of charity and

love, was foremost in the good work. A British Association was

formed for the relief of Ireland, including Jones Lloyd (Lord

Overstone), Thomas Baring, and Baron Rothschild. A Queen's

letter was issued. … Subscriptions were received from almost

every quarter of the world. The Queen's letter alone produced

£171,533. The British Association collected £263,000; the

Society of Friends £43,000; and £168,000 more were entrusted

to the Dublin Society of Friends. The Sultan of Turkey sent

£1,000. The Queen gave £2,000, and £500 more to the British

Ladies' Clothing Fund. Prince Albert gave £500. The National

Club collected £17,930. America sent two ships of war, the

'Jamestown' and the 'Macedonian,' full of provisions; and the

Irish residents in the United States sent upwards of £200,000

to their relatives, to allow them to emigrate."

L. Levi,

History of British Commerce,

part 4, chapter 4.

"By the end of 1847 cheap supplies of food began to be brought

into the country by the ordinary operation of the laws of

supply and demand, at far cheaper rates, owing to an abundant

harvest abroad, than if the Government had tried to constitute

itself the sole distributor. The potato harvest of 1847, if

not bountiful, was at least comparatively good. … By March,

1848, the third and last period of the famine may be said to

have terminated. But, though the direct period of distress was

over, the economic problems which remained for solution were

of overwhelming magnitude. … A million and a half of the

people had disappeared. The land was devastated with fever and

the diseases which dog the steps of famine. … The waters of the

great deep were indeed going down, but the land was seen to be

without form and void."

Lord E. Fitzmaurice and J. R. Thursfield,

Two Centuries of Irish History,

part 4, chapter 4.

{1792}

"The famine and plague of 1846-47 was accompanied, and

succeeded, by a wholesale clearance of congested districts and

by cruel evictions. The new landlords [who had acquired

property under the Encumbered Estates Act], bent on

consolidating their property, turned out their tenants by

regiments, and in the autumn of 1847 enormous numbers were

deported. It is absolutely necessary to bear this strictly in

mind, if we would judge of the intense hatred which prevails

amongst the Irish in America to Great Britain. The children of

many of those who were exiled then have raised themselves to

positions of affluence and prosperity in the United States.

But they have often heard from their fathers, and some of them

may perhaps recall, the circumstances under which they were

driven from their old homes in Ireland. … But there is a

further and awful memory connected with that time. The people

who had been suffering from fever carried the plague with them

on board, and the vessels sometimes became floating

charnel-houses. During the year 1847, out of 106,000 emigrants

who crossed the Atlantic for Canada and New Brunswick, 6,100

perished on the ocean, 4,100 immediately on landing, 5,200

subsequently in the hospitals, and 1,900 in the towns to which

they repaired. … Undoubtedly, historical circumstances have

… had much to do with the political hatred to Great Britain;

but its newly acquired intensity is owing to the still fresh

remembrances of what took place after the famine, and to the

fact that the wholesale clearances of Irish estates were, to

say the least, not discouraged in the writings and speeches of

English lawgivers, economists and statesmen."

Sir R. Blennerhassett,

Ireland ("Reign of Queen Victoria,"

edited by T. H. Ward,

volume 1, pages 563-565).

"The deaths from fever in the year 1846 were 17,145, in the

following year 57,000, to which 27,000 by dysentery must be

added."

J. F. Bright,

History of England,

period 4, page 164.

"Between the years 1847 and 1851 (both inclusive) the almost

incredible number of over one million Irish—men, women, and

children—were conveyed in emigrant ships to America—a

whole population. In 1847, 215,444 emigrated; in 1849,

218,842, and in 1851, 249,721."

H. L. Jephson,

Notes on Irish Questions,

page 298.

"The population of Ireland by March 30, 1851, at the same

ratio of increase as held in England and Wales, would have

been 9,018,799—it was 6,552,385. It was the calculation of

the Census Commissioners that the deficit, independently of

the emigration, represented by the mortality in the five

famine years, was 985,366."

T. P. O'Connor,

The Parnell Movement,

page 125.

IRELAND: A. D. 1846.

Defeat of Peel's Coercion Bill.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1846.

IRELAND: A. D. 1848-1852.

Tenant organizations.

The Ulster Tenant Right.

The Tenant League.

"The famine … and the evictions that followed it made the

people more discontented than ever with the land system. The

Democratic Association, organized about this time, adopted as

its rallying cry, 'the land for the people.' … This

association, whose aims are said to have been 'largely

communistic and revolutionary,' opposed the Irish Alliance,

the Nationalist Society organized by Charles Gavan Duffy. …

During the years '49 and '50 numerous Tenant Protection

Societies were formed throughout the country, the

Presbyterians of Ulster taking quite as active a part as the

Celtic Catholics of the other provinces. In May, 1850, the

Presbyterian Synod of Ulster … resolved, against the

protest, it is true, of the more conservative men, to petition

Parliament to extend to the rest of Ireland the benefits of

rights and securities similar to those of the Ulster custom.

… The Ulster tenant right … has occupied an important

place in the Irish land question for a long time. … The

right differs much on different estates. On no two does it

seem to be precisely the same. It is therefore not a right

capable of being strictly defined. Nor did it have any legal

sanction until the year 1870. The law did not recognize it.

One of its chief incidents was that the tenant was entitled to

live on his farm from year to year indefinitely on condition

of acting properly, and paying his rent, which the landlord

might raise from time to time to a reasonable extent, but not

so as to extinguish the tenant's interest. In the second

place, if the tenant got in debt, and could not pay the rent,

or wished for any other reason to leave the holding, he could

sell his interest, but the landlord had a right to be

consulted, and could object to the purchaser. In the third

place, the landlord, if he wanted to take the land for his own

purposes, must pay the tenant a fair sum for his tenant-right.

In the fourth place, all arrears of rent must be paid before

the interest was transferred. These are said to be universal

characteristics of every Ulster tenant-right custom. There

were often additional restrictions or provisions, usually in

limitation of the tenant's right to sell, or of the landlord's

right to raise the rent, veto the sale of land, or take it for

his own use. There were commonly established usages in

reference to fixing a fair rent. Valuators were generally

employed, and on their estimates, and not on competition in

open market, the rent was fixed. … The Irish Tenant League

was organized August 6, 1850, in Dublin. Among the resolutions

adopted was one, calling for 'a fair valuation of rent between

landlord and tenant in Ireland,' and another, 'that the tenant

should not be disturbed in his holding as long as he paid his

rent.' The question of arrears received a great deal of

attention. The great majority of the tenants of Ireland were

in arrears, owing to the successive failures of the crops, and

were of course liable to eviction. … The Tenant League was a

very popular one and spread throughout the country. There was

much agitation, and in the general election in 1852, when the

excitement was at its height, fifty-eight Tenant Leaguers were

elected to Parliament. The Tenant League members resolved to

hold themselves 'independent of and in opposition to all

governments which do not make it a part of their policy' to

give the tenants a measure of relief such as the League

desired. It looked as though the party would hold the balance

of power and be able to secure its objects. When however

Sadlier and Keogh, two of the most prominent men in the party

and men of great influence, accepted positions in the new

government, 'bribed by office,' it has always been charged by

the Irish, 'to betray the cause to which they had been most

solemnly pledged,' the party was broken up without

accomplishing its purpose."

D. B. King,

The Irish Question,

chapters 5 and 9.

ALSO IN:

Sir C. G. Duffy,

League of the North and South.

A. M. Sullivan,

New Ireland,

chapter 13.

J. Godkin,

The Land War in Ireland,

chapter 17.

{1793}

IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867.

The Fenian Movement.

"The Fenian movement differed from nearly all previous

movements of the same kind in Ireland, in the fact that it

arose and grew into strength without the patronage or the help

of any of those who might be called the natural leaders of the

people. … Its leaders were not men of high position, or

distinguished name, or proved ability. They were not of

aristocratic birth; they were not orators; they were not

powerful writers. It was not the impulse of the American Civil

War that engendered Fenianism; although that war had great

influence on the manner in which Fenianism shaped its course.

Fenianism had been in existence, in fact, although it had not

got its peculiar name, long before the American War created a

new race of Irishmen—the Irish-American soldiers—to turn

their energies and their military inclination to a new

purpose. … The suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, in

consequence of the 1848 movement, led, as a matter of course,

to secret association. Before the trials of the Irish leaders

were well over in that year, a secret association was formed

by a large number of young Irishmen in cities and towns. …

After two or three attempts to arrange for a simultaneous

rising had failed, or had ended only in little abortive and

isolated ebullitions, the young men became discouraged. Some

of the leaders went to France, some to the United States, some

actually to England; and the association melted away. … Some

years after this, the 'Phœnix' clubs began to be formed in

Ireland. They were for the most part associations of the

peasant class, and were on that account, perhaps, the more

formidable and earnest. … The Phœnix clubs led to some of

the ordinary prosecutions and convictions; and that was all.

… After the Phœnix associations came the Fenians. 'This is a

serious business now,' said a clever English literary man when

he heard of the Fenian organisation; 'the Irish have got hold

of a good name this time; the Fenians will last.' The Fenians

are said to have been the ancient Irish militia. … There was

an air of Celtic antiquity and of mystery about the name of

Fenian which merited the artistic approval given to it by the

impartial English writer whose observation has just been

quoted. The Fenian agitation began about 1858, and it came to

perfection about the middle of the American Civil War. It was

ingeniously arranged on a system by which all authority

converged towards one centre [called the Head-Centre], and

those farthest away from the seat of direction knew

proportionately less and less about the nature of the plans.

They had to obey instructions only, and it was hoped that by

this means weak or doubtful men would not have it in their

power prematurely to reveal, to betray, or to thwart the

purposes of their leaders. A convention was held in America,

and the Fenian Association was resolved into a regular

organised institution. A provisional government was

established in the neighbourhood of Union Square, New York,

with all the array and the mechanism of an actual working

administration. … The Civil War had introduced a new figure

to the world's stage. This was the Irish-American soldier. …

Many of these men—thousands of them—were as sincerely

patriotic in their way as they were simple and brave. It is

needless to say that they were fastened on in some instances

by adventurers, who fomented the Fenian movement out of the

merest and the meanest self-seeking. … Some were making a

living out of the organisation—out of that, and apparently

nothing else. The contributions given by poor Irish

hack-drivers and servant girls, in the sincere belief that

they were helping to man the ranks of an Irish army of

independence, enabled some of these self-appointed leaders to

wear fine clothes and to order expensive dinners. … But in

the main it is only fair to say that the Fenian movement in

the United States was got up, organised and manned by persons

who … were single-hearted, unselfish, and faithfully devoted

to their cause. … After a while things went so far that the

Fenian leaders in the United States issued an address,

announcing that their officers were going to Ireland to raise

an army there for the recovery of the country's independence.

Of course the Government here were soon quite prepared to

receive them; and indeed the authorities easily managed to

keep themselves informed by means of spies of all that was

going on in Ireland. … Meanwhile the Head Centre of

Fenianism in America, James Stephens, who had borne a part in

the movement of 1848, arrived in Ireland. He was arrested …

[and] committed to Richmond Prison, Dublin, early in November,

1865; but before many days had passed the country was startled

by the news that he had contrived to make his escape. The

escape was planned with skill and daring. For a time it helped

to strengthen the impression on the mind of the Irish

peasantry that in Stephens there had at last been found an

insurgent leader of adequate courage, craft, and good fortune.

Stephens disappeared for a moment from the stage. In the

meantime disputes and dissensions had arisen among the Fenians

in America. The schism had gone so far as to lead to the

setting up of two separate associations. There were of course

distracted plans. One party was for an invasion of Canada;

another pressed for operations in Ireland itself. The Canadian

attempt actually was made. …

See CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

Then Stephens came to the front again. It was only for a

moment. He had returned to New York, and he now announced that

he was determined to strike a blow in Ireland. Before long the

impression was spread abroad that he had actually left the

States to return to the scene of his proposed insurrection.

The American-Irish kept streaming across the Atlantic, even in

the stormy winter months, in the firm belief that before the

winter had passed away, or at the farthest while the spring

was yet young, Stephens would appear in Ireland at the head of

an insurgent army. … Stephens did not reappear in Ireland.

He made no attempt to keep his warlike promise. He may be said

to have disappeared from the history of Fenianism. But the

preparations had gone too far to be suddenly stopped. … It

was hastily decided that something should be done. One venture

was a scheme for the capture of Chester Castle [and the arms

it contained]. … The Government were fully informed of the

plot in advance; the police were actually on the look-out for

the arrival of strangers in Chester, and the enterprise melted

away.

{1794}

In March, 1867, an attempt at a general rising was made in

Ireland. It was a total failure; the one thing on which the

country had to be congratulated was that it failed so

completely and so quickly as to cause little bloodshed. Every

influence combined to minimise the waste of life. The snow

fell that spring as it had scarcely ever fallen before in the

soft, mild climate of Ireland. … It made the gorges of the

mountains untenable, and the gorges of the mountains were to

be the encampments and the retreats of the Fenian insurgents.

The snow fell for many days and nights, and when it ceased

falling the insurrectionary movement was over. The

insurrection was literally buried in that unlooked-for snow.

There were some attacks on police barracks in various places

—in Cork, in Kerry, in Limerick, in Tipperary, in Louth;

there were some conflicts with the police; there were some

shots fired, many captures made, a few lives lost; and then

for the time at least all was over. The Fenian attempt thus

made had not from the beginning a shadow of hope to excuse

it." Some months afterwards a daring rescue of Fenian

prisoners at Manchester stirred up a fresh excitement in

Fenian circles. A policeman was killed in the affair, and

three of the rescuers were hanged for his murder. On the 13th

of December, 1867, an attempt was made to blow up the

Clerkenwell House of Detention, where two Fenian prisoners

were confined. "Six persons were killed on the spot; about six

more died from the effects of the injuries they received; some

120 persons were wounded. … It is not necessary to follow

out the steps of the Fenian movement any further. There were

many isolated attempts; there were many arrests, trials,

imprisonments, banishments. The effect of all this, it must be

stated as a mere historical fact, was only to increase the

intensity of dissatisfaction and discontent among the Irish

peasantry. … There were some public men who saw that the

time had come when mere repression must no longer be relied

upon as a cure for Irish discontent."

J. McCarthy,

History of Our Own Times,

chapter 53 (volume 4).

ALSO IN:

T. P. O'Connor,

The Parnell Movement,

chapters 7.

G. P. Macdonell,

Fenianism,

Two Centuries of Irish History,

part 5, chapter 4.

IRELAND: A. D. 1868.

Parliamentary Reform.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

IRELAND: A. D. 1868-1870.

Disestablishment of the Irish Church.

Mr. Gladstone's Land Bill.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1868-1870.

IRELAND: A. D. 1870-1894.

The land question and the recent land laws.

"The reason for exceptional legislation in Ireland rested

chiefly on the essential difference between the landlord and

tenant systems in England and in Ireland. In 1845 the Devon

Royal Commission reported that the introduction of the English

system would be extremely difficult, if not impracticable. The

difference, it said, between the English and Irish systems

'consisted in this, that in Ireland the landlord builds

neither dwelling-house nor farm offices, nor puts fences,

gates, etc., into good order before he lets his land. In most

cases, whatever is done in the way of building or fencing is

done by the tenant; and, in the ordinary language of the

country, houses, farm buildings, and even the making of fences

are described by the general word "improvements," which is

thus employed to denote the necessary adjuncts to a farm

without which in England or Scotland no tenant would be found

to rent it.' Thirty years later, John Bright summarized the

matter by saying that if the land of Ireland were stripped of

the improvements made upon it by the labor of the occupier,

the face of the country would be 'as bare and naked as an

American prairie.' This fundamental difference between the

English and Irish land systems has never been fully

appreciated in England, where the landlord's expenditure on

buildings, fences, drainage, farm roads, etc., and on

maintenance absorbs a large part of the rental. Reform of the

Irish system began in 1870. Before that time little had been

done to protect the Irish tenant except to forbid evictions at

night, on Christmas Day, on Good Friday, and the pulling off

the roofs of houses until the inmates had been removed. The

Land Act of 1870 recognized, in principle, the tenant's

property in his improvements by giving him a right to claim

compensation if disturbed or evicted. This was not what the

tenants wanted, viz., security of tenure. The results of

compensation suits by 'disturbed' tenants were uncertain;

compensation for improvements was limited in various ways, and

the animus of the courts administering the act was distinctly

hostile to the tenants. Many works necessary to the existence

of tenants on small farms were not improvements in the eyes of

the landlord, of the law, or of the judges; it was often

impossible to adduce legal evidence of costly works done

little by little, and at intervals, representing the savings

of labor embodied in drainage, reclamation, or fencing.

Buildings and other works of a superior character might be

adjudged 'unsuitable' to small farms, and therefore not the

subject of any compensation; moreover, it was expressly laid

down that the use and enjoyment by the tenant of works

effected wholly at his expense were to be accounted

compensation to him by the landlord, and that, therefore, by

lapse of time, the tenant's improvements became the landlord's

property. The act of 1870 tended to make capricious and

heartless evictions expensive and therefore less common; but

it gave no security of tenure, and left the landlord still at

liberty to raise the rent of improving tenants. It left the

tenant still in a state of dependence and servility; it gave

him no security for his expenditure, for the landlord's right

to keep the rent continually rising was freely exercised. Even

if the act had been liberally administered, it would have

failed to give contentment, satisfy the demands of justice, or

encourage the expenditure of capital by tenant farmers.

Measure after measure proposed by Irish members for further

reforms were rejected by Parliament between 1870 and 1880, and

discontent continued to increase. … The Land Law Act of 1881

was based on the Report in 1880 of the Bessborough Royal

Commission, but many of the most useful suggestions made were

disregarded. This act purported to give the Irish yearly

tenants

(1) the right to sell their tenancies and improvements;

(2) the right to have a 'fair' rent fixed by the land courts

at intervals of fifteen years;

(3) security of tenure arising from this right to have the

rent fixed by the court instead of by the landlord.

{1795}

… No definition of what constituted a fair rent was embodied

in the act, but what is known as the Healy clause provided that

'no rent shall be allowed or made payable in respect of

improvements made by a tenant or his predecessors.' … When

the Irish courts came to interpret it, they held that the term

improvements' meant only that interest in his improvements for

which the tenant might have obtained compensation under the

Land Act of 1870 if he had been disturbed or evicted, and that

the time during which the tenant had had the use and enjoyment

of his own expenditure was still to be accounted compensation

made to him by his landlord, so that by mere lapse of time the

tenant's improvements became the landlord's property. … In

view of the continually falling prices of agricultural produce

and diminishing farm profits, the operation of the land laws

has not brought about peace between landlords and tenants. …

In 1887 the Cowper Commission reported that the 200,000 rents

which had been fixed were too high in consequence of the

continued fall in prices. As a result of the report of this

commission the fair-rent provisions of the law were extended

to leaseholders holding for less than sixty years; but the

courts still adhering to their former methods of

interpretation, numbers of leaseholders who had made and

maintained all the buildings, improvements, and equipments of

their farms found themselves either excluded on narrow and

technical points, or expressly rented on their own

expenditure. In 1891 the fair-rent provisions were further

extended to leaseholders holding for more than sixty years by

the Redemption of Rent Act, under which long leasehold tenants

could compel their landlords either to sell to them, or allow

a fair rent to be fixed on their farms. … Concurrently with

these attempts to place the relations of landlord and tenant

on a peaceful and equitable basis, a system of State loans to

enable tenants to buy their farms has been in operation. …

It is now proposed to have an inquiry by a select committee of

the House of Commons into

(1) the principles adopted in fixing fair rents, particularly

with respect to tenants' improvements;

(2) the system of purchase and security offered for the loans

of public money;

(3) the organization and administrative work of the Land

Commission

—a department which has cost the country about £100,000 a

year since 1881. The popular demand for inquiry and reform

comes as much from the Protestant North as from the Catholic

South."

The Nation,

February 15, 1894.

IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879.

The Home Rule Movement.

Organization of the Land League.

"For some years after the failure of the Fenian insurrection

there was no political agitation in Ireland; but in 1873 a new

national movement began to make itself felt; this was the Home

Rule Movement. It had been gradually formed since 1870 by one

or two leading Irishmen, who thought the time was ripe for a

new constitutional effort; chief among them was Mr. Isaac

Butt, a Protestant, an eminent lawyer, and an earnest

politician. The movement spread rapidly, and took a firm hold

of the popular mind. After the General Election of 1874, some

sixty Irish Members were returned who had stood before their

constituencies as Home Rulers. The Home Rule demand is clear

and simple enough; it asks for Ireland a separate Government,

still allied with the Imperial Government, on the principles

which regulate the alliance between the United States of

America. The proposed Irish Parliament in College Green would

bear just the same relation to the Parliament at Westminster

that the Legislature and Senate of every American State bear

to the head authority of the Congress in the Capitol at

Washington. All that relates to local business it was proposed

to delegate to the Irish Assembly; all questions of imperial

policy were still to be left to the Imperial Government. There

was nothing very startling, very daringly innovating, in the

scheme. In most of the dependencies of Great Britain, Home

Rule systems of some kind were already established. In Canada,

in the Australasian Colonies, the principle might be seen at

work upon a large scale; upon a small scale it was to be

studied nearer home in the neighbouring Island of Man. … At

first the Home Rule Party was not very active. Mr. Butt used

to have a regular Home Rule debate once every Session, when he

and his followers stated their views, and a division was taken

and the Home Rulers were of course defeated. Yet, while the

English House of Commons was thus steadily rejecting year

after year the demand made for Home Rule by the large majority

of the Irish Members, it was affording a strong argument in

favour of some system of local Government, by consistently

outvoting every proposition brought forward by the bulk of the

Irish Members relating to Irish Questions. … Mr. Butt and

his followers had proved the force of the desire for some sort

of National Government in Ireland, but the strength of the

movement they had created now called for stronger leaders. A

new man was coming into Irish political life who was destined

to be the most remarkable Irish leader since O'Connell. Mr.

Charles Stuart Parnell, who entered the House of Commons in

1875 as Member for Meath, was a descendant of the English poet

Parnell, and of the two Parnells, father and son, John and

Henry, who stood by Grattan to the last in the struggle

against the Union. He was a grand-nephew of Sir Henry Parnell,

the first Lord Congleton, the advanced Reformer and friend of,

Lord Grey and Lord Melbourne. He was Protestant, and a member

of the Protestant Synod. Mr. Parnell set himself to form a

party of Irishmen in the House of Commons who should be

absolutely independent of any English political party, and who

would go their own way with only the cause of Ireland to

influence them. Mr. Parnell had all the qualities that go to

make a good political leader, and he succeeded in his purpose.

The more advanced men in and out of Parliament began to look

up to him as the real representative of the popular voice. In

1878 Mr. Butt died. … The leadership of the Irish

Parliamentary Party was given to Mr. William Shaw, Member for

Cork County, an able, intelligent man, who proved himself in

many ways a good leader. In quieter times his authority might

have remained unquestioned, but these were unquiet, times. The

decorous and demure attitude of the early Home Rule Party was

to be changed into a more aggressive action, and Mr. Parnell

was the champion of the change. It was soon obvious that he

was the real leader recognised by the majority of the Irish

Home Rule Members, and by the country behind them. Mr. Parnell

and his following have been bitterly denounced for pursuing an

obstructive policy.

{1796}

They are often written about as if they had invented

obstruction; as if obstruction of the most audacious kind had

never been practised in the House of Commons before Mr.

Parnell entered it. It may perhaps be admitted that the Irish

Members made more use of obstruction than had been done before

their time. … The times undoubtedly were unquiet; the policy

which was called in England obstructive and in Ireland active

was obviously popular with the vast majority of the Irish

people. The Land Question, too, was coming up again, and in a

stronger form than ever. Mr. Butt, not very long before his

death, had warned the House of Commons that the old land war

was going to break out anew, and he was laughed at for his

vivid fancy by the English Press and by English public

opinion; but he proved a true prophet. Mr. Parnell had

carefully studied the condition of the Irish tenant, and he

saw that the Land Act of 1870 was not the last word of

legislation on his behalf. Mr. Parnell was at first an ardent

advocate of what came to be known as the Three F's, fair rent,

fixity of tenure, and free sale. But the Three F's were soon

to be put aside in favour of more advanced ideas. Outside

Parliament a strenuous and earnest man was preparing to

inaugurate the greatest land agitation ever seen in Ireland.

Mr. Michael Davitt was the son of an evicted tenant. … When

he grew to be a young man he joined the Fenians, and in 1870,

on the evidence of an informer, he was arrested and sentenced

to fifteen years' penal servitude; seven years later he was

let out on ticket-of-leave. In his long imprisonment he had

thought deeply upon the political and social condition of

Ireland and the best means of improving it; when he came out

he had abandoned his dreams of armed rebellion, and he went in

for constitutional agitation to reform the Irish land system.

The land system needed reforming; the condition of the tenant

was only humanly endurable in years of good harvest. The three

years from 1876 to 1879 were years of successive bad harvests.

… Mr. Davitt had been in America, planning out a land

organization, and had returned to Ireland to carry out his

plan. Land meetings were held in many parts of Ireland, and in

October Mr. Parnell, Mr. Davitt, Mr. Patrick Egan, and Mr.

Thomas Brennan founded the Irish National Land League, the

most powerful political organization that had been formed in

Ireland since the Union. The objects of the Land League were

the abolition of the existing landlord system and the

introduction of peasant proprietorship."

J. H. McCarthy,

Outline of Irish History,

chapter 11.

ALSO IN:

T. P. O'Connor,

The Parnell Movement,

chapters 8-10.

A. V. Dicey,

England's Case against Home Rule.

G. Baden-Powell, editor,

The Truth about Home Rule.

IRELAND: A. D. 1880.

The breach between the Irish Party and the English Liberals.

"The new Irish party which followed the lead of Mr. Parnell

has been often represented by the humourist as a sort of

Falstaffian 'ragged regiment.' … From dint of repetition

this has come to be almost an article of faith in some

quarters. Yet it is curiously without foundation. A large

proportion of Mr. Parnell's followers were journalists. …

Those who were not journalists in the Irish party were

generally what is called well-to-do. … At first there seemed

no reason to expect any serious disunion between the Irish

members and the Liberal' party. … The Irish vote in England

had been given to the Liberal cause. The Liberal speakers and

statesmen, without committing themselves to any definite line

of policy, had manifested friendly sentiments towards Ireland;

and though indeed nothing was said which could be construed

into a recognition of the Home Rule claim, still the new

Ministry was known to contain men favourable to that claim.

The Irish members hoped for much from the new Government; and,

on the other hand, the new Government expected to find cordial

allies in all sections of the Irish party. The appointment of

Mr. Forster to the Irish Secretaryship was regarded by many

Irishmen, especially those allied to Mr. Shaw and his

following, as a marked sign of the good intentions of the

Government towards Ireland. … The Queen's Speech announced

that the Peace Preservation Act would not be renewed. This was

a very important announcement. Since the Union Ireland had

hardly been governed by the ordinary law for a single year.

… Now the Government was going to make the bold experiment

of trying to rule Ireland without the assistance of coercive

and exceptional law. The Queen's Speech, however, contained

only one other reference to Ireland, in a promise that a

measure would be introduced for the extension of the Irish

borough franchise. This was in itself an important promise.

… But extension of the borough franchise did not seem, to

the Irish members in 1880 the most important form that

legislation for Ireland could take just then. The country was

greatly depressed by its recent suffering; the number of

evictions was beginning to rise enormously. The Irish members

thought that the Government should have made some promise to

consider the land question, and above all should have done

something to stay the alarming increase of evictions.

Evictions had increased from 463 families in 1877 to 980 in

1878, to 1,238 in 1879; and they were still on the increase,

as was shown at the end of 1880, when it was found that 2,110

families were evicted. An amendment to the Address was at once

brought forward by the Irish party, and debated at some

length. The Irish party called for some immediate legislation

on behalf of the land question. Mr. Forster replied, admitting

the necessity for some legislation, but declaring that there

would not be time for the introduction of any such measure

that session. Then the Irish members asked for some temporary

measure to prevent the evictions … ; but the Chief Secretary

answered that while the law existed it was necessary to carry

it out, and he could only appeal to both sides to be moderate.

Matters slowly drifted on in this way for a short time. …

Evictions steadily increased, and Mr. O'Connor Power brought

in a Bill for the purpose of staying evictions. Then the

Government, while refusing to accept the Irish measure,

brought in a Compensation for Disturbance Bill, which adopted

some of the Irish suggestions. … On Friday, June 25, the

second reading of the Bill was moved by Mr. Forster, who

denied that it was a concession to the anti-rent agitation,

and strongly denounced the outrages which were taking place in

Ireland. … This was the point at which difference between

the Irish party and the Government first became marked.

{1797}

The increase of evictions in Ireland, following as it did upon

the widespread misery caused by the failure of the harvests

and the partial famine, had generated—as famine and hunger

have always generated—a certain amount of lawlessness.

Evictions were occasionally resisted with violence; here and

there outrages were committed upon bailiffs, process-servers,

and agents. In different places, too, injuries had been

inflicted upon the cattle and horses of landowners and land

agents. … There is no need, there should be no attempt, to

justify these crimes. But, while condemning all acts of

violence, whether upon man or beast, it must be remembered

that these acts were committed by ignorant peasants of the

lowest class, maddened by hunger, want, and eviction, driven

to despair by the sufferings of their wives and children,

convinced of the utter hopelessness of redress, and longing

for revenge. … The Compensation for Disturbance Bill was

carried in the Commons after long debates in which the Irish

party strove to make its principles stronger. … It was sent

up to the Lords, where it was rejected on Tuesday, August 3,

by a majority of 231. The Government answered the appeals of

Irish members by refusing to take any steps to make the Lords

retract their decision, or to introduce any similar measure

that session. From that point the agitation and struggle of

the past four years [1880-1884] may be said to date."

J. H. McCarthy,

England under Gladstone, 1880-1884,

chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

T. W. Reid,

Life of William Edward Forster,

volume 2, chapter 6-7.

IRELAND: A. D, 1881-1882.

The Coercion Bill and the Land Act.

Arrest of the Irish leaders.

Suppression of the Land League.

The alleged Kilmainham Treaty, and release of Mr. Parnell and

others.

Early in 1881, the Government armed itself with new powers for

suppressing the increased lawlessness which showed itself in

Ireland, and for resisting the systematic policy of

intimidation which the Nationalists appeared to have planned,

by the passage of a measure known as the Coercion Bill. This

was followed, in April, by the introduction of a Land Bill,

intended to redress the most conspicuous Irish grievance by

establishing an authoritative tribunal for the determination

of rents, and by aiding and facilitating the purchase of small

holdings by the peasants. The Land Bill became law in August;

but it failed to satisfy the demands of the Land League or to

produce a more orderly state of feeling in Ireland. Severe

proceedings were then decided upon by the Government. "The

Prime Minister, during his visit to Leeds in the first week of

October, had used language which could bear only one meaning.

The question, he said, had come to be simply this, 'whether

law or lawlessness must rule in Ireland;' the Irish people

must not be deprived of the means of taking advantage of the

Land Act by force or fear of force. He warned the party of

disorder that 'the resources of civilisation were not yet

exhausted.' A few days later Mr. Gladstone, speaking at the

Guildhall, amid enthusiastic cheers, was able to announce that

the long-delayed blow had fallen. Mr. Parnell was arrested in

Dublin under the Coercion Act, and his arrest was followed by

those of Mr. Sexton, Mr. Dillon, Mr. O'Kelly, and other

prominent leaders of the agitation. The warnings of the

Government had been met at first with derision and defiance,

and the earlier arrests were furiously denounced; but the

energy and persistence of the Government soon began to make an

impression. … A Parthian shot was fired in the issue of a

manifesto, purporting to be signed, not only by the 'suspects'

in Kilmainham, but also by [Michael] Davitt, … in Portland

Prison, which adjured the tenantry to pay no rent whatever

until the Government had done penance for its tyranny and

released the victims of British despotism. This open

incitement to defiance of legal authority and repudiation of

legal right was instantly met by the Irish Executive in a

resolute spirit. On the 20th of October a proclamation was

issued declaring the League to be 'an illegal and criminal

association, intent on destroying the obligation of contracts

and subverting law,' and announcing that its operations would

thenceforward be forcibly suppressed, and those taking part in

them held responsible."

Annual Summaries reprinted from The Times,

volume 2, page 155.

"In the month of April [1882] Mr. Parnell was released from

Kilmainham on parole—urgent business demanding his presence

in Paris. This parole the Irish National leader faithfully

kept. Whether the sweets of liberty had special charms for Mr.

Parnell does not appear; but certain it is that after his

return to Kilmainham, the Member for Cork wrote to Captain

O'Shea, one of the Irish Members, and indirectly to the

Government, intimating that if the question of arrears could

be introduced in Parliament by way of relieving the tenants of

holdings and lessening greatly the number of evictions in the

country for non-payment of rent, and providing the purchase

clauses of the Land Bill were discussed, steps might be taken

to lessen the number of outrages. The Government had the

intimation conveyed to them, in short, which gave to their

minds the conviction that Messrs. Parnell, Dillon, and

O'Kelly, once released, and having in view the reforms

indicated to them, would range themselves on the side of law

and order in Ireland. Without any contract with the three

members the release of Messrs. Parnell, Dillon, and O'Kelly

was ordered, after they had been confined for a period

bordering on three months. Michael Davitt had been released,

likewise, and had been elected for Meath; but the seat was

declared vacant again, owing to the conditions of his

ticket-of-leave not permitting his return. Much has been said,

and much has been written with regard to the release of the

three Irish M. P.'s. The 'Kilmainham Treaty' has been … a

term of scorn addressed to Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues.

… As a fact … there was no Kilmainham Treaty. … Mr.

Forster [the Secretary for Ireland] resigned because he did

not think it right to share the responsibility of the release

of Messrs. Parnell, Dillon, and O'Kelly. The Government had

detained the Queen's subjects in prison without trial for the

purpose of preventing crime, not for punishment, Mr. Forster

said in vindication. Mr. Forster contended that the unwritten

law, as promulgated by them, had worked the ruin and the

injury of the Queen's subjects by instructions of one kind and

another—biddings carried out to such a degree that no power

on earth could have allowed it to continue without becoming a

Government not merely in name but in shame.

{1798}

Mr. Forster would have given the question of the release of

the three consideration, if they had pledged themselves not to

set their law up against the law of the land, or if Ireland

had been quiet, or if there had been an accession of fresh

powers on behalf of the Government: but these conditions were

wanting. What Mr. Forster desired was an avowal of a change of

purpose. He entreated his colleagues 'not to try to buy

obedience,' as he termed it, and not to rely on appearances.

The Government did rely on the intimation of Mr. Parnell … ;

there was no treaty."

W. W. Pimblett,

English Political History, 1880-1885,

chapter 10.

IRELAND: A. D. 1882.

The Phœnix Park murders.

Mr. Forster, Chief Secretary for Ireland, resigned in April,

1882, and was succeeded by Lord Frederick Cavendish, brother

of the Marquis of Hartington and son of the Duke of

Devonshire. Earl Spencer at the same time became Viceroy, in

place of Lord Cowper, resigned. "On the night of Friday, May

5th, Earl Spencer and Lord Frederick Cavendish crossed over to

Ireland, and arrived in Dublin on the following day. The

official entry was made in the morning, when the reception

accorded by the populace to the new officials was described as

having been very fairly favourable. Events seemed to have

taken an entirely prosperous turn, and it was hoped that at

last the long winter of Irish discontent had come to an end.

On Sunday morning there spread through the United Kingdom the

intelligence that the insane hatred of English rule had been

the cause of a crime, even more brutal and unprovoked than any

of the numerous outrages that had, during the last three

years, sullied the annals of Ireland. It appeared that Lord

Frederick Cavendish, having taken the oaths at the Castle,

took a car about half-past seven in order to drive to the

Viceregal Lodge. On the way he met Mr. Burke, the Permanent

Under-Secretary, who, though his life had been repeatedly

threatened, was walking along, according to his usual custom,

without any police escort. Lord Frederick dismissed his car,

and walked with him through the Phœnix Park. There, in broad

daylight—for it was a fine summer evening—and in the middle

of a public recreation ground, crowded with people, they were

surrounded and murdered. More than one spectator witnessed

what they imagined to be a drunken brawl, saw six men

struggling together, and four of them drive off outside a car,

painted red, which had been waiting for them the while, the

carman sitting still and never turning his head. The bodies of

the two officials were first discovered by two shop-boys on

bicycles who had previously passed them alive. Lord Frederick

Cavendish had six wounds, and Mr. Burke eleven, dealt

evidently with daggers used by men of considerable strength.

Lord Spencer himself had witnessed the struggle from the

windows of the Viceregal Lodge, and thinking that some

pickpockets had been at work sent a servant to make inquiries.

A reward of £10,000, together with full pardon to anyone who

was not one of the actual murderers, was promptly offered, but

for many long months the telegrams from Dublin closed with the

significant information—'No definite clue in the hands of the

police.' All parties in Ireland at once united to express

their horror and detestation at this dastardly crime."

Cassell's Illustrated History of England,

volume 10, chapter 50.

ALSO IN:

Sir C. Russell,

The Parnell Commission: Opening Speech,

pages 282-291.

IRELAND: A. D. 1884.

Enlargement of the Suffrage.

Representation of the People Act.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

IRELAND: A. D. 1885-1886.

Change of opinion in England.

Mr. Gladstone's first Home Rule Bill and Irish Land Bill and

their defeat.

"All through the Parliament which sat from 1880 till 1885, the

Nationalists' party, led by Mr. Parnell, and including at

first less than half, ultimately about half, of the Irish

members, was in constant and generally bitter opposition to

the Government of Mr. Gladstone. But during these five years a

steady, although silent and often unconscious, process of

change was passing in the minds of English and Scotch members,

especially Liberal members, due to their growing sense of the

mistakes which Parliament committed in handling Irish

questions, and of the hopelessness of the efforts which the

Executive was making to pacify the country on the old methods.

First, they came to feel that the present system was

indefensible. Then, while still disliking the notion of an

Irish Legislature, they began to think it deserved

consideration. Next they admitted, though usually in

confidence to one another, that although Home Rule might be a

bad solution, it was a probable one, toward which events

pointed. Last of all, and not till 1884, they asked themselves

whether, after all, it would be a bad solution, provided a

workable scheme could be found. But as no workable scheme had

been proposed, they still kept their views, perhaps unwisely,

to themselves, and although the language held at the general

election of 1885 showed a great advance in the direction of

favoring Irish self-government, beyond the attitude of 1880,

it was still vague and hesitating, and could the more easily

remain so because the constituencies had not (strange as it

may now seem) realized the supreme importance of the Irish

question. Few questions were put to candidates on the subject,

for both candidates and electors wished to avoid it. It was

disagreeable; it was perplexing; so they agreed to leave it on

one side. But when the result of the Irish elections showed,

in December, 1885, an overwhelming majority in favor of the

Home Rule party, and when they showed, also, that this party

held the balance of power in Parliament, no one could longer

ignore the urgency of the issue. There took place what

chemists call a precipitation of substance held in solution.

Public opinion on the Irish question had been in a fluid

state. It now began to crystallize, and the advocates and

opponents of Irish self-government fell asunder into two

masses, which soon solidified. This process was hastened by

the fact that Mr. Gladstone's view, the indications of which,

given by himself some months before, had been largely

overlooked, now became generally understood. … In the spring

of 1886 the question could be no longer evaded or postponed.

It was necessary to choose between … two courses: the

refusal of the demand for self-government, coupled with the

introduction of a severe Coercion Bill, or the concession of

it by the introduction of a Home Rule Bill. …

{1799}

How the Government of Ireland Bill was brought into the House

of Commons on April 8th, amid circumstances of curiosity and

excitement unparalleled since 1832: how, after debates of

almost unprecedented length, it was defeated in June, by a

majority of thirty; how the policy it embodied was brought

before the country at the general election, and failed to win

approval; how the Liberal party has been rent in twain upon

the question; how Mr. Gladstone resigned, and has been

succeeded by a Tory Ministry, which the dissentient Liberals,

who condemn Home Rule, are now supporting—all this is …

well known.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.

… But the causes of the disaster may not be equally

understood. … First, and most obvious, although not most

important, was the weight of authority arrayed against the

scheme. … The two most eminent leaders of the moderate

Liberal, or, as it is often called, Whig, party, Lord

Hartington and Mr. Goschen, both declared against the bill,

and put forth all their oratory and influence against it. At

the opposite extremity of the party, Mr. John Bright, the

veteran and honored leader of the Radicals, Mr. Chamberlain,

the younger and latterly more active and prominent chief of

that large section, took up the same position of hostility.

Scarcely less important was the attitude of the social

magnates of the Liberal party all over the country. … As, at

the preceding general election, in December, 1885, the

Liberals had obtained a majority of less than a hundred over

the Tories, a defection such as this was quite enough to

involve their defeat. Probably the name of Mr. Bright alone

turned the issue in some twenty constituencies, which might

otherwise have cast a Home Rule vote. The mention of this

cause, however, throws us back on the further question, Why

was there such a weight of authority against the scheme

proposed by Mr. Gladstone? How came so many of his former

colleagues, friends, supporters, to differ and depart from him

on this occasion? Besides some circumstances attending the

production of the bill, … which told heavily against it,

there were three feelings which worked upon men's minds,

disposing them to reject it. The first of these was dislike

and fear of the Irish Nationalist members. In the previous

House of Commons this party had been uniformly and bitterly

hostile to the Liberal Government. Measures intended for the

good of Ireland, like the Land Act of 1881, had been

ungraciously received, treated as concessions extorted, for

which no thanks were due—inadequate concessions, which must

be made the starting-point for fresh demands. Obstruction had

been freely practised to defeat not only bills restraining the

liberty of the subject in Ireland, but many other measures.

Some members of the Irish party, apparently with the approval

of the rest, had systematically sought to delay all English

and Scotch legislation, and, in fact, to bring the work of

Parliament to a dead stop. … There could be no doubt as to

the hostility which they, still less as to that which their

fellow-countrymen in the United States, had expressed toward

England, for they had openly wished success to Russia while

war seemed impending with her, and the so-called Mahdi of the

Sudan was vociferously cheered at many a Nationalist meeting.

… To many Englishmen, the proposal to create an Irish

Parliament seemed nothing more or less than a proposal to hand

over to these men the government of Ireland, with all the

opportunities thence arising to oppress the opposite party in

Ireland and to worry England herself. It was all very well to

urge that the tactics which the Nationalists had pursued when

their object was to extort Home Rule would be dropped, because

superfluous, when Home Rule had been granted; or to point out

that an Irish Parliament would probably contain different men

from those who had been sent to Westminster as Mr. Parnell's

nominees. Neither of these arguments could overcome the

suspicious antipathy which many Englishmen felt. … The

internal condition of Ireland supplied more substantial

grounds for alarm. … Three-fourths of the people are Roman

Catholics, one-fourth Protestants, and this Protestant fourth

sub-divided into bodies not fond of one another, who have

little community of sentiment. Besides the Scottish colony in

Ulster, many English families have settled here and there

through the country. They have been regarded as intruders by

the aboriginal Celtic population, and many of them, although

hundreds of years may have passed since they came, still look

on themselves as rather English than Irish. … Many people in

England assumed that an Irish Parliament would be under the

control of the tenants and the humbler class generally, and

would therefore be hostile to the landlords. They went

farther, and made the much bolder assumption that as such a

Parliament would be chosen by electors, most of whom were

Roman Catholics, it would be under the control of the Catholic

priesthood, and hostile to Protestants. Thus they supposed

that the grant of self-government to Ireland would mean the

abandonment of the upper and wealthier class, the landlords

and the Protestants, to the tender mercies of their enemies.

… The fact stood out that in Ireland two hostile factions

had been contending for the last sixty years, and that the

gift of self-government might enable one of them to tyrannize

over the other. True, that party was the majority, and,

according to the principles of democratic government,

therefore entitled to prevail. But it is one thing to admit a

principle and another to consent to its application. The

minority had the sympathy of the upper classes in England,

because the minority contained the landlords. It had the

sympathy of a large part of the middle class, because it

contained the Protestants. … There was another anticipation,

another forecast of evils to follow, which told most of all

upon English opinion. This was the notion that Home Rule was

only a stage in the road to the complete separation of the two

islands."

J. Bryce,

Past and Future of the Irish Question

(New Princeton Review, Jan., 1887).

IRELAND: A. D. 1886.

The "Plan of Campaign."

On the 11th of September Mr. Parnell had introduced in the

House of Commons a bill to make temporary provision for the

relief of suffering tenants in Ireland, and it had been

defeated after a sharp debate by a majority of 95. The chief

argument for the bill had been that "something must be done to

stay evictions during the approaching winter. The rents would

be due in November, and the fall in agricultural prices had

been so great, that the sale of their whole produce by the

tenants would not, it was contended, bring in money enough to

enable them to pay in full. … The greatest public interest

in the subject was roused by Lord Clanricarde's evictions at

Woodford in Galway. … His quarrel with his Woodford tenants

was of old standing.

{1800}

When the Home Rule Bill was before Parliament the National

League urged them not to bring matters to a crisis, but their

sufferings were too great to be borne, and they set the

National League at defiance, and established a Plan of

Campaign of their own. Lord Clanricarde would grant them no

reduction, and they leagued themselves together, 316 in

number, and when the November rent day came round in 1885 they

resolved not to pay any rent at all if twenty-five per cent.

reduction was refused. This was refused, and they withheld

their rent. … The eviction of four of these tenants, in

August, 1886, attracted general attention by the long fight

the people made for their homes. Each house was besieged and

defended like some mediæval city. One stone house, built by a

tenant at a cost of £200, got the name of Saunders's fort. It

was held by a garrison of 24, who threw boiling water on their

assailants, and in one part of the fight threw out among them

a hive of bees. … To evict these four men the whole

available forces of the Crown in Galway were employed from

Thursday the 19th of August to Friday the 27th. Seven hundred

policemen and soldiers were present to protect the emergency

men who carried out the evictions, and 60 peasants were taken

to Galway gaol. It was to meet cases of this kind that, after

the rejection of Mr. Parnell's Tenants' Relief Bill, the Plan

of Campaign was started. In a speech at Woodford on the 17th

of October Mr. John Dillon gave an outline of the scheme on

which he thought a tenants' campaign against unjust rents

might be started and carried on all over the country. … On

the 23rd of October the 'Plan of Campaign' was published in

full detail in 'United Ireland.' The first question to be

answered, said the 'Plan,' was, How to meet the November

demand for rent? On every estate the tenantry were to come

together and decide whether to combine or not in resistance to

exorbitant rent. When they were assembled, if the priest were

not with them, they were to 'appoint an intelligent and sturdy

member of their body as chairman, and after consulting, decide

by resolution on the amount of abatement they will demand.' A

committee of six or more and the chairman were then to be

elected, to be called a Managing Committee, to take charge of

the half year's rent of each tenant should the landlord refuse

it. Everyone present was to pledge himself

(1) To abide by the decision of the majority;

(2) To hold no communication with the landlord or his agents,

except in presence of the body of the tenantry;

(3) To accept no settlement for himself that was not given to

every tenant on the estate.

Having thus pledged themselves each to the others they were to

go to the rent office in a body on the rent day, or the gale

day, as it is called in Ireland, and if the agent refused to

see them in a body they were to depute the chairman to act as

their spokesman and tender the reduced rent. If the agent

refused to accept it, then the money was to be handed to the

Managing Committee 'to fight the landlord with.' The fund thus

got together was to be employed in supporting tenants who were

dispossessed by sale or ejectment. The National League was to

guarantee the continuance of the grants if needful after the

fund was expended, or as long as the majority of the tenants

held out."

P. W. Clayden,

England under the Coalition,

chapter. 8.

IRELAND: A. D. 1888-1889.

The Parnell Commission.

Early in 1887, certain letters appeared in "The Times"

newspaper, of London, one of which, printed in facsimile,

"implied Mr. Parnell's sanction to the Park murders of 1882."

It created a great sensation, and, "after many bitter debates

in Parliament, a commission was appointed (1888) consisting of

three judges to inquire not only into the authenticity of this

and other letters attributed to several persons as their

authors, but into the whole course of conduct pursued by many

of the Irish Members of Parliament, in reference to the

previous agitation in Ireland and their connexion with an

extreme faction in America, who tried to intimidate this

country by dastardly attempts to blow up our public buildings

on several occasions between the years 1884 and 1887. The

court sat from the winter months of 1888 until the summer of

the following year, and examined dozens of witnesses,

including Mr. Parnell and most of the other accused members,

as well as dozens of the Irish peasantry who could give

evidence as to outrages in their several districts. One of the

witnesses, a mean and discarded Dublin journalist named

Pigott, turned out to be the forger of the letters; and,

having fled from the avenging hand of justice to Madrid, there

put an end to his life by means of a revolver. Meantime, the

interest in the investigation had flagged, and the report of

the Commission, which deeply implicated many of the Irish

members as to their connexion with the Fenian Society previous

to their entrance to Parliament, on their own acknowledgment,

fell rather flat on the public ear, wearied out in reiteration

of Irish crime from the introduction of the Land League until

the attempt to blow up London Bridge by American filibusters

(1886). The unfortunate man Pigott had sold his forged letters

to the over credulous Times newspaper at a fabulous price; and

even experts in handwriting, so dexterously had they been

manipulated, were ready to testify in open court to the

genuineness of the letters before the tragic end of their

luckless author left not a particle of doubt as to their

origin."

R. Johnston,

Short History of the Queen's Reign,

page 65.

ALSO IN:

Sir C. Russell,

The Parnell Commission: Opening Speech for the Defence.

M. Davitt, Speech in Defence.

IRELAND: A. D. 1889-1891.

Political fall and death of Mr. Parnell.

On the 28th of December, 1889, Captain O'Shea, one of the

Irish Nationalist Members of Parliament, filed a petition for

divorce from his wife on the ground of adultery with Mr.

Parnell. The Irish leader tacitly confessed his guilt by

making no answer, and in November, 1890, the divorce was

granted to Captain O'Shea. In the following June Mr. Parnell

and Mrs. O'Shea were married. The stigma which this affair put

upon Mr. Parnell caused Mr. Gladstone, on behalf of the

English Liberals, to demand his retirement from the leadership

of the Home Rule Party. He refused to give way, and was

supported in the refusal by a minority of his party. The

majority, however, took action to depose him, and the party

was torn asunder. A sudden illness ended Mr. Parnell's life on

the 6th of October, 1891; but his death failed to restore

peace, and the Irish Nationalists are still divided.

IRELAND: A. D. 1893.

Passage of the Home Rule Bill by the British House of Commons.

Its defeat by the House of Lords.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1892-1893.

----------IRELAND: End--------

{1801}

IRENE, Empress in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 797-802.

IRISH NIGHT, The.

See LONDON: A. D. 1688.

IRMINSUL, The.

See SAXONS: A. D. 772-804.

IRON AGE.

See STONE AGE.

IRON CROSS, Order of the.

A Prussian order of knighthood instituted in 1815 by Frederick

William III.

IRON CROWN, The Order of the,

See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

IRON CROWN OF LOMBARDY, The.

See LOMBARDY, THE IRON CROWN OF.

IRON MASK, The Man in the.

"It is known that a masked and unknown prisoner, the object of

extraordinary surveillance, died, in 1703, in the Bastille, to

which he had been taken from the St. Marguerite Isles in 1698;

he had remained about ten years incarcerated in these isles,

and traces of him are with certainty found in the fort of

Exilles, and at Pignerol, as far back as about 1681. This

singular fact, which began to be vaguely bruited a little

before the middle of the 18th century, excited immense

curiosity after Voltaire had availed himself of it in his

'Siècle de Louis XIV.', wherein he exhibited it in the most

touching and tragic light. A thousand conjectures circulated:

no great personage had disappeared in Europe about 1680. What

interest so powerful had the government of Louis XIV. for

concealing this mysterious visage from every human eye? Many

explanations more or less plausible, more or less chimerical,

have been attempted in regard to the 'man with the iron mask'

(an erroneous designation that has prevailed; the mask was not

of iron, but of black velvet; it was probably one of those

'loups' so long in use), when, in 1837, the bibliophile Jacob

(M. Paul Lacroix) published a very ingenious book on this

subject, in which he discussed all the hypotheses, and

skilfully commented on all the facts and dates, in order to

establish that, in 1680, Fouquet was represented as dead; that

he was masked, sequestered anew, and dragged from fortress to

fortress till his real death in 1703. It is impossible for us

to admit this solution of the problem; the authenticity of the

minister Louvois' correspondence with the governor of the

prison of Pignerol, on the subject of Fouquet's death, in

March, 1680, appears to us incontestable; and did this

material proof not exist, we still could not believe in a

return of rigor so strange, so barbarous, and so unaccountable

on the part of Louis XIV., when all the official documents

attest that his resentment had gradually been appeased, and

that an old man who asked nothing more than a little free air

before dying had ceased to be feared. There are many more

presumptions in favor of Baron Heiss' opinion, reproduced by

several writers, and, in the last instance, by M. Delort

('Histoire de l'homme au masque de fer'; 1825),—the opinion

that the 'man with a mask' was a secretary of the Duke of

Mantua, named Mattioli, carried off by order of Louis XIV. in

1679, for having deceived the French government, and having

sought to form a coalition of the Italian princes against it.

But however striking, in certain respects, may be the

resemblances between Mattioli and the 'iron mask,' equally

guarded by the governor St. Mars at Pignerol and at Exilles,

however grave may be the testimony according to which Mattioli

was transferred to the St. Marguerite Isles, the subaltern

position of Mattioli, whom Catinat and Louvois, in their

letters, characterize as a 'knave' and St. Mars threatens with

a cudgel, ill accords, we do not say with the traditions

relating to the profound respect shown the prisoner by the

keepers, the governor, and even the minister,—these

traditions may be contested,—but with the authentic details

and documents given by the learned and judicious Father

Griffet in regard to the extreme mystery in which the prisoner

at the Bastille was enveloped, more than twenty years after

the abduction of the obscure Mattioli, in regard to the mask

that he never put off, in regard to the precautions taken

after his death to annihilate the traces of his sojourn at the

Bastille, which explains why nothing was found concerning him

after the taking of that fortress. Many minds will always

persist in seeking, under this impenetrable mask, a more

dangerous secret, a mysterious accusing resemblance; and the

most popular opinion, although the most void of an proof, will

always doubtless be that suffered to transpire by Voltaire,

under cover of his publisher, in the eighth edition of his

'Dictionnaire philosophique' (1771). According to this

opinion, the honor of the royal household was involved in the

secret, and the unknown victim was an illegitimate son of Anne

of Austria. The only private crime of which Louis XIV. was

perhaps capable, was a crime inspired by fanaticism for

monarchical honor. However this may be, history has no right

to pronounce upon what will never emerge from the domain of

conjecture."

H. Martin,

History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,

volume 1, page 40, foot-note.

"The Paris correspondent of the 'Daily Telegraph' records a

fact which, if it is correctly reported, goes a long way

towards clearing up one of the problems of modern history. A

letter to Louvois by Louis XIV., written in cipher, has been

long in the archives of the Ministry of War, and has at length

been deciphered. In it the King orders Louvois to arrest

General de Burlonde for having raised the siege of Conti

without permission, to send him to Pignerol, and to conceal

his features under a 'loup' or black-velvet mask. The order

was executed, and the presumption is therefore violent that

the 'Man in the Iron Mask'—it was a black-velvet one with

iron springs—was General de Burlonde. The story tallies with

the known fact that the prisoner made repeated attempts to

communicate his name to soldiers, that he was treated with

respect by his military jailors, and that Louis XV., who knew

the truth of the whole affair, declared it to be a matter of

no importance. The difficulty is to discover the King's motive

for such a precaution; but he may have feared discontent among

his great officers, or the soldiery."

The Spectator,

October 14, 1893.

The cipher despatch above referred to, and the whole subject

of the imprisonment of General de Burlonde, are discussed at

length, in the light of official records and correspondence,

by M. Émile Burgaud and Commandant Bazeries (the latter of

whom discovered the key to the cipher), in a book entitled "Le

Masque de Fer: Révélation de la correspondance chiffrée de

Louis XIV.," published at Paris in 1893. It seems to leave

small doubt that the mysteriously masked prisoner was no other

than General de Burlonde,

ALSO IN:

G. A. Ellis,

True History of the State Prisoner commonly called

the Iron Mask.

E. Lawrence,

The Man in the Iron Mask

(Harper's Magazine, volume 43, page 98).

M. Topin,

The Man in the Iron Mask

(Cornhill Magazine, volume 21, page 333).

Quarterly Review,

volume 34, page 19.

{1802}

IRONCLAD OATH.

An oath popularly styled the "Ironclad oath" was prescribed by

the Congress of the United States, during the War of the

Rebellion, in July, 1862, to be taken by every person elected

or appointed to any office under the Government of the United

States, the President only excepted. He was required to swear

that he had "never voluntarily borne arms against the United

States"; that he had "voluntarily given no aid, countenance,

counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed

hostility to the National Government"; that he had "neither

sought nor accepted, nor attempted to exercise the functions

of any office whatever under authority or pretended authority

in hostility to the United States"; that he had "never yielded

a voluntary support to any pretended Government within the

United States, hostile or inimical thereto."

J. G. Blaine,

Twenty Years of Congress,

volume 2, page 88.

IRONSIDES, Cromwell's.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (MAY).

"IRONSIDES, Old."

A name popularly given to the American frigate "Constitution."

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814.

IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, The.

According to their traditions, the founder of the League or

confederacy which united the five nations of the Iroquois—the

Mohawks, the Onondagas, the Oneidas, the Cayugas, and the

Senecas, was Hiawatha, the hero of Iroquois legend.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

He was an Onondaga chief, and is supposed to have lived about

the middle of the 15th century. "Hiawatha had long beheld with

grief the evils which afflicted not only his own nation, but

all the other tribes about them, through the continual wars in

which they were engaged, and the misgovernment and miseries at

home which these wars produced. With much meditation he had

elaborated in his mind the scheme of a vast confederation

which would ensure universal peace. In the mere plan of a

confederation there was nothing new. There are probably few,

if any, Indian tribes which have not, at one time or another,

been members of a league or confederacy. It may almost be said

to be their normal condition. But the plan which Hiawatha had

evolved differed from all others in two particulars. The

system which he devised was to be not a loose and transitory

league, but a permanent government. While each nation was to

retain its own council and its management of local affairs,

the general control was to be lodged in a federal senate,

composed of representatives elected by each nation, holding

office during good behavior, and acknowledged as ruling chiefs

throughout the whole confederacy. Still further, and more

remarkably, the confederation was not to be a limited one. It

was to be indefinitely expansible. The avowed design of its

proposer was to abolish war altogether. He wished the

federation to extend until all the tribes of men should be

included in it, and peace should everywhere reign. Such is the

positive testimony of the Iroquois themselves: and their

statement, as will be seen, is supported by historical

evidence. … His conceptions were beyond his time, and beyond

ours; but their effect, within a limited sphere, was very

great. For more than three centuries the bond which he devised

held together the Iroquois nations in perfect amity. It

proved, moreover, as he intended, elastic. The territory of

the Iroquois, constantly extending as their united strength

made itself felt, became the 'Great Asylum' of the Indian

tribes. … Among the interminable stories with which the

common people [of the Five Nations] beguile their winter

nights, the traditions of Atotarho and Hiawatha became

intermingled with the legends of their mythology. An

accidental similarity, in the Onondaga dialect, between the

name of Hiawatha and that of one of their ancient divinities,

led to a confusion between the two, which has misled some

investigators. This deity bears, in the sonorous Canienga

tongue, the name of Taronhiawagon, meaning 'the Holder of the

Heavens.' The Jesuit missionaries style him 'the great god of

the Iroquois.' Among the Onondagas of the present day, the

name is abridged to Taonhiawagi, or Tahiawagi. The confusion

between this name and that of Hiawatha (which, in another

form, is pronounced Tahionwatha) seems to have begun more than

a century ago. … Mr. J. V. H. Clark, in his interesting

History of Onondaga, makes the name to have been originally

Ta-own-ya-wat-ha, and describes the bearer as 'the deity who

presides over fisheries and hunting-grounds.' He came down

from heaven in a white canoe, and after sundry adventures,

which remind one of the labors of Hercules, assumed the name

of Hiawatha (signifying, we are told, 'a very wise man'), and

dwelt for a time as an ordinary mortal among men, occupied in

works of benevolence. Finally, after founding the confederacy

and bestowing many prudent counsels upon the people, he

returned to the skies by the same conveyance in which he had

descended. This legend, or, rather, congeries of intermingled

legends, was communicated by Clark to Schoolcraft, when the

latter was compiling his 'Notes on the Iroquois.' Mr.

Schoolcraft, pleased with the poetical cast of the story, and

the euphonious name, made confusion worse confounded by

transferring the hero to a distant region and identifying him

with Manabozho, a fantastic divinity of the Ojibways.

Schoolcraft's volume, which he chose to entitle 'The Hiawatha

Legends,' has not in it a single fact or fiction relating

either to Hiawatha himself or to the Iroquois deity

Taronhiawagon. Wild Ojibway stories concerning Manabozho and

his comrades form the staple of its contents. But it is to

this collection that we owe the charming poem of Longfellow;

and thus, by an extraordinary fortune, a grave Iroquois

lawgiver of the fifteenth century has become, in modern

literature, an Ojibway demigod, son of the West Wind, and

companion of the tricksy Paupukkeewis, the boastful Iagoo, and

the strong Kwasind. If a Chinese traveler, during the middle

ages, inquiring into the history and religion of the western

nations, had confounded King Alfred with King Arthur, and both

with Odin, he would not have made a more preposterous

confusion of names and characters than that which has hitherto

disguised the genuine personality of the great Onondaga

reformer."

H. Hale, editor,

The Iroquois Book of Rites

(Brinton's Library of Aboriginal American Literature,

number 2, pages 21-36).

{1803}

IRREDENTISTS.

"This is the name given to a political organisation formed in

1878, with the avowed object of freeing all Italians from

foreign rule, and of reuniting to the Italian kingdom all

those portions of the Italy of old which have passed under

foreign dominion. The operations of the 'Italia Irredenta'

party are chiefly carried on against Austria, in consequence

of the retention by that Empire of Trieste and the Southern

Tyrol. Until these territories have been relinquished, Italy,

or at least a certain part of it, will remain unsatisfied."

J. S. Jeans,

Italy (National Life and Thought, chapter 8).

ISAAC II. (Comnenus),

Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1057-1059.

Isaac II. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or

Greek), 1185-1195.

ISABELLA,

Queen of Castile

(wife of Ferdinand II., King of Aragon), A. D. 1474-1504.

Isabella I., Queen of Spain, 1833-1868.

ISABELLA.

The city founded by Columbus on the island of Hispaniola, or

Hayti.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1493-1496.

ISANDLANA, The English disaster at (1879).

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1879.

ISASZEG, Battle of (1849).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

ISAURIAN DYNASTY, The.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 717-797.

ISAURIANS, The.

The Isaurians were a fierce and savage race of mountaineers,

who occupied anciently a district in Asia Minor, between

Cilicia and Pamphylia on the south and Phrygia on the north.

They were persistently a nation of robbers, living upon the

spoils taken from their neighbors, who were never able to

punish them justly in their mountain fastnesses. Even the iron

hand of the Romans failed to reduce the Isaurians to order,

although P. Servilius, in 78 B. C., destroyed most of their

strongholds, and Pompey, eleven years later, in his great

campaign against the pirates, put an end to the lawless

depredations on sea and land of the Cilicians, who had become

confederated with the Isaurians. Five centuries afterwards, in

the days of the Eastern Empire, the Isaurians were the best

soldiers of its army, and even gave an emperor to the throne

at Constantinople in the person of Zeno or Zenon.

E. W. Brooks,

The Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians

(English Historical Review, April, 1893).

ISCA.

The name of two towns in Roman Britain, one of which is

identified with modern Exeter and the other with

Caerleon-on-Usk. The latter was the station of the 2d legion.

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 8, chapter 5.

See EXETER, ORIGIN OF;

also, CAERLEON.

ISHMAELIANS, The.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171;

also, ASSASSINS;

and CARMATHIANS.

ISIDORE, The False Decretals of.

See PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.

ISINÆ.

See CAUSENNÆ.

ISLAM.

"The religion founded by Mahomet is called Islam, a word

meaning 'the entire surrender of the will to God'; its

professors are called Mussulmans—'those who have surrendered

themselves,' or 'Believers,' as opposed to the 'Rejectors' of

the Divine messengers, who are named 'Kafirs,' or 'Mushrikin,'

that is, 'those who associate, are [not?] companions or

sharers with the Deity.' Islam is sometimes divided under the

two heads of Faith and Practical Religion.

I. Faith (Iman) includes a belief in one God, omnipotent,

omniscient, all-merciful, the author of all good; and in

Mahomet as his prophet, expressed in the formula 'There is no

God but God, and Mahomet is the Prophet of God.' It includes,

also, a belief in the authority and sufficiency of the Koran,

in angels, genii, and the devil, in the immortality of the

soul, the resurrection, the day of judgment and in God's

absolute decree for good and evil.

II. Practical religion (Din) consists of five observances:

(1) Recital of the formula of Belief,

(2) Prayer with Ablution,

(3) Fasting,

(4) Almsgiving,

(5) the Pilgrimage.

… The standard of Moslem orthodoxy is essentially the Koran

and to it primary reference is made; but … some more

extended and discriminating code became necessary. The

deficiency was supplied by the compilation of the 'Sunnah,' or

Traditional Law, which is built upon the sayings and practices

of Mahomet, and, in the opinion of the orthodox, is invested

with the force of law, and with some of the authority of

inspiration. … In cases where both the Koran and the Sunnah

afford no exact precept, the 'Rule of Faith' in their dogmatic

belief, as well as the decisions of their secular courts, is

based upon the teaching of one of the four great Imams, or

founders of the orthodox sects, according as one or another of

these prevails in any particular country. … The great Sunni

sect is divided among the orthodox schools mentioned above,

and is so called from its reception of the 'Sunnah,' as having

authority concurrent with and supplementary to the Koran. In

this respect it differs essentially from the Shias, or

partisans of the house of Ali [the nephew of Mahomet and

husband of his daughter Fatima] who, adhering to their own

traditions, reject the authority of the 'Sunnah.' These two

sects, moreover, have certain observances and matters of

belief peculiar to themselves, the chief of which is the Shia

doctrine, that the sovereign Imamat, or temporal and spiritual

lordship over the faithful, was by divine right vested in Ali

and in his descendants, through Hasan and Hosein, the children

of Fatima, the daughter of the prophet. And thus the Persian

Shias add to the formula of belief the confession, 'Ali is the

Caliph of God.' In Persia the Shia doctrines prevail, and

formerly so intense was sectarian hatred that the Sunni

Mahometans paid a higher capitation tax there than the

infidels. In Turkey the great majority are Sunni. In India the

Shias number about one in twenty. The Shias, who reject this

name, and call themselves Adliyah, or the 'Society of the

Just,' are subdivided into a great variety of minor sects; but

these … are united in asserting that the first three

Caliphs, Abu Bekr, Omar, and Othman were usurpers, who had

possessed themselves of the rightful and inalienable

inheritance of Ali."

J. W. H. Stobart,

Islam and its Founder,

chapter 10.

"The twelve Imams, or pontiffs, of the Persian creed, are Ali,

Hassan, Hosein, and the lineal descendants of Hosein to the ninth

generation. Without arms, or treasures, or subjects, they

successively enjoyed the veneration of the people and provoked

the jealousy of the reigning caliphs. … The twelfth and last

of the Imams, conspicuous by the title of Mahadi, or the

Guide, surpassed the solitude and sanctity of his

predecessors. He concealed himself in a cavern near Bagdad:

the time and place of his death are unknown; and his votaries

pretend that he still lives and will appear before the day of

judgment."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 50.

ALSO IN:

E. Sell,

The Faith of Islam.

S. Lane-Poole,

Studies in a Mosque,

chapters 3 and 7.

R. D. Osborn,

Islam under the Arabs,

part 2, chapter 1.

W. C. Taylor,

History of Mohammedanism,

chapters 5-13.

R. Bosworth Smith,

Mohammed and Mohammedanism

T. Nöldeke,

Sketches from Eastern History,

chapter 3.

See, also,

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST.

{1804}

ISLAM, Dar-ul-, and Dar-ul-harb.

See DAR-UL-ISLAM.

ISLAND NUMBER TEN, The capture of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862

(MARCH-APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

ISLE OF FRANCE.

The old French province containing Paris. Also the French name

of Mauritius island, taken by England in 1810.

ISLE ROYALE.

See CAPE BRETON: A. D. 1720-1745.

ISLES, Lords of the.

See HEBRIDES: A. D. 1346-1504,

and HARLAW, BATTLE OF.

ISLES OF THE BLESSED.

See CANARY ISLANDS.

ISLY, Battle of (1843).

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

ISMAIL, Khedive of Egypt, The reign and the fall of.

See EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869; 1870-1883;

and 1875-1882.

Ismail I., Shah of Persia, A. D. 1502-1523.

Ismail II., Shah of Persia, 1576-1577.

ISMAIL, Siege and capture of (1790).

See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

ISMAILEANS, OR ISHMAELIANS.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171;

also, ASSASSINS;

and CARMATHIANS.

ISONOMY.

ISOTIMY.

ISAGORIA.

"The principle underlying democracy is the struggle for a

legalised equality which was usually described [by the ancient

Greeks] by the expressions Isonomy, or equality of law for

all,—Isotimy, or proportionate regard paid to all,

—Isagoria, or equal freedom of speech, with special reference

to courts of justice and popular assemblies."

G. F. Schömann,

Antiquity of Greece: The State,

part 2, chapter 12.

ISONZO, Battle of the (A. D. 489).

See ROME: A. D. 488-526.

ISOPOLITY.

"Under Sp. Cassius [B. C. 493], Rome concluded a treaty with

the Latins, in which the right of isopolity or the 'jus

municipi' was conceded to them. The idea of isopolity changed

in the course of time, but its essential features in early

times were these: between the Romans and Latins and between

the Romans and Caerites there existed this arrangement, that

any citizen of the one state who wished to settle in the

other, might forthwith be able to exercise there the rights of

a citizen."

B. G. Niebuhr,

Lectures on the History of Rome,

lecture 13 (volume 1).

ISRAEL.

See JEWS.

ISRAEL, Lost Ten Tribes of.

See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH.

ISSUS, Battle of (B. C. 333).

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.

ISTÆVONES, The.

See GERMANY: AS KNOWN TO TACITUS.

ISTAKR, OR STAKR.

The native name under the later, or Sassanian, Persian empire,

of the ancient capital, Persepolis.

G. Rawlinson,

Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 3, footnote.

ISTER, The.

The ancient Greek name of the Danube, below the junction of

the Theiss and the Save.

ISTHMIAN GAMES.

See NEMEAN.

----------ISTRIA: Start--------

ISTRIA:

Slavonic Occupation of.

See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: SIXTH AND SEVENTH CENTURIES.

ISTRIA: A. D. 1797.

Acquisition by Austria.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

----------ISTRIA: End--------

ISTRIANS, The.

See ILLYRIANS.

ISURIUM.

A Roman town in Britain, which had previously been the chief

town of the British tribe of the Brigantes. It is identified

with Aldborough, Yorkshire, "where the excavator meets

continually with the tessellated floors of the Roman houses."

T. Wright,

Celt, Roman and Saxon,

chapter 5.

ITALI, The.

See ŒNOTRIANS.

ITALIAN WAR, The.

See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

ITALIOTES.

See SICELIOTEB.

----------ITALY: Start--------

ITALY:

Ancient.

Early Italians.

"It was not till the close of the Republic, or rather the

beginning of the Empire, that the name of Italy was employed,

as we now employ it, to designate the whole Peninsula, from

the Alps to the Straits of Messina.

See ROME: B. C. 275.

The term Italia, borrowed from the name of a primæval tribe

who occupied the southern portion of the land, was gradually

adopted as a generic title in the same obscure manner in which

most of the countries of Europe, or (we may say) the

Continents of the world, have received their appellations. In

the remotest times the name only included Lower Calabria: from

these narrow limits it gradually spread upwards, till about

the time of the Punic Wars, its northern boundary ascended the

little river Rubicon (between Umbria and Cisalpine Gaul), then

followed the ridge of the Appennines westward to the source of

the Macra, and was carried down the bed of that small stream

to the Gulf of Genoa. When we speak of Italy, therefore, in

the Roman sense of the word, we must dismiss from our thoughts

all that fertile country which was at Rome entitled the

provincial district of Gallia Cisalpina, and Liguria."

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

introduction, section. 2.

"Philological research teaches us to distinguish three

primitive Italian stocks, the Iapygian, the Etruscan, and that

which we shall call the Italian. The last is divided into two

main branches,—the Latin branch, and that to which the

dialects of the Umbri, Marsi, Volsci and Samnites belong. As

to the Iapygian stock, we have but little information.

{1805}

At the southeastern extremity of Italy, in the Messapian or

Calabrian peninsula, inscriptions in a peculiar extinct

language have been found in considerable numbers; undoubtedly

remains of the dialect of the Iapygians, who are very

distinctly pronounced by tradition also to have been different

from the Latin and Samnite stocks. … With the recognition of

… a general family relationship or peculiar affinity between

the Iapygians and Hellenes (a recognition, however, which by

no means goes so far as to warrant our taking the Iapygian

language to be a rude dialect of Greek), investigation must

rest content. … The middle of the peninsula was inhabited,

as far back as reliable tradition reaches, by two peoples or

rather two branches of the same people, whose position in the

Indo-Germanic family admits of being determined with greater

precision than that of the Iapygian nation. We may with

propriety call this people the Italian, since upon it rests

the historical significance of the peninsula. It is divided

into the two branch-stocks of the Latins and the Umbrians; the

latter including their southern off-shoots, the Marsians and

Samnites, and the colonies sent forth by the Samnites in

historical times. … These examples [philological examples,

given in the work, but omitted from this quotation], selected

from a great abundance of analogous phenomena, suffice to

establish the individuality of the Italian stock as

distinguished from the other members of the Indo-Germanic

family, and at the same time show it to be linguistically the

nearest relative, as it is geographically the next neighbour,

of the Greek. The Greek and the Italian are brothers; the

Celt, the German and the Slavonian are their cousins. …

Among the languages of the Italian stock, again, the Latin

stands in marked contrast with the Umbro-Samnite dialects. It

is true that of these only two, the Umbrian and the Samnite or

Oscan, are in some degree known to us. … A conjoint view,

however, of the facts of language and of history leaves no

doubt that all these dialects belonged to the Umbro-Samnite

branch of the great Italian stock. … It may … be regarded

as certain that the Italians, like the Indians, migrated into

their peninsula from the north. The advance of the

Umbro-Sabellian stock along the central mountain-ridge of

Italy, in a direction from north to south, can still be

clearly traced; indeed its last phases belong to purely

historical times. Less is known regarding the route which the

Latin migration followed. Probably it proceeded in a similar

direction along the west coast, long, in all likelihood,

before the first Sabellian stocks began to move."

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 1, chapters 2-3.

See, also,

ETRUSCANS; LATIUM; SABINES; SAMNITES;

UMBRIANS; MAGNA GRÆCIA;

also, ROME: B. C. 343-290, and 339-338.

"In the February number of the 'Civiltà Cattolica,' Padre de

Cara pleads for a national effort on the part of Italian

archaeologists to solve the question of the origin of their

country's civilisation by the systematic exploration and

excavation of Pelasgic Italy. … In a series of articles,

extending over several years, the learned father has contended

for the identity of the Hittites and Proto-Pelasgians on

archaeological, etymological, and historical grounds; and he

here repeats that, if 'Italic' means Aryan, then it is among

the peoples speaking Oscan, Umbrian, Latin, and other dialects

of the Indo-European family that the parentage of Italian

civilisation must be sought; but that 'Italy' meant in the

first place the country of the Hittites (Hethei), and hence of

the Pelasgians, and that name and civilisation are alike

Pelasgic. Those who hold it to have been Aryan have not only

the testimony of Greek and Roman writers against them, but

also the facts that there were Pelasgians in Italy whose stone

constructions are standing to this day, and that the Etruscan

language and culture had no Aryan affinities. The writer

further points out that the walls of Pelasgic cities, whether

in Italy, Greece, or Asia Minor, all resemble each other, and

that the origin of Greek civilisation was also Pelasgian. In

Greece, as in Italy, the Aryans followed centuries after the

Hittite-Pelasgians, and Aryan Greece carried the arts of

Pelasgic Greece to perfection. He believes that, of two

migratory bands of Hittites, one invaded Greece and the other

Italy, about the same time. He also draws attention to the

coincidence that it is not very long since Greece, like Italy

at the present time, could date its civilisation no further

back than 700 or 800 B. C. Schliemann recovered centuries for

Greece, but 'Italy still remains imprisoned in the iron circle

of the seventh century.' To break it, she must follow

Schliemann's plan; and as he had steady faith in the

excavation of the Pelasgic cities and cemeteries of Greece, so

will like faith and conduct on the part of Italian

archaeologists let in light upon this once dark problem."

Academy,

March 31, 1894, page 273.

ITALY:

Under the dominion of Rome.

See ROME.

ITALY:

Invasions Repelled by Rome.

See ROME: B. C. 390-347, 282-275; PUNIC WARS;

CIMBRI AND TEUTONES; ALEMANNI; and RADAGAISUS.

ITALY: A. D. 400-410.

Alaric's invasions.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 400-403;

and ROME: A. D. 408-410.

ITALY: A. D. 452.

Attila's invasion.

The origin of Venice.

See HUNS: A. D. 452; and VENICE: A. D. 452.

ITALY: A. D. 476-553.

The fall of the Western Roman Empire.

The Ostrogothic kingdom of Theodoric, and its fall.

Recovery of Italy by Justinian.

See ROME: A. D. 455-476, to 535-553.

ITALY: A. D. 539-553.

Frank invasions.

See FRANKS: A. D. 539-553.

ITALY: A. D. 554-800.

Rule of the Exarchs of Ravenna.

See ROME: A. D. 554-800;

and PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

ITALY: A. D. 568-800.

Lombard conquests and kingdom.

Rise of the Papal power at Rome.

Alliance of the Papacy with the sovereigns of the Franks.

Revival of the Roman Empire under Charlemagne.

"Since the invasion of Alboin, Italy had groaned under a

complication of evils. The Lombards who had entered along with

that chief in A. D. 568 [see LOMBARDS: A. D. 568-573, and

after] had settled in considerable numbers in the valley of

the Po, and founded the duchies of Spoleto and Benevento,

leaving the rest of the country to be governed by the exarch

of Ravenna as viceroy of the Eastern crown. This subjection

was, however, little better than nominal. Although too few to

occupy the whole peninsula, the invaders were yet strong

enough to harass every part of it by inroads which met with no

resistance from a population unused to arms, and without the

spirit to use them in self-defence. … Tormented by their

repeated attacks, Rome sought help in vain from Byzantium,

whose forces, scarce able to repel from their walls the Avars

and Saracens, could give no support to the distant exarch of

Ravenna.

{1806}

The Popes were the Emperor's subjects; they it waited his

confirmation, like other bishops; they had more than once been

the victims of his anger. But as the city became more

accustomed in independence, and the Pope rose to a

predominance, real if not yet legal [see ROME: A. D. 590-640,

and PAPACY: A. D. 728-774], his tone grew bolder than that of

the Eastern patriarchs. In the controversies that had raged in

the Church, he had had the wisdom or good fortune to espouse

(though not always from the first) the orthodox side: it was

now by another quarrel of religion that his deliverance from

an unwelcome yoke was accomplished. The Emperor Leo, born

among the Isaurian mountains, where a purer faith may yet have

lingered, and stung by the Mohammedan taunt of idolatry,

determined to abolish the worship of images, which seemed fast

obscuring the more spiritual part of Christianity. An attempt

sufficient to cause tumults among the submissive Greeks,

excited in Italy a fiercer commotion. The populace rose with

one heart in defence of what had become to them more than a

symbol: the exarch was slain: the Pope, though unwilling to

sever himself from the lawful head and protector of the

Church, must yet excommunicate the prince whom he could not

reclaim from so hateful a heresy.

See ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY.

Liudprand, king of the Lombards, improved his opportunity:

falling on the exarchate as the champion of images, on Rome as

the minister of the Greek Emperor, he overran the one, and all

but succeeded in capturing the other. The Pope escaped for the

moment, but saw his peril: placed between a heretic and a

robber, he turned his gaze beyond the Alps, to a Catholic

chief who had just achieved a signal deliverance for

Christendom on the field of Poitiers. Gregory II. had already

opened communications with Charles Martel, mayor of the

palace, and virtual ruler of the Frankish realm. As the crisis

becomes more pressing, Gregory III. finds in the same quarter

his only hope, and appeals to him in urgent letters, to haste

to the succour of Holy Church. … Charles died before he

could obey the call; but his son Pipin (surnamed the Short)

made good use of the new friendship with Rome. He was the

third of his family who had ruled the Franks with a monarch's

full power [see FRANKS: A. D. 511-752]: it seemed time to

abolish the pageant of Merovingian royalty; yet a departure

from the ancient line might shock the feelings of the people.

A course was taken whose dangers no one then foresaw: the Holy

See, now for the first time invoked as an international power,

pronounced the deposition of Childric, and gave to the royal

office of his successor Pipin a sanctity hitherto unknown. …

The compact between the chair of Peter and the Teutonic throne

was hardly sealed, when the latter was summoned to discharge

its share of the duties. Twice did Aistulf the Lombard assail

Rome, twice did Pipin descend to the rescue: the second time

at the bidding of a letter written in the name of St. Peter

himself. Aistulf could make no resistance; and the Frank

bestowed on the Papal chair all that belonged to the exarchate

in North Italy, receiving as the meed of his services the

title of Patrician [754]. … When on Pipin's death the

restless Lombards again took up arms and menaced the

possessions of the Church, Pipin's son Charles or Charlemagne

swept down like a whirlwind from the Alps at the call of Pope

Hadrian, seized king Desiderius in his capital, assumed

himself the Lombard crown, and made northern Italy

thenceforward an integral part of the Frankish empire [see

GERMANY: A. D. 68-800]. … For the next twenty-four years

Italy remained quiet. The government of Rome was carried on in

the name of the Patrician Charles, although it does not appear

that he sent thither any official representative; while at the

same time both the city and the exarchate continued to admit

the nominal supremacy of the Eastern Emperor, employing the

years of his reign to date documents."

J. Bryce,

The Holy Roman Empire,

chapter 4.

"Thus, by German hands, the internal ascendancy of the German

race in Italy, which had lasted, first under the Goths, and

then under the Lombards, for 281 years, was finally broken. A

German was still king over Italy, as for ages Germans were

still to be. But Roman and native influence reconquered its

supremacy in Italy, under the management and leadership of the

bishops of Rome. The Lombards, already becoming Italianized,

melted into provincial Italians. The Teutonic language

disappeared, leaving a number of words to Italian dialects,

and a number of names to Italian families. The last king of

the Lombards bore an Italian name, Desiderius. The latest of

Italian national heroes bears the Bavarian and Lombard name of

Garibaldi. But the overthrow of the Lombards, and the gift of

provinces and cities to St. Peter had even more eventful

results. The alliance between the king of the Franks and the

bishop of Rome had become one of the closest kind. … The

German king and the Italian pope found themselves together at

the head of the modern world of the West. But the fascination

of the name of Rome still, as it had done for centuries, held

sway over the Teutonic mind. … It was not unnatural that the

idea should recommend itself, both to the king and the pope,

of reviving in the West, in close connexion with the Roman

primacy, that great name which still filled the imagination of

the world, and which in Roman judgments, Greek Byzantium had

wrongfully stolen away—the name of Cæsar Augustus, the claim

to govern the world. There was a longing in the West for the

restoration of the name and authority, 'lest,' as the

contemporary writers express it, 'the heathen should mock at

the Christian if the name of Emperor had ceased among them.'

And at this moment, the government at Constantinople was in

the hands of a woman, the Empress Irene. Charles's services to

the pope were recompensed, and his victorious career of more

than thirty years crowned, by the restoration at Rome, in his

person, of the Roman empire and the imperial dignity. The same

authority which had made him 'patrician,' and consecrated him

king, now created him Emperor of the Romans. On Christmas day,

800, when Charles came to pay his devotions before the altar

of St. Peter's, Pope Leo III.—without Charles's knowledge or

wish, so Charles declared to his biographer, Einhard, and, it

may be, prematurely, as regards Charles's own feeling—placed

a golden crown on his head, while all the people shouted, 'to

Charles, the most pious Augustus, crowned of God, the great

and peace-giving Emperor of the Romans, life and victory.' …

{1807}

Thus a new power arose in Europe, new in reality and in its

relations to society, though old in name. It was formally but

the carrying on the line of the successors of Augustus and

Constantine. But substantially it was something very

different. Its authors could little foresee its destinies; but

it was to last, in some sort the political centre of the world

which was to be, for 1,000 years. And the Roman Church, which

had done such great things, which had consecrated the new and

mighty kings of the Franks, and had created for the mightiest

of them the imperial claim to universal dominion, rose with

them to a new attitude in the world. … The coronation of

Charles at Rome, in the face of an imperial line at

Constantinople, finally determined, though it did not at once

accomplish, the separation of East and West, of Greek and

Latin Christianity. This separation had long been impending,

perhaps, becoming inevitable. … One Roman empire was still

the only received theory. But one Roman empire, with its seat

in the West, or one Roman empire, governed in partnership by

two emperors of East and West, had become impossible in fact.

The theory of its unity continued for ages; but whether the

true successor of Augustus and Theodosius sat at

Constantinople, or somewhere in the West, remained in dispute,

till the dispute was ended by the extinction of the Eastern

empire by the Turks on May 29, 1453."

R. W. Church,

The Beginning of the Middle Ages,

chapter 7.

See, also, FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.

ITALY: A. D. 685-1014.

The founding of the duchy of Tuscany.

See TUSCANY: A. D. 685-1115.

ITALY: A. D. 781.

Erected into a separate kingdom by Charlemagne.

In the year 781 Charlemagne erected Italy and Aquitaine into

two separate kingdoms, placing his infant sons Pipin and

Ludwig on the thrones.

P. Godwin,

History of France: Ancient Gaul,

chapter 16.

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 800-1016.

Conflict of Greeks, Saracens and Franks.

"The southern provinces [of Italy], which now compose the

kingdom of Naples, were subject, for the most part [in the 8th

and 9th centuries], to the Lombard dukes and princes of

Beneventum—so powerful in war that they checked for a moment

the genius of Charlemagne—so liberal in peace that they

maintained in their capital an academy of thirty-two

philosophers and grammarians. The division of this flourishing

state produced the rival principalities of Benevento, Salerno,

and Capua; and the thoughtless ambition or revenge of the

competitors invited the Saracens to the ruin of their common

inheritance. During a calamitous period of two hundred years,

Italy was exposed to a repetition of wounds which the invaders

were not capable of healing by the union and tranquillity of a

perfect conquest. Their frequent and almost annual squadrons

issued from the port of Palermo and were entertained with too

much indulgence by the Christians of Naples: the more

formidable fleets were prepared on the African coasts. … A

colony of Saracens had been planted at Bari, which commands

the entrance of the Adriatic Gulf; and their impartial

depredations provoked the resentment and conciliated the union

of the two emperors. An offensive alliance was concluded

between Basil the Macedonian [of the Byzantine Empire], the

first of his race, and Lewis, the great grandson of

Charlemagne; and each party Supplied the deficiencies of his

associate. … The fortress of Bari was invested by the

infantry of the Franks and by the cavalry and galleys of the

Greeks; and, after a defence of four years, the Arabian emir

submitted [A. D. 871] to the clemency of Lewis, who commanded

in person the operations of the siege. This important conquest

had been achieved by the concord of the East and West; but

their recent amity was soon embittered by the mutual

complaints of jealousy and pride. … Whoever might deserve

the honour, the Greek emperors, Basil and his son Leo, secured

the advantage of the reduction of Bari. The Italians of Apulia

and Calabria were persuaded or compelled to acknowledge their

supremacy, and an ideal line from Mount Garganus to the Bay of

Salerno leaves the far greater part of the [modern] kingdom of

Naples under the dominion of the Eastern empire. Beyond that

line the dukes or republics of Amalfi and Naples, who had

never forfeited their voluntary allegiance, rejoiced in the

neighbourhood of their lawful sovereign; and Amalfi was

enriched by supplying Europe with the produce and manufactures

of Asia. But the Lombard princes of Benevento, Salerno, and

Capua, were reluctantly torn from the communion of the Latin

world, and too often violated their oaths of servitude and

tribute. The city of Bari rose to dignity and wealth as the

metropolis of the new theme or province of Lombardy; the title

of Patrician, and afterwards the singular name of Catapan, was

assigned to the supreme governor. … As long as the sceptre

was disputed by the princes of Italy, their efforts were

feeble and adverse; and the Greeks resisted or eluded the

forces of Germany which descended from the Alps under the

imperial standard of the Othos. The first and greatest of

those Saxon princes was compelled to relinquish the siege of

Bari: the second, after the loss of his stoutest bishops and

barons, escaped with honour from the bloody field of Crotona

(A. D. 983). On that day the scale of war was turned against

the Franks by the valour of the Saracens. … The Caliph of

Egypt had transported 40,000 Moslems to the aid of his

Christian ally. The successors of Basil amused themselves with

the belief that the conquest of Lombardy had been achieved,

and was still preserved, by the justice of their laws, the

virtues of their ministers, and the gratitude of a people whom

they had rescued from anarchy and oppression. A series of

rebellions might dart a ray of truth into the palace of

Constantinople; and the illusions of flattery were dispelled

by the easy and rapid success of the Norman adventurers."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 56.

ITALY: A. D. 803-810.

Charlemagne's boundary treaties with the Byzantine Emperor.

Attempts of Pipin against the Venetians.

The founding of Modern Venice.

See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

ITALY: A. D. 810-961.

Spread of Venetian commerce and naval prowess.

See VENICE: A. D. 810-961.

{1808}

ITALY: A. D. 843-951.

In the breaking up of Charlemagne's Empire.

The founding of the Holy Roman Empire.

In the partition of Charlemagne's Empire among his three

grandsons, by the treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, Italy, together

with the new kingdom called Lotharingia, or Lorraine, was

assigned to the elder, Lothar, who bore the title of Emperor.

Lothar, who died in 855, redivided his dominions among three

sons, and Lorraine, separated from Italy, was soon dismembered

and shared between Germany and France. The Italian kingdom

fell to Louis or Ludwig II., who was crowned Emperor, and on

his death without issue, A. D. 875, it was seized, together

with the imperial title, by the French Carlovingian king,

Charles the Bald. Two years afterwards he died, and Italy,

together with the imperial crown, was acquired by the last

legitimate survivor of the German Carlovingian line, Charles

the Fat, who died in 888. "At that memorable era (A. D. 888)

the four kingdoms which this prince [Charles the Fat] had

united fell asunder: West France, where Odo or Eudes [Duke of

Paris, ancestor of the royal line of Capet] then began to

reign, was never again united to Germany; East France

(Germany) chose Arnulf; Burgundy split up into two

principalities, in one of which (Transjurane) Rudolf

proclaimed himself king, while the other (Cisjurune with

Provence) submitted to Boso; while Italy was divided between

the parties of Berengar of Friuli and Guido of Spoleto. The

former was chosen king by the estates of Lombardy; the latter,

and on his speedy death his son Lambert, was crowned Emperor

by the Pope. Arnulf's [the German king's] descent chased them

away and vindicated the claims of the Franks, but on his

flight Italy and the anti-German faction at Rome became again

free. Berengar was made king of Italy, and afterwards Emperor.

Lewis of Burgundy, son of Boso, renounced his fealty to

Arnulf, and procured the imperial dignity, whose vain title he

retained through years of misery and exile, till A. D. 928.

None of these Emperors were strong enough to rule well even in

Italy; beyond it they were not so much as recognized. … In

A. D. 924 died Berengar, the last of these phantom Emperors.

After him Hugh of Burgundy and Lothar his son reigned as kings

of Italy, if puppets in the hands of a riotous aristocracy can

be so called. Rome was meanwhile ruled by the consul or

senator Alberic [called variously senator, consul, patrician,

and prince of the Romans], who had renewed her never quite

extinct republican institutions, and in the degradation of the

papacy was almost absolute in the city." Affairs in Italy were

at this stage when Otto or Otho, the vigorous and chivalrous

German king of the new line, came in 951 to re-establish and

reconstitute the Roman Empire of Charlemagne and to make it a

lasting entity in European politics—the "Holy Roman Empire"

of modern history.

J. Bryce,

The Holy Roman Empire,

chapter 6.

See GERMANY: A. D. 936-973.

ALSO IN:

F. Guizot,

History of Civilization,

lecture 24.

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 49.

See, also,

ROME: A. D. 903-964;

and ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 963.

ITALY: A. D. 900-924.

Ravaged by the Hungarians.

"The vicinity of Italy had tempted their early inroads; but

from their camp on the Brenta they beheld with some terror the

apparent strength and populousness of the new-discovered

country. They requested leave to retire; their request was

proudly rejected by the Italian king; and the lives of 20,000

Christians paid the forfeit of his obstinacy and rashness.

Among the cities of the West the royal Pavia was conspicuous

in fame and splendour; and the pre-eminence of Rome itself was

only derived from the relies of the apostles. The Hungarians

appeared; Pavia was in flames; forty-three churches were

consumed; and, after the massacre of the people, they spared

about 200 wretches who had gathered some bushels of gold and

silver (a vague exaggeration) from the smoking ruins of their

country. In these annual excursions from the Alps to the

neighbourhood of Rome and Capua, the churches that yet escaped

resounded with a fearful litany: 'Oh! save and deliver us from

the arrows of the Hungarians!' But the saints were deaf or

inexorable; and the torrent rolled forward, till it was

stopped by the extreme land of Calabria."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 55.

ITALY: A. D. 961-1039.

Subjection to Germany.

"Otho I., his son Otho II., and his grandson Otho III., were

successively acknowledged emperors and kings of Italy, from

961 to 1002. When this branch of the house of Saxony became

extinct, Henry II. of Bavaria, and Conrad the Salic of

Franconia, filled the throne from 1004 to 1039. During this

period of nearly eighty years, the German emperors twelve

times entered Italy at the head of their armies, which they

always drew up in the plains of Roncaglia near Placentia;

there they held the states of Lombardy, received homage from

their Italian feudatories, caused the rents due to be paid,

and promulgated laws for the government of Italy. A foreign

sovereign, however, almost always absent, known only by his

incursions at the head of a barbarous army, could not

efficaciously govern a country which he hardly knew, and where

his yoke was detested. … The emperors were too happy to

acknowledge the local authorities, whatever they were,

whenever they could obtain from them their pecuniary dues:

sometimes they were dukes or marquises, whose dignities had

survived the disasters of various invasions and of civil wars;

sometimes the archbishops and bishops of great cities, whom

Charlemagne and his successors had frequently invested with

duchies and counties escheated to the crown, reckoning that

lords elected for life would remain more dependent than

hereditary lords; sometimes, finally, they were the

magistrates themselves, who, although elected by the people,

received from the monarch the title of imperial vicars, and

took part with the nobles and prelates in the Plaids

(placita), or diets of Roncaglia. After a stay of some months,

the emperor returned with his army into Germany; the nobles

retired to their castles, the prelates and magistrates to

their cities: neither of these last acknowledged a superior

authority to their own, nor reckoned on any other force than

what they could themselves employ to assert what they called

their rights. Opposite interests could not fail to produce

collision, and the war was universal."

J. C. L. de Sismondi,

History of the Italian Republics,

chapter 1.

{1809}

During the reign of Henry II. (A. D. 1002-1024), against whom

a rival king of Italy was set up by the Italians, "there was

hardly any recognised government, and the Lombards became more

and more accustomed, through necessity, to protect themselves,

and to provide for their own internal police. Meanwhile the

German nation had become odious to the Italians. The rude

soldiery, insolent and addicted to intoxication, were engaged

in frequent disputes with the citizens, wherein the latter, as

is usual in similar cases, were exposed first to the summary

vengeance of the troops, and afterwards to penal chastisement

for sedition. In one of these tumults, at the entry of Henry

II. in 1004, the city of Pavia was burned to the ground, which

inspired its inhabitants with a constant animosity against

that emperor. Upon his death, in 1024, the Italians were

disposed to break once more their connexion with Germany,

which had elected as sovereign Conrad duke of Franconia. They

offered their crown to Robert king of France and to William

duke of Guienne." But neither of these princes would accept

the troublesome diadem; and, in the end, the archbishop of

Milan and other Lombard lords "repaired to Constance and

tendered the crown to Conrad, which he was already disposed to

claim as a sort of dependency upon Germany. It does not appear

that either Conrad or his successors were ever regularly

elected to reign over Italy; but whether this ceremony took

place or not, we may certainly date from that time the

subjection of Italy to the Germanic body. It became an

unquestionable maxim, that the votes of a few German princes

conferred a right to the sovereignty of a country which had

never been conquered, and which had never formally recognised

this superiority."

H. Hallam,

The Middle Ages,

chapter 3, part 1 (volume 1).

"The Italian Kingdom of the Karlings, the kingdom which was

reunited to Germany under Otto the Great, was … a

continuation of the old Lombard kingdom. It consisted of that

kingdom, enlarged by the Italian lands which fell off from the

Eastern Empire in the eighth century; that is by the Exarchate

and the adjoining Pentapolis, and the immediate territory of

Rome itself."

E. A. Freeman,

Historical Geography of Europe,

chapter 8, section 3.

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1000-1090.

Conquests and settlement of the Normans.

"A pilgrimage first took the Normans to Southern Italy, where

they were to found a kingdom. Here there were, if I may so

speak, three wrecks, three ruins of nations—Lombards in the

mountains, Greeks in the ports, Sicilian and African Saracens

rambling over the coasts. About the year 1000, some Norman

pilgrims assist the inhabitants of Salerno to drive out a

party of Arabs, who were holding them to ransom. Being well

paid for the service, these Normans attract others of their

countrymen hither. A Greek of Bari, named Melo or Meles, takes

them into pay to free his city from the Greeks of Byzantium.

Next they are settled by the Greek republic of Naples at the

fort of Aversa, which lay between that city and her enemies,

the Lombards of Capua (A. D. 1026). Finally, the sons of a

poor gentleman of the Cotentin, Tancred of Hauteville, seek

their fortune here. Tancred had twelve children; seven by the

same mother. It was during William's [the Conqueror's]

minority, when numbers of the barons endeavoured to withdraw

themselves from the Bastard's yoke, that these sons of

Tancred's directed their steps towards Italy, where it was

said that a simple Norman knight had become count of Aversa.

They set off penniless, and defrayed the expenses of their

journey by the sword (A. D. 1037?). The Byzantine governor, or

Katapan, engaged their services, and led them against the

Arabs. But their countrymen beginning to flock to them, they

no sooner saw themselves strong enough than they turned

against their paymasters, seized Apulia [A. D. 1042], and

divided it into twelve countships. This republic of

Condottieri held its assemblies at Melphi. The Greeks

endeavoured to defend themselves, but fruitlessly. They

collected an army of 60,000 Italians; to be routed by the

Normans, who amounted to several hundreds of well-armed men.

The Byzantines then summoned their enemies, the Germans, to

their aid; and the two empires, of the East and West,

confederated against the sons of the gentleman of Coutances.

The all-powerful emperor, Henry the Black (Henry III.),

charged Leo IX., who had been nominated pope by him, and who

was a German and kin to the imperial family, to exterminate

these brigands. The pope led some Germans and a swarm of

Italians against them [1053]; but the latter took to flight at

the very beginning of the battle, and left the warlike pontiff

in the hands of the enemy. Too wary to ill-treat him, the

Normans piously cast themselves at their prisoner's feet, and

compelled him to grant them, as a fief of the Church, all that

they had taken or might take possession of in Apulia,

Calabria, and on the other side of the strait; so that, in

spite of himself, the pope became the suzerain of the kingdom

of the Two Sicilies (A. D. 1052-1053)."

J. Michelet,

History of France,

book 4, chapter 2.

The two elder of the sons of Tancred were now dead, and the

third son, Humphrey, died not long after. A fourth brother,

Robert, surnamed Guiscard, who had lately arrived from

Normandy with reinforcements, then established himself (A. D.

1057) with some difficulty in the leadership and succession.

"He accomplished the reduction of almost all the country which

composes the present kingdom of Naples, and, extinguishing the

long dominion of the Beneventine Lombards and of the eastern

empire in Italy [see BENEVENTUM, and AMALFI], finally received

from Pope Nicholas II. the confirmation of the titles which he

had assumed, of duke of Calabria and Apulia [A. D. 1080]. …

While Robert Guiscard was perfecting his dominion on the

continent, his younger brother Roger engaged in the

astonishing design of conquering the large and beautiful

island of Sicily from the Saracens with a few Norman

volunteers. An air of romantic extravagance breathes over all

the enterprises of the Normans in Italy; and, even if we

discard the incredible tales which the legends and chronicles

of the times have preserved of the valour and corporeal

strength of these northern warriors, enough will remain in the

authentic results of their expeditions to stagger the reason

and warm the imagination with attractive visions of chivalrous

achievement. … We are assured that 300 Christian knights

were the greatest number which Roger could for many years

bring into the field; and that 136 routed a prodigious host of

Saracens at the battle of Ceramio. … But the Saracens were

embroiled in internal discord, and their island was broken up

into numerous petty states; we may, therefore, attribute to

their dissensions a great part of the success which the

chroniclers of the Normans have assigned to their good swords

alone. Roger had, however, embarked in an arduous and

laborious undertaking, which it required the unbending

perseverance and patient valour of thirty years [A. D.

1060-1090] to accomplish. … At length, all Sicily bowed to

his sway; Norman barons were infeuded over its surface; and

Roger, with the title of great count, held the island as a

fief of his brother's duchy."

G. Proctor,

History of Italy,

chapter 2, part 2.

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 56.

J. W. Barlow,

Short History of the Normans in South Europe,

chapters 1-7.

{1810}

ITALY: A. D. 1056-1122.

Beginning of the conflict of the Popes with the Emperors.

Hildebrand and Henry IV.

The War of Investitures.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122;

and GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122.

ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

The rise of the republican cities.

"The war of investitures, which lasted more than sixty years,

accomplished the dissolution of every tie between the

different members of the kingdom of Italy. Civil wars have at

least this advantage,—that they force the rulers of the

people to consult the wishes of their subjects, oblige them to

gain affections which constitute their strength, and to

compensate, by the granting of new privileges, the services

which they require. The prelates, nobles, and cities of Italy

obeyed, some the emperor, others the pope; not from a blind

fear, but from choice, from affection, from conscience,

according as the political or religious sentiment was

predominant in each. The war was general, but everywhere waged

with the national forces. Every city armed its militia, which,

headed by the magistrates, attacked the neighbouring nobles or

towns of a contrary party. While each city imagined it was

fighting either for the pope or the emperor, it was habitually

impelled exclusively by its own sentiments: every town

considered itself as a whole, as an independent state, which

had its own allies and enemies; each citizen felt an ardent

patriotism, not for the kingdom of Italy, or for the empire,

but for his own city. At the period when either kings or

emperors had granted to towns the right of raising

fortifications, that of assembling the citizens at the sound

of a great bell, to concert together the means of their common

defence, had been also conceded. This meeting of all the men

of the state capable of bearing arms was called a parliament.

It assembled in the great square, and elected annually two

consuls, charged with the administration of justice at home,

and the command of the army abroad. … The parliament, which

named the consuls, appointed also a secret council, called a

Consilio di Credenza, to assist the government, composed of a

few members taken from each division; besides a grand council

of the people, who prepared the decisions to be submitted to

the parliament. … As industry had rapidly increased, and had

preceded luxury,—as domestic life was sober, and the produce

of labour considerable,—wealth had greatly augmented. The

citizens allowed themselves no other use of their riches than

that of defending or embellishing their country. It was from

the year 900 to the year 1200 that the most prodigious works

were undertaken and accomplished by the towns of Italy. …

These three regenerating centuries gave an impulse to

architecture, which soon awakened the other fine arts. The

republican spirit which now fermented in every city, and gave

to each of them constitutions so wise, magistrates so zealous,

and citizens so patriotic, and so capable of great

achievements, had found in Italy itself the models which had

contributed to its formation. The war of investitures had

given wing to this universal spirit of liberty and patriotism

in all the municipalities of Lombardy, in Piedmont, Venetia,

Romagna, and Tuscany. But there existed already in Italy other

free cities. … Venice, … Ravenna, … Genoa, … Pisa, …

Rome, Gaëta, Naples, Amalfi, Bari, were either never conquered

by the Lombards, or in subjection too short a time to have

lost their ancient walls, and the habit of guarding them.

These cities served as the refuge of Roman civilization. …

Those cities which had accumulated the most wealth, whose

walls inclosed the greatest population, attempted, from the

first half of the twelfth century, to secure by force of arms

the obedience of such of the neighbouring towns as did not

appear sufficiently strong to resist them, … to force them

in to a perpetual alliance, so as to share their good or evil

fortune, and always place their armed force under the standard

of the dominant city. … Two great towns in the plains of

Lombardy surpassed every other in power and wealth: Milan,

which habitually directed the party of the church; and Pavia,

which directed that of the empire. Both towns, however, seem

to have changed parties during the reigns of Lothario III. and

Conrad II., who, from the year 1125 to 1152 placed in

opposition the two houses of Guelphs and Ghibelines in

Germany. … Among the towns of Piedmont, Turin took the lead,

and disputed the authority of the counts of Savoy, who called

themselves imperial vicars in that country. … The family of

the Veronese marquises, … who from the time of the Lombard

kings had to defend the frontier against the Germans, were

extinct; and the great cities of Verona, Padua, Vicenza,

Treviso, and Mantua, nearly equal in power, maintained their

independence. Bologna held the first rank among the towns

south of the Po. … Tuscany, which had also had its powerful

marquises, saw their family become extinct with the countess

Matilda, the contemporary and friend of Gregory VII. Florence

had since risen in power, destroyed Fiesole, and … was

considered the head of the Tuscan league; and the more so that

Pisa at this period thought only of her maritime expeditions.

… Such was the state of Italy, when the Germanic diet,

assembled at Frankfort in 1152, conferred the crown on

Frederick Barbarossa, duke of Swabia, and of the house of

Hohenstaufen."

J. C. L. de Sismondi,

History of the Italian Republics,

chapters 1-2.

ALSO IN:

E. A. Freeman,

Historical Geography of Europe,

chapter 8, section 3.

W. K. Williams,

The Communes of Lombardy

(Johns Hopkins University Studies, 9th series, 5-6).

H. Hallam,

The Middle Ages,

chapter 3, part 1 (volume 1).

Europe during the Middle Ages

(Lardner's Cabinet Cyclop.,

volume 1, chapter 1).

See, also,

FLORENCE: 12TH CENTURY.

ITALY: A. D. 1063.

Birth of Pisan architecture.

See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

ITALY: A. D. 1077-1102.

Countess Matilda's donation to the Holy See.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

{1811}

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1081-1194.

Robert Guiscard's invasions of the Eastern Empire.

Union of Sicily with Apulia, and creation of the Kingdom of

the Two Sicilies, or Naples.

"The success of his brother [Roger, in Sicily—see above:

A. D. 1000-1090] furnished another spur to the ambition of

Robert Guiscard. Taking advantage of a dynastic revolution at

Constantinople, he and his son Bohemund commenced a series of

invasions of the Eastern Empire [see BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D.

1081-1085] which only ended with his death. These, though

unsuccessful in their ultimate result, were influential causes

of the first crusade, and deeply affected the relations of East

and West for years to come. Meanwhile in Sicily Roger had been

succeeded by his son [Roger II.], and, in 1127, this heir of

the destinies of his race added the dukedom of Apulia to that

of Sicily, obtained from Pope Anacletus the title of king, and

finally established the Norman kingdom of Naples [also called

the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies]. His character is thus

described by a contemporary chronicler: 'He was a lover of

justice and most severe avenger of crime. He abhorred lying;

did everything by rule, and never promised what he did not

mean to perform. He never persecuted his private enemies; and

in war endeavoured on all occasions to gain his point without

shedding of blood. Justice and peace were universally observed

throughout his dominions.' During his reign the intercourse

between England and Sicily was close. The government was

organized on principles very similar to that of England. …

Under his wise rule and that of his immediate successors, the

south of Italy and Sicily enjoyed a transient gleam of

prosperity and happiness. Their equal and tolerant government,

far surpassing anything at that day in Europe, enabled the

Saracen, the Greek, and the Italian to live together in

harmony elsewhere unknown. Trade and industry flourished, the

manufacture of silk enriched the inhabitants, and the kingdom

of Naples was at peace until she was crushed under the iron

heel of a Teutonic conqueror."

A. H. Johnson,

The Normans in Europe,

chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

E. A. Freeman,

The Normans at Palermo

(Historical Essays, 3d series).

J. W. Barlow,

Short History of the Normans in South Europe,

chapters 8-11.

ITALY: A. D. 1096-1102.

The First Crusades.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099; and 1101-1102.

ITALY: A. D. 1138.

The accession of the Hohenstaufens to the Imperial throne, and

the origin, in Germany, of the Guelf and Ghibelline factions.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268.

ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.

The first and second expeditions of Frederick Barbarossa.

Frederick I., the second of the emperors of the Hohenstaufen

line, called by the Italians Frederick Barbarossa (Red beard),

was elected king at Frankfort in March, 1152. In October,

1154, he crossed the Alps and entered Italy with a strong

German army, having two purposes in view:

1. To receive the imperial crown, from the hands of the Pope,

and to place on his own head, at Pavia, the iron crown of

Lombardy or Italy.

2. To reduce to order and submission the rising city-republics

of Lombardy and Tuscany, which had been growing rapidly in

independence and power during the last four troubled imperial

reigns.

At Roncaglia, he held the diet of the kingdom, and listened to

many complaints, especially against Milan, which had undoubtedly

oppressed the weaker towns of its neighbourhood and abused its

strength. Then he moved through the country, making a personal

inspection of affairs, and giving a taste of his temper by

burning the villages which failed to supply provisions to his

troops with satisfactory promptitude. At Tortona he ordered

the inhabitants to renounce their alliance with the Milanese.

They refused, and endured in the upper portion of the city a

siege of two months. Forced by want of water to surrender, at

last, they were permitted to go free, but their town was

sacked and burned. Asti, Chieri, Rosate, and other places of

more or less importance, were destroyed. Frederick did not

venture yet to attack Milan, but proceeded to Rome, demanding

the imperial crown. The pope (Adrian IV.) and the Romans were

alike distrustful of him, and he was not permitted to bring

his army into the city. After no little wrangling over

ceremonious details, and after being compelled to lead the

horse and to hold the stirrup of the haughty pontiff,

Barbarossa was finally crowned at St. Peter's, in the Vatican

suburb. The Romans attempted to interrupt the coronation, and

a terrible tumult occurred in which a thousand of the citizens

were slain. But the Germans made no attempt to take possession

of the city. On the contrary, they withdrew with haste, and

the emperor led his army back to Germany, burning Spoleto on

the way, because it failed in submissiveness, and marking a

wide track of ruin and desolation through Italy as he went.

This was in the summer of 1155. Three years passed, during

which the Italian cities grew more determined in their

independence, the emperor and his German subjects more bitter

in hostility to them, and the pope and the emperor more

antagonistic in their ambitions. In 1158 Frederick led a

second expedition into Italy, especially determined to make an

end of the contumacy of Milan. He began operations by creating

a desert of blackened country around the offending city, being

resolved to reduce it by famine. Mediators, however, appeared,

who brought about a treaty of pacification, which interrupted

hostilities for a few weeks. Then the Milanese found occasion

to accuse the emperor of a treacherous violation of the terms

of the treaty and again took up arms. The war was now to the

death. But, before settling to the siege of Milan, Frederick

gave himself the pleasure, first, of reducing the lesser city

of Crema, which continued to be faithful among the allies of

the Milanese. He held some children of the town in his hands,

as hostages, and he bound them to the towers which he moved

against the walls, compelling the wretched citizens to kill

their own offspring in the act of their self-defense. By such

atrocities as this, Crema was taken, at the end of seven

months, and destroyed. Then Milan was assailed and

beleaguered, harassed and blockaded, until, at the beginning

of March, 1162, the starved inhabitants gave up their town.

Frederick ordered the doomed city "to be completely evacuated,

so that there should not be left in it a single living being.

On the 25th of March, he summoned the militias of the rival

and Ghibeline cities, and gave them orders to rase to the

earth the houses as well as the walls of the town, so as not

to leave one stone upon another. Those of the inhabitants of

Milan whom their poverty, labour and industry attached to the

soil, were divided into four open villages, built at a

distance of at least two miles from the walls of their former

city. Others sought hospitality in the neighbouring towns of

Italy. …

{1812}

Their sufferings, the extent of their sacrifices, the

recollection of their valour, and the example of their noble

sentiments, made proselytes to the cause of liberty in every

city into which they were received." Meantime Frederick

Barbarossa returned to Germany, with his fame as a puissant

monarch much augmented.

J. C. L. de Sismondi,

History of the Italian Republics,

chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

U. Balzani,

The Popes and the Hohenstaufen,

chapters 3-5.

G. B. Testa,

History of the War of Frederick I.

against the Communes of Lombardy,

books 1-6.

E. A. Freeman,

Frederick the First, King of Italy

(Historical Essays, 1st series).

ITALY: A. D. 1163-1164.

Third visitation of Frederick Barbarossa.

The rival Popes.

Frederick Barbarossa entered Italy for the third time in 1163,

without an army, but imposingly escorted by his German nobles.

He imagined that the country had been terrorized sufficiently

by the savage measures of his previous visitation to need no

more military repression. But he found the Lombard cities

undismayed in the assertion of their rights, and drawing

together in unions which had never been possible among them

before. The hostility of his relations with the Papacy and

with the greater part of the Church gave encouragement to

political revolt. His quarrel with Pope Hadrian had been ended

by the death of the latter, in 1159, but only to give rise to

new and more disturbing contentions. It had grown so bitter

before Hadrian died that the Pope had allied himself by treaty

with Milan, Crema, and other cities resisting Frederick, and

had promised to excommunicate the emperor within forty days.

Sudden death frustrated the combination. At the election of

Hadrian's successor there was a struggle of factions, each

determined to put its representative in the papal chair, and

each claiming success. Two rival popes were proclaimed and

consecrated, one under the name of Alexander III., the other

as Victor IV. Frederick recognized the latter, who made

himself the emperor's creature. The greater part of

Christendom soon gave its recognition to the former, although

he had been driven to take refuge in France. Pope Alexander

excommunicated Frederick and Frederick's pope, and Pope Victor

retorted like anathemas. Whether the curses of Alexander were

more effectual, or for other reasons, the authority of Victor

dwindled, and he himself presently died (April 1164), while

Frederick was making his third inspection of affairs in Italy.

The emperor found it impossible to execute his unbending will

without an army. Verona, Vicenza, Padua, and Treviso held a

congress and openly associated themselves for common defense.

Frederick attempted to make use of the militia forces of

Pavia, Cremona, and other Ghibelline towns against them; but

he found even these citizen-soldiers so mutinous with

disaffection that he dared not pursue the undertaking. He

returned to Germany for an army more in sympathy with his

obstinate designs against Italian liberty.

U. Balzani,

The Popes and the Hohenstaufen,

chapters 4-5.

ALSO IN:

H. H. Milman,

History of Latin Christianity,

book 8, chapters 7-8.

G. B. Testa,

History of the War of Frederick I. against

the Communes of Lombardy,

book 7.

ITALY: A. D. 1166-1167.

The fourth expedition of Frederick Barbarossa.

The League of Lombardy.

"When Frederick, in the month of October, 1166, descended the

mountains of the Grisons to enter Italy [for the fourth time]

by the territory of Brescia, he marched his army directly to

Lodi, without permitting any act of hostility on the way. At

Lodi, he assembled, towards the end of November, a diet of the

kingdom of Italy, at which he promised the Lombards to redress

the grievances occasioned by the abuses of power by his

podestas, and to respect their just liberties; he was desirous

of separating their cause from that of the pope and the king

of Sicily; and to give greater weight to his negotiation, he

marched his army into central Italy. … The towns of the

Veronese marches, seeing the emperor and his army pass without

daring to attack them, became bolder: they assembled a new

diet, in the beginning of April, at the convent of Pontida,

between Milan and Bergamo. The consuls of Cremona, of Bergamo,

of Brescia, of Mantua and Ferrara met there and joined those

of the marches. The union of the Guelphs and Ghibellines, for

the common liberty, was hailed with universal joy. The

deputies of the Cremonese, who had lent their aid to the

destruction of Milan, seconded those of the Milanese villages

in imploring aid of the confederated towns to rebuild the city

of Milan. This confederation was called the League of

Lombardy. The consuls took the oath, and their constituents

afterwards repeated it, that every Lombard should unite for

the recovery of the common liberty; that the league for this

purpose should last twenty years; and, finally, that they

should aid each other in repairing in common any damage

experienced in this sacred cause, by anyone member of the

confederation: extending even to the past this contract for

reciprocal security, the league resolved to rebuild Milan. The

militias of Bergamo, Brescia, Cremona, Mantua, Verona, and

Treviso, arrived the 27th of April, 1167, on the ground

covered by the ruins of this great city. They apportioned

among themselves the labour of restoring the inclosing walls;

all the Milanese of the four villages, as well as those who

had taken refuge in the more distant towns, came in crowds to

take part in this pious work; and in a few weeks the new-grown

city was in a state to repel the insults of its enemies. Lodi

was soon afterwards compelled, by force of arms, to take the

oath to the league; while the towns of Venice, Placentia,

Parma, Modena, and Bologna voluntarily and gladly joined the

association."

J. C. L. de Sismondi,

History of the Italian Republics,

chapter 2.

Meantime Frederick Barbarossa had made himself master of the

city of Rome. The Roman citizens had boldly ventured out to

meet his German army and its allies on the Tusculan hills and

had suffered a frightful defeat. Then some part of the walls

of the Leonine City were carried by assault and the

castellated church of St. Peter's was entered with ax and

sword. Two German archbishops were among the leaders of the

force which took the altars of the temple by storm and which

polluted its floors with blood. Frederick's new 'anti-pope,

Paschal III., successor to Victor IV., was now enthroned, and

the empress was formally crowned in the apostolic basilica.

Pope Alexander, who had been in possession of the city,

withdrew, and the victorious emperor appeared to have the

great objects of his burning ambition within his grasp.

"Destiny willed otherwise. It was now August; the sun was

burning the arid Campagna and oppressing the weary German

troops. A slight rain came to refresh them, but the following

day sudden destruction fell upon the camp.

{1813}

Deadly fever attacked the army with terrible violence and

reduced it daily. The men fell in heaps, and when struck down

in the morning were dead by night. The disease took stronger

hold owing to the superstitious fears of the army and the idea

of divine vengeance, for the soldiers remembered in terror the

profanation of St. Peter's, and they felt the keen edge of the

destroying angel's sword. Decimated, dismayed, demoralised,

the imperial army was hopelessly defeated, and Frederick was

compelled to strike his tents and fly before the in visible

destroyer. … The flower of his troops lay unburied in the

furrows, and with difficulty could he manage to carry back to

their native land the bodies of his noblest and trustiest

knights. Never perhaps before had Frederick given proofs of

such unshaken strength of mind. … He returned to Germany

alone and almost a fugitive, his bravest knights dead, his

army destroyed, and leaving behind him a whole nation of proud

and watchful enemies. He returned alone, but his spirit was

undaunted and dreamt of future victory and of final revenge."

U. Balzani,

The Popes and the Hohenstaufen,

chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

J. Miley,

History of the Papal States,

book 6, chapter 2.

H. H. Milman,

History of Latin Christianity,

book 8, chapter 10.

G. B. Testa,

History of the War of Frederick I.,

books 8-9.

ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.

The last expedition of Frederick Barbarossa.

The Battle of Legnano, and the Peace of Constance.

It was not until 1174—seven years after his flight from the

Roman pestilence—that Barbarossa was able to return to Italy

and resume his struggle with Pope Alexander and the Lombard

cities. He had been detained by troubles in Germany—the

growing quarrel with his most powerful vassal, Henry the Lion,

of Saxony, more particularly. Meantime, the League of the

Lombard cities had spread and gained strength, and Pope

Alexander III. was in active co-operation with it. To better

fortify the frontiers of Lombardy, the League had built a

strong new city, at the junction of the Tanaro and Bormida,

had given it an immediate population of 15,000 people and had

named it Alessandria, after the Pope. "The Emperor, whose

arrival in Italy was urgently implored, was retained in

Germany by his mistrust of Henry the Lion, who, in order to

furnish himself with a pretext for refusing his assistance in

the intended campaign without coming to an open breach,

undertook a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, A. D. 1171; whence, after

performing his devotions at the holy sepulchre, without

unsheathing his sword in its defence, he returned to his

native country. … At length, in 1174, Frederick Barbarossa

persuaded the sullen duke to perform his duty in the field,

and for the fourth time [with an army] crossed the Alps. A

terrible revenge was taken upon Susa, which was burnt to the

ground. Alexandria [Alessandria] withstood the siege. The

military science of the age, every 'ruse de guerre,' was

exhausted by both the besiegers and the besieged, and the

whole of the winter was fruitlessly expended without any

signal success on either side. The Lombard league meanwhile

assembled an immense army in order to oppose Frederick in the

open field, whilst treason threatened him on another side. …

Henry also at length acted with open disloyalty, and declared

to the emperor, who lay sick at Chiavenna, on the lake of

Como, his intention of abandoning him; and, unshaken by

Frederick's exhortation in the name of duty and honour to

renounce his perfidious plans, offered to provide him with

money on condition of receiving considerable additions to his

power in Germany, and the free imperial town of Goslar in

gift. … Frederick, reduced to the alternative of either

following his insolent vassal, or of exposing himself and his

weakened forces to total destruction by remaining in his

present position, courageously resolved to abide the hazard,

and to await the arrival of fresh reinforcements from Germany;

the Lombards, however, saw their advantage, and attacked him

at Legnano, on the 29th of May, 1176. The Swabians (the

southern Germans still remaining true to their allegiance)

fought with all the courage of despair, but Berthold von

Zähringen was taken prisoner, the emperor's horse fell in the

thickest of the fight, his banner was won by the 'Legion of

Death,' a chosen Lombard troop, and he was given up as dead.

He escaped almost by a miracle, whilst his little army was

entirely overwhelmed."

W. Menzel,

History of Germany,

chapter 151.

After the disastrous battle of Legnano, Frederic "was at

length persuaded, through the mediation of the republic of

Venice, to consent to a truce of six years, the provisional

terms of which were all favourable to the league. … At the

expiration of the truce Frederic's anxiety to secure the crown

for his son overcame his pride, and the famous Peace of

Constance [A. D. 1183] established the Lombard republics in

real independence. By the treaty of Constance the cities were

maintained in the enjoyment of all the regalian rights,

whether within their walls or in their district, which they

could claim by usage. Those of levying war, of erecting

fortifications, and of administering civil and criminal

justice, were specially mentioned. The nomination of their

consuls, or other magistrates, was left absolutely to the

citizens; but they were to receive the investiture of their

office from an imperial legate. The customary tributes of

provision during the emperor's residence in Italy were

preserved; and he was authorized to appoint in every city a

judge of appeal in civil causes. The Lombard league was

confirmed, and the cities were permitted to renew it at their

own discretion; but they were to take every ten years an oath

of fidelity to the emperor. This just compact preserved, along

with every security for the liberties and welfare of the

cities, as much of the imperial prerogatives as could be

exercised by a foreign sovereign consistently with the

people's happiness. … The Peace of Constance presented a

noble opportunity to the Lombards of establishing a permanent

federal union of small republics. … But dark, long-cherished

hatreds, and that implacable vindictiveness which, at least in

former ages, distinguished the private manners of Italy,

deformed her national character. … For revenge she threw

away the pearl of great price, and sacrificed even the

recollection of that liberty which had stalked like a majestic

spirit among the ruins of Milan."

H. Hallam,

The Middle Ages,

chapter 3, part 1 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

U. Balzani,

The Popes and the Hohenstaufen,

chapter 6.

G. B. Testa,

History of the War of Frederick I.,

book 10.

See, also,

VENICE: A.D. 1177.

{1814}

A. D. 1183-1250.

Frederick II. and the end of the Hohenstaufen struggles.

After the settlement of the Peace of Constance, Frederick

Barbarossa made no further attempt to destroy the now well

established liberties of the north Italian cities. On the

contrary, he devoted himself, with considerable success, to

the regaining of their confidence and good-will, as against

the papacy, with which his relations were not improved. In

southern Italy, he acquired an important footing by the

marriage of his son Henry (already crowned King of Rome, as

Henry VI.), to Constance, the sole heiress of the Norman

kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Soon after which he went

crusading to the Holy Land, and perished in Asia Minor (A. D.

1190). His son and successor, Henry VI., who survived him but

seven years, was occupied so much in securing the Kingdom of

the Two Sicilies, already fallen to his wife (1194) by the

death of the last of the Norman kings, that he had little time

to trouble the peace of Lombardy or Germany. He was one of the

meanest of kings, faithless and cold-blooded,—brutal to the

Normans of the Sicilies and contemptible in his treatment of

the English King Richard, when his vassal of Austria made a

chance captive of the lion-hearted prince. He died in 1197,

leaving as his heir a son but four years old—the Frederick

II. of later years. There was war at once. Two rival kings

were elected in Germany, by the two factions, Guelf and

Ghibelline. The next year, one of them, Philip I., the

Ghibelline, a younger son of Frederick Barbarossa, was

assassinated; the other, Otho IV., a son of Henry the Lion,

was recognized by his opponents, and went to Rome to claim the

imperial crown. He received it, but soon quarrelled, as all

his predecessors had done, with the pope (the great pope

Innocent III. being now on the throne), and, Guelf as he was,

began to put himself in alliance with the Ghibellines of

Italy. Meantime, the boy Frederick had become king of the Two

Sicilies by the death of his mother, and Pope Innocent was his

guardian. He was now brought forward by the latter as a

claimant of the Germanic crown, against Otho, and was sent

into Germany to maintain his claim. The civil war which

followed was practically ended by the battle of Bouvines (July

27, 1214—see BOUVINES) in which Otho's cause was lost. Four

years after, the latter died, and Frederick reigned in

Germany, Italy and the Two Sicilies, without a rival, holding

the three separate crowns for five years before he received

the imperial crown, in 1220. Meantime Innocent III. died, and

Frederick became involved, even more bitterly than his father

or his grandfather had been, in quarrels with the succeeding

popes. He was a man far beyond his age in intellectual

independence (see GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268) and freedom from

superstitious servility to the priesthood. His tastes were

cultivated, his accomplishments were many. He welcomed the

refinements which Europe at that time could borrow from the

Saracens, and his court was one of gaiety and splendor. His

papal enemies execrated him as a heretic, a blasphemer and an

"apocalyptic beast." His greatest original offenses had grown

out of two promises which he made in his youth:

1. To lead a crusade for the recovery of Jerusalem,—which he

was slow in fulfilling;

2. To resign his Italian possessions to his son, retaining

only the sovereignty of Germany for himself,—which promise he

did not fulfil at all.

The war of the Church against him was implacable, and he was

under its ban when he died. The pope even pursued him with

maledictions when he went, at last, upon his crusade, in 1228,

and when he did, by negotiations, free Jerusalem for a time

from the Moslems (see CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229). He was

involved, moreover, in conflicts with the Lombard cities (see

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: MEDIÆVAL LEAGUE) which the papacy

encouraged and stimulated, and, in 1236, he won a great

victory over the League, at Cortenuova, capturing the famous

"Carroccio" of the Milanese and sending it as a gift to the

Roman Senate. But, attempting to use his victory too

inflexibly, he lost the fruits of it, and all his later years

were years of trouble and disastrous war—disastrous to Italy

and to himself. He died on the 13th of December 1250. "Out of

the long array of the Germanic successors of Charles, he

[Frederick II.] is, with Otto III., the only one who comes

before us with a genius and a frame of character that are not

those of a Northern or a Teuton. There dwelt in him, it is

true, all the energy and knightly valour of his father Henry

and his grandfather Barbarossa. But along with these, and

changing their direction, were other gifts, inherited perhaps

from his Italian mother and fostered by his education among

the orange-groves of Palermo—a love of luxury and beauty, an

intellect refined, subtle, philosophical. Through the mist of

calumny and fable it is but dimly that the truth of the man

can be discerned, and the outlines that appear serve to

quicken rather than appease the curiosity with which we regard

one of the most extraordinary personages in history. A

sensualist, yet also a warrior and a politician; a profound

lawgiver and an impassioned poet; in his youth fired by

crusading fervour, in later life persecuting heretics while

himself accused of blasphemy and unbelief; of winning manners

and ardently beloved by his followers, but with the stain of

more than one cruel deed upon his name, he was the marvel of

his own generation, and succeeding ages looked back with awe,

not unmingled with pity, upon the inscrutable figure of the

last Emperor who had braved all the terrors of the Church and

died beneath her ban, the last who had ruled from the sands of

the ocean to the shores of the Sicilian sea. But while they

pitied they condemned. The undying hatred of the Papacy threw

round his memory a lurid light; him and him alone of all the

imperial line, Dante, the worshipper of the Empire, must

perforce deliver to the flames of hell."

J. Bryce,

The Holy Roman Empire,

chapter 13.

"The Emperor Frederick was a poet who could not only celebrate

the charms of his sovereign lady, 'the flower of all flowers,

the rose of May,' but could also exhibit his appreciation for

the beauties of nature. … Frederick also delighted in

sculpture, painting, and architecture. … Under his fostering

influence every branch of learning was starting into life

after the slumber of ages. Frederick's age can only be

compared to that glorious era of the Renaissance, when the sun

of learning, no longer shorn of his beams, poured a flood of

light over the dark places of Europe. Frederick was not only

distinguished for his love of polite literature, but also for

his ardour in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. He was

himself an author on medical subjects.

{1815}

He was a great patron of natural history. He used his friendly

relations with eastern kings to form a collection of animals

not often seen in Europe—the elephant, camel, giraffe, and

camelopard. He also wrote a treatise on Hawking, which is

still cited with respect. He classifies birds, and treats

generally of their habits. … But poetry and science were

very far from occupying all the thoughts of this distinguished

monarch. His great concern was the internal regulation of the

kingdom committed to his charge. His code in Sicily and Naples

was framed with the special view of securing equal rights to

all classes of his subjects, and of delivering them from the

yoke of the feudal oppressor. He stripped the nobles and

prelates of their jurisdiction in criminal cases. He also

decreed that any count or baron, carrying on war on his own

account, should lose his head and his goods. These were

amazing strides in the right direction, but the former was

quite unprecedented in feudal kingdoms. Many justiciaries were

appointed throughout the kingdom. No one might hold this

office without the authorisation of the crown. He strove to

make his officials as righteous as he was himself. He himself

came before his courts. So great was his love of justice, that

he would rather lose his cause than win it if he were in the

wrong. No advocates were allowed to practise without an

examination by the judicial bench. They were obliged to take

an oath that they would allege nothing against their

conscience. The court furnished widows, orphans, and the poor

with champions free of expense. The law, by which it was

guided, endeavoured to secure an even-handed administration of

justice."

A. B. Pennington,

The Emperor Frederick II.

(Royal Historical Society, Transactions, new series,

volume 1).

Although arbitrary and despotic in temper, the political

intelligence of Frederick led him to practical ideas of

government which were extraordinarily liberal for his age. In

his Sicilian kingdom "the towns were shorn to a great extent

of their local privileges, but were taught to unite their

strength for the common good. Twice, at least, in the course

of his reign, in 1232 and in 1240, Frederick summoned their

deputies to a conference or Parliament, 'for the weal of the

Kingdom and the general advantage of the State.' Forty-seven

cities, all belonging to the Imperial domain, sent two

deputies each to the Assembly convoked, which must not be

confounded with the Solemn Courts held by the Sovereign and

his Barons for the purpose Of revising charters, enacting

Constitutions, and regulating the government. We should be

mistaken in supposing that the Sicilian Parliament enjoyed

much of the power implied by the name. There is no trace of

any clamour against grievances, of any complaints against

officials, or of any refusal to grant supplies. The only

function of the deputies summoned seems to have been the

assessing of the public burdens. The Emperor demanded a

certain sum of money, and the deputies, meekly complying,

regulated the ways and means of raising it. 'Send your

messengers,' thus runs the writ, 'to see the Serenity of our

face on your behalf, and to bring you back our will.' Later in

the century, the Assembly acquired greater authority. It is

just possible that Simon de Montfort, who is known to have

visited the Imperial Court, may have borrowed his famous

improvement on the old English constitution from an Apulian

source; the gathering of the Commons at Foggia certainly

preceded their first meeting at Westminster by thirty years.

Other countries besides our own were indebted to Frederick for

a better mode of legislation. Shortly after his death, many of

his innovations were borrowed by his cousin Alonzo the Wise,

and were inserted in Las Siete Partidas, the new Code of

Castile. The ideas of the Suabian Emperor were evidently the

model followed by St. Louis and his successors; in France, as

well as in Southern Italy, the lawyer was feeling his way

towards the enjoyment of the power wielded of old by the

knight and the churchman; Philip the Fair was able to carry

out the projects which Frederick had merely been able to

sketch. The world made rapid strides between 1230 and 1300.

The Northern half of Italy, distracted by endless struggles,

was not insensible to the improvements introduced into the

South by her mighty son. But in the North two fatal obstacles

existed, the Papal power and the municipal spirit of the

various States, which marred all Frederick's efforts in behalf

of Italian unity." Frederick's court was the most brilliant

and refined in Europe. Mr. Kington, his historian, introduces

us to one of the Emperor's banquets, in the following

description: "A great variety of strangers meet at the

banqueting hour. Ambassadors from the Greek Monarch arrive

with a present of falcons. Some clerical visitors from Germany

are astounded to find themselves seated close to the turbaned

men of the East, and shudder on hearing that these are envoys

from the Sultan of Cairo and the Old Man of the Mountain. The

honest Germans whisper among themselves some remarks on the

late end of the Duke of Bavaria, who was stabbed at Kelheim by

a man, suspected to be an assassin, employed by the mysterious

Old Man on Frederick's behalf. The Emperor himself eats and

drinks very little. He is the very model of a host. … The

Emperor, it must be allowed, is rather loose in his talk.

Speaking of his late Crusade, he remarks: 'If the God of the

Jews had seen my Kingdom, the Terra di Lavoro, Calabria,

Sicily, and Apulia, he would not have so often praised that

land which he promised to the Jews and bestowed upon them.'

The Bishops treasure up this unlucky speech, which will one

day be noised abroad all over Italy. When the meal is over,

the company are amused by the feats of some of the Almehs,

brought from the East. Two young Arab girls of rare beauty

place themselves each upon two balls in the middle of the flat

pavement. On these they move backwards and forwards, singing

and beating time with cymbals and castanets, while throwing

themselves into intricate postures. Games and musical

instruments, procured for the Empress, form part of the

entertainment. We hear moreover of a Saracen dancer from

Aquitaine. Such sports are relished by the guests quite as

much as the Greek wine and the viands prepared by Berard the

Court cook, who is famous for his scapece; this dish,

consisting of fish boiled in salt water and sprinkled with

saffron, popular to this day in the province of Lecce, has

been derived from Apicius. … The Emperor now shows his

guests the wild beasts, which he has brought from Africa and

the East. There is the huge elephant, soon to be sent to

Cremona, the bearer of the Imperial banner, guarded by a troop

of Saracens.

{1816}

There is the female camelopard, called Seraph by the Arabs and

Italians. Next come the camels and dromedaries which carry the

Emperor's treasures when he is on the march. Lions, leopards,

panthers, and rare birds form part of the collection, and are

tended by Saracen keepers. Frederick perhaps wishes to show

his friends some sport in the Apulian plains; he has hawks of

all breeds, each of which has its name; but what most

astonishes strangers is his method of bringing down the deer.

The cheetahs, or hunting leopards of the East, are mounted on

horseback behind their keepers; these animals, as the Emperor

says, 'know how to ride.' He is a strict preserver of game; he

gives orders that the wolves and foxes, which prey upon the

small animals in his warren at Melazzo, be destroyed by means

of a poison called wolf's powder. He has many parks and

fishponds, to which he contrives to attend, even in the midst

of Lombard wars. He directs the plantation of woods, and when

a storm blows down his trees, the timber is to be sold at

Naples. … The treasures, with which Frederick dazzles the

eyes of his visitors, rival those of Solomon. The Sultan of

Egypt has given his Christian brother a tent of wonderful

workmanship, displaying the movements of the sun and moon, and

telling the hours of the day and night. This prodigy, valued

at 20,000 marks, is kept at Venosa. There is also a throne of

gold, decked with pearls and precious stones, doomed to become

the prey of Charles of Anjou and Pope Clement. There are

purple robes embroidered with gold, silks from Tripoli, and

the choicest works of the Eastern loom. Frederick charms the

ears of his guests with melodies played on silver trumpets by

black slaves, whom he has had trained. He himself knows how to

sing. Travellers, jesters, poets, philosophers, knights,

lawyers, all find a hearty welcome at the Apulian Court; if

they are natives of the Kingdom they address its Lord in the

customary second person singular, 'Tu, Messer.' He can well

appreciate the pretensions of each guest, since he is able to

converse with all his many subjects, each in his own tongue.

The Arab from Palestine, the Greek from Calabria, the Italian

from Tuscany, the Frenchman from Lorraine, the German from

Thuringia, find that Cæsar understands them all. With Latin,

of course, he is familiar. Very different is Frederick from

his Northern grandsire, who could speak nothing but German and

very bad Latin. Troubadour, Crusader, Lawgiver; German by

blood, Italian by birth, Arab by training; the pupil, the

tyrant, the victim of Rome; accused by the world of being by

turns a Catholic persecutor, a Mohammedan convert, an Infidel

freethinker; such is Frederick the Second. His character has

been sketched for us by two men of opposite politics,

Salimbene the Guelf and Jamsilla the Ghibelline, both of whom

knew him well. Each does justice to the wonderful genius of

the Emperor, and to the rapid development of the arts and

commerce under his fostering care. But all is not fair,

whatever appearances may be. Every generation of the

Hohenstaufen Kaisers seemed to add a vice to the shame of

their house. Cruelty is the one dark stain in the character of

Barbarossa; cruelty and treachery mar the soaring genius of

Henry the Sixth; cruelty, treachery, and lewdness are the

three blots that can never be wiped away from the memory of

Frederick the Second. He has painted his likeness with his own

hand. His Registers with their varied entries throw more light

upon his nature than any panegyrics or diatribes can do. One

example will be enough. If he wishes to get an impregnable

castle into his hands, he thus writes to his

general:—'Pretend some business, and warily call the

Castellan to you; seize on him if you can, and keep him till

he cause the castle to be surrendered to you.' … Frederick's

cruelty is indisputable. His leaden copes, which weighed down

the victims of his wrath until death came to the rescue, were

long the talk of Italy and are mentioned by Dante."

T. L. Kington,

History of Frederick the Second, Emperor of the Romans,

volume 1, chapter 9.

"After the death of Frederick II., an interval of twenty-three

years passed without the appointment of a king of the Romans

[the Great Interregnum—see GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272], and an

interval of sixty years without the recognition of an emperor

in Italy." Frederick's son Conrad, whom he had caused to be

crowned, was driven out of Germany and died in 1254. Another

son, Manfred, acquired the crown of Sicily and reigned for a

time; but the unrelenting pope persuaded Charles of Anjou to

make a conquest of the kingdom, and Manfred was slain in

battle (A. D. 1266). Conrad's young son, Conradin, then

attempted to recover the Sicilian throne, but was defeated,

taken prisoner, and perished on the scaffold (1268). He was

the last of the Hohenstaufen.

O. Browning,

Guelfs and Ghibellines,

chapters 2-3.

ALSO IN:

J. Bryce,

The Holy Roman Empire,

chapters 11-13.

E. A. Freeman,

The Emperor Frederick the Second

(Historical Essays, volume 1, Essay 10).

Mrs. W. Busk,

Mediæval Popes, Emperors, Kings, and Crusaders,

book 4 (volumes 3-4).

ITALY: A. D. 1198-1216.

The establishing of Papal Sovereignty in the

States of the Church.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1216.

ITALY: 13th Century.

Political conditions which prepared the way for the despots.

"The struggle between the Popes and the Hohenstaufen left

Italy in a political condition which differed essentially from

that of the other countries of the West. While in France,

Spain, and England the feudal system was so organised that, at

the close of its existence, it was naturally transformed into

a unified monarchy, and while in Germany it helped to

maintain, at least outwardly, the unity of the empire, Italy

had shaken it off almost entirely. The Emperors of the

fourteenth century, even in the most favourable case, were no

longer received and respected as feudal lords, but as possible

leaders and supporters of powers already in existence; while

the Papacy, with its creatures and allies, was strong enough

to hinder national unity in the future, not strong enough

itself to bring about that unity. Between the two lay a

multitude of political units—republics and despots—in part

of long standing, in part of recent origin, whose existence

was founded simply on their power to maintain it. In them for

the first time we detect the modern political spirit of

Europe, surrendered freely to its own instincts, often

displaying the worst features of an unbridled egoism,

outraging every right, and killing every germ of a healthier

culture.

{1817}

But, wherever this vicious tendency is overcome or in any way

compensated, a new fact appears in history—the state as the

outcome of reflection and calculation, the state as a work of

art. This new life displays itself in a hundred forms, both in

the republican and in the despotic states, and determines

their inward constitution, no less than their foreign policy.

… The internal condition of the despotically governed states

had a memorable counterpart in the Norman Empire of Lower

Italy and Sicily, after its transformation by the Emperor

Frederick II. Bred amid treason and peril in the neighbourhood

of the Saracens, Frederick, the first ruler of the modern type

who sat upon a throne, had early accustomed himself, both in

criticism and action, to a thoroughly objective treatment of

affairs. His acquaintance with the internal condition and

administration of the Saracenic states was close and intimate;

and the mortal struggle in which he was engaged with the

Papacy compelled him, no less than his adversaries, to bring

into the field all the resources at his command. Frederick's

measures (especially after the year 1231) are aimed at the

complete destruction of the feudal state, at the

transformation of the people into a multitude destitute of

will and of the means of resistance, but profitable in the

utmost degree to the exchequer. He centralised, in a manner

hitherto unknown in the West, the whole judicial and political

administration by establishing the right of appeal from the

feudal courts, which he did not, however, abolish, to the

imperial judges. No office was henceforth to be filled by

popular election, under penalty of the devastation of the

offending district and of the enslavement of its inhabitants.

Excise duties were introduced; the taxes, based on a

comprehensive assessment, and distributed in accordance with

Mohammedan usages, were collected by those cruel and vexatious

methods without which, it is true, it is impossible to obtain

any money from Orientals. Here, in short, we find, not a

people, but simply a disciplined multitude of subjects. …

The internal police, and the kernel of the army for foreign

service, was composed of Saracens who had been brought over

from Sicily to Nocera and Luceria—men who were deaf to the

cry of misery and careless of the ban of the Church. At a

later period the subjects, by whom the use of weapons had long

been forgotten, were passive witnesses of the fall of Manfred

and of the seizure of the government by Charles of Anjou; the

latter continued to use the system which he found already at

work. At the side of the centralising Emperor appeared an

usurper of the most peculiar kind: his vicar and son-in-law,

Ezzelino da Romano. … The conquests and usurpations which

had hitherto taken place in the Middle Ages rested on real or

pretended inheritance and other such claims, or else were

effected against unbelievers and excommunicated persons. Here

for the first time the attempt was openly made to found a

throne by wholesale murder and endless barbarities, by the

adoption, in short, of any means with a view to nothing but

the end pursued. None of his successors, not even Cæsar

Borgia, rivalled the colossal guilt of Ezzelino; but the

example once set was not forgotten. … Immediately after the

fall of Frederick and Ezzelino, a crowd of tyrants appeared

upon the scene. The struggle between Guelph and Ghibelline was

their opportunity. They came forward in general as Ghibelline

leaders, but at times and under conditions so various, that it

is impossible not to recognise in the fact a law of supreme

and universal necessity."

J. Burckhardt,

The Renaissance in Italy,

part 1, chapter 1, (volume 1).

ITALY: A. D. 1215.

The beginning, at Florence, the causes and the meaning of the

strife of the Guelfs and Ghibellines.

"In the year 1215 it chanced that a quarrel occurred at a

festival between some young nobles of Florence. It was an

event of as frivolous, and apparently unimportant, a character

as thousands of other such broils; but this obscure quarrel

has been treated by the whole body of Florentine historians as

the origin and starting point of that series of civil wars

which shaped the entire future fortunes of the community, and

shook to its centre the whole fabric of society throughout

central Italy. The story of it has become memorable therefore

in Florentine annals, and has been rendered famous not only by

the writers of history, but by many generations of poets,

painters, novelists, and sculptors." Briefly sketched, the

story is this: A handsome youth of the Buondelmonti family,

mixing in a quarrel at the festival alluded to, struck one

Oddo Arringhi dei Fifanti with his poniard. Common friends of

the two brought about a reconciliation, by means of an

arrangement of marriage between Buondelmonte and a niece of

the injured man. But the lady was plain, and Buondelmonte,

falling madly in love with another, more charming, whom evil

chance and a scheming mother threw temptingly in his way, did

not scruple to break his engagement, and to do it with insult.

He wedded his new love, who was of the Donati family, on

Easter Day, and on that same day he was slain by the Amidei,

whose house he had so grossly affronted. "The assassins

retired to their fortress houses, and left the bridal party to

form itself as it might into a funeral procession. 'Great was

the uproar in the city. He was placed on a bier; and his wife

took her station on the bier also, and held his head in her

lap, violently weeping; and in that manner they carried him

through the whole of the city; and on that day began the ruin

of Florence.' The last phrase of the above citation marks the

significance which the Tuscan historians have attributed to

this incident, and the important place that has always been

assigned to it in Florentine history. We are told by all the

earliest historians, especially by Malispini, in whose

childhood these events must have happened, and whom Villani

copies almost word for word, that from this quarrel began the

great, fatal, and world-famous division of Florence into the

parties of Guelph and Ghibelline. Dante goes so far as to

consider the conduct of Buondelmonte in this affair so

entirely the cause of the evils that arose from the Guelph and

Ghibelline wars, that, had that cause not existed, no such

misfortunes would have arisen. … Yet the historians admit

that the party names of Guelph and Ghibelline were known in

Florence long before; but they say that not till then did the

city divide itself into two hostile camps under those rallying

cries. It is curiously clear, from the accounts of Malispini

and Villani, that, as usual in such matters, the Florentines

had but a very hazy notion as to the meaning and origin of the

two names [see GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES, and GERMANY: A. D.

1138-1268], for the sake of which they were prepared to cut

each other's throats.

{1818}

Any name or watchword is good enough for a party rallying cry,

when once passions have been connected with it; but the

Florentines understood that Ghibelline meant attachment to the

Empire in opposition to the Church, and Guelph attachment to

the Church in opposition to the Empire. … But the quarrel of

Guelph with Ghibelline in Florence was the expression of a

still wider spread and more perennial conflict. … The

Ghibellines were the old Imperial nobles, who, whether more

anciently or more recently incorporated into the body of

Florentine citizens, formed the aristocracy of the social

body, and were naturally Imperialist in their sympathies.

These Ghibellines were the high Tories of the Florentine

community. The body of the people were Guelphs, naming

themselves after the party professing attachment to the Church

only because the Papacy was in opposition to the Empire. The

Guelphs were the Whigs of Florence. The Radicals appeared on

the scene in due time and normal sequence." From Florence, as

its center, the strife of the two factions spread throughout

Italy. "Ghibellinism was nearly universal in the north of

Italy, divided among a number of more or less well known great

families, of whom the principal were the Visconti at Milan,

and the Della Scala at Verona. Naples and the States of the

Church were Guelph; the former, as need hardly be suggested,

from political circumstances, from opposition to the Empire,

and from connection, rather than from principle. Tuscany and

the whole of Central Italy were divided between the two,

although the real strength and stronghold of genuine Guelphism

was there. Without Florence, there would have been no Guelph

party. Had those stout sandalled and leather-jerkined

Florentine burghers of the 13th century not undertaken and

persevered in that crusade against the feudal nobles and the

Ghibelline principle, which … was the leading occupation and

idea of the Commonwealth during all that century, Ghibellinism

and Imperialism would have long since possessed and ruled

Italy from the Alps to the toe of the boot."

T. A. Trollope,

History of the Commonwealth of Florence,

book 1, chapter 3,

and book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1).

"One party called themselves the Emperor's liegemen, and their

watchword was authority and law; the other side were the

liegemen of Holy Church, and their cry was liberty; and the

distinction as a broad one is true. But a democracy would

become Ghibelline, without scruple, if its neighbour town was

Guelf; and among the Guelf liegemen of the Church and liberty,

the pride of blood and love of power were not a whit inferior

to that of their opponents. Yet … it is not impossible to

trace in the two factions differences of temper, of moral and

political inclinations, which, though visible only on a large

scale and in the mass, were quite sufficient to give meaning

and reality to their mutual opposition. … The Ghibellines as

a body reflected the worldliness, the license, the irreligion,

the reckless selfishness, the daring insolence, and at the

same time the gaiety and pomp, the princely magnificence and

generosity and largeness of mind of the House of Swabia [the

Hohenstaufen]; they were the men of the court and camp. …

The Guelfs, on the other hand, were the party of the middle

classes; they rose out of and held to the people; they were

strong by their compactness, their organisation in cities,

their commercial relations and interests, their command of

money. Further, they were professedly the party of strictness

and religion. … The genuine Guelf spirit was austere,

frugal, independent, earnest, religious; fond of its home and

Church, and of those celebrations which bound together Church

and home; … in its higher form intolerant of evil, but

intolerant always of whatever displeased it. Yet there was a

grave and noble manliness about it which long kept it alive in

Florence."

R. W. Church,

Dante and other Essays,

pages 15-18.

See, also,

FLORENCE: A. D. 1215-1250.

ITALY: A. D. 1236-1259.

The tyranny of Eccelino di Romano in the Veronese or Trevisan

Marches, and the crusade against him.

See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.

ITALY: A. D. 1248-1278.

The wars of a generation of the Guelfs and Ghibellines in

Tuscany.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1250-1268.

Invasion and conquest of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies by

Charles of Anjou, on the invitation of the Pope.

"The death of the Emperor Frederic II., in 1250, had been

followed in less than four years by that of his son and

successor Conrad IV., from whose son Conradin, at that time an

infant, the Crown of the Two Sicilies was usurped by his uncle

Manfred, a natural child of the deceased Frederic. The hatred

of the See of Rome, notwithstanding the frequent changes which

had occurred in the Papal Chair, still pursued the Line of

Hohenstauffen, even in this illegitimate branch, and it was

transmitted as an hereditary possession from Innocent IV.

through Alexander IV. and Urban IV., to Clement IV.

Interference in Germany itself was forbidden by the

independence of the Electoral Princes: and when it was found

impossible to obtain the nomination of an Emperor decidedly in

the Guelph interest, Alexander contented himself by

endeavouring to separate the Throne of the Two Sicilies from

that of Germany, and to establish upon the former a Feudatory,

and therefore a Champion, of the Church. Various alliances for

this purpose were projected by Alexander, and by his

successors who adopted a similar policy; and the Crown, which

was in truth to be conquered from Manfred, was offered as an

investiture which Rome had a full right to bestow." After long

negotiations with Henry III. of England, who coveted the

Sicilian prize for his second son, Edmund, and who paid large

sums to the papal treasury by way of earnest money, but who

showed little ability to oust the possessor, Pope Urban, at

length, closed a bargain with that ambitious speculator in

royal claims and titles, Charles of Anjou, brother of St.

Louis, king of France. The honesty of Louis was somewhat

troubled by the unscrupulous transaction; but his conscience

submitted itself to the instructions of the Holy Father, and

he permitted his brother to embark in the evil enterprise.

"Charles, accordingly, having first accepted the Senator-ship

of Rome, with which high magistracy he was invested by her

citizens, negotiated with the Holy See, most ably and much to

his advantage, for the loftier dignity of Kingship. In little

more than a month after he had received his Crown from the

hands of Clement IV., who had become Pope, he totally defeated

and killed his opponent Manfred, in the battle of Grandella

[near Benevento, February, 1266].

{1819}

Conradin, who had now arrived at years of discretion, was

still his rival; but the capture of the young Prince at

Tagliacozzo [1268], and his speedy committal to the

executioner, confirmed Charles of Anjou in his Kingdom, at the

everlasting ex-pense of his good name. Few incidents in

History are more calculated to awaken just indignation than

the untimely end of the brave, wronged, and gallant Conradin.

Charles of Anjou thus founded the first dynasty of his House

which reigned over the Sicilies. The pretensions which Aragon

afterwards advanced to the Crown of that Kingdom rested on a

marriage between Pedro, the eldest son of King James, and

Constance, a daughter of Manfred."

E. Smedley,

History of France,

part 1, chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

J. Michelet,

History of France,

book 4, chapter 8.

H. H. Milman,

History of Latin Christianity,

book 11, chapter 3 (volume 5).

Mrs. W. Busk,

Mediæval Popes, Emperors, Kings, and Crusaders,

book 5 (volume 4).

ITALY: A. D. 1250-1293.

Development of the popular Constitution of the Florentine

Commonwealth.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.

ITALY: A. D. 1250-1520.

The Age of the Despots.

The rise of Principalities.

"From the death of Frederick the Second [A. D. 1250] … all

practical power of an imperial kingdom in Italy may be said to

have passed away. Presently begins the gradual change of the

commonwealths into tyrannies, and the grouping together of

many of them into larger states. We also see the beginning of

more definite claims of temporal dominion on behalf of the

Popes. In the course of the 300 years between Frederick the

Second and Charles the Fifth, these processes gradually

changed the face of the Italian kingdom. It became in the end

a collection of principalities, broken only by the survival of

a few oligarchic commonwealths and by the anomalous dominion

of Venice on the mainland. Between Frederick the Second and

Charles the Fifth, we may look on the Empire as practically in

abeyance in Italy. The coming of an Emperor always caused a

great stir for the time, but it was only for the time. After

the grant of Rudolf of Habsburg to the Popes, a distinction

was drawn between Imperial and papal territory in Italy. While

certain princes and commonwealths still acknowledged at least

the nominal superiority of the Emperor, others were now held

to stand in the same relation of vassalage to the Pope."

E. A. Freeman,

Historical Geography of Europe,

chapter 8, section 3.

"During the 14th and 15th centuries we find, roughly speaking,

six sorts of despots in Italian cities. Of these the First

class, which is a very small one, had a dynastic or hereditary

right accruing from long seignorial possession, of their

several districts. The most eminent are the houses of

Montferrat and Savoy, the Marquises of Ferrara, the Princes of

Urbino. … The Second class comprise those nobles who

obtained the title of Vicars of the Empire, and built an

illegal power upon the basis of imperial right in Lombardy. Of

these, the Della Scala and Visconti families are illustrious

instances. … The Third class is important. Nobles charged

with military or judicial power, as Capitani or Podestas, by

the free burghs, used their authority to enslave the cities

they were chosen to administer. It was thus that almost all

the numerous tyrants of Lombardy, Carraresi at Padua, Gonzaghi

at Mantua, Rossi and Correggi at Parma, Torrensi and Visconti

at Milan, Scotti at Piacenza, and so forth, erected their

despotic dynasties. … In the Fourth class we find the

principle of force still more openly at work. To it may be

assigned those Condottieri who made a prey of cities at their

pleasure. The illustrious Uguccione della Faggiuola, who

neglected to follow up his victory over the Guelfs at Monte

Catini, in order that he might cement his power in Lucca and

Pisa, is an early instance of this kind of tyrant. His

successor, Castruccio Castracane, the hero of Machiavelli's

romance, is another. But it was not until the first half of

the 15th century that professional Condottieri became powerful

enough to found such kingdoms as that, for example, of

Francesco Sforza at Milan. The Fifth class includes the

nephews or sons of Popes. The Riario principality of Forli,

the Della Rovere of Urbino, the Borgia of Romagna, the Farnese

of Parma, form a distinct species of despotisms; but all these

are of a comparatively late origin. Until the papacy of Sixtus

IV. and Innocent VIII. the Popes had not bethought them of

providing in this way for their relatives. … There remains

the Sixth and last class of despots to be mentioned. This

again is large and of the first importance. Citizens of

eminence, like the Medici at Florence, the Bentivogli at

Bologna, the Baglioni of Perugia, the Gambacorti of Pisa, like

Pandolfo Petrucci in Siena (1502), Romeo Pepoli, the usurer of

Bologna (1323), the plebeian Alticlinio and Agolanti of Padua

(1313), acquired more than their due weight in the conduct of

affairs, and gradually tended to tyranny. In most of these

cases great wealth was the original source of despotic

ascendancy. It was not uncommon to buy cities together with

their Signory. … But personal qualities and nobility of

blood might also produce despots of the Sixth class."

J. A. Symonds,

Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,

chapter 2.

ITALY: A. D. 1261-1264.

The supplanting of the Venetians by the Genoese at

Constantinople and in the Black Sea.

War between the Republics.

See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

ITALY: A. D. 1273-1291.

Indifference of Rodolph of Hapsburg to his Italian dominions.

His neglect to claim the imperial crown.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

ITALY: A. D. 1277-1447.

Tyranny of the Visconti at Milan.

Their domination in Lombardy and their fall.

See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

ITALY: A. D. 1282-1293.

War between Genoa and Pisa.

Battle of Meloria.

War of Florence and Lucca against Pisa.

See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1282-1300.

The Sicilian Vespers.

Severance of the Two Sicilies.

End of the House of Anjou in the insular kingdom.

"Peter, King of Aragon, had married Constance, the daughter of

Manfred, and laid claim to the kingdom of Sicily in her right.

He sent for help to Michael Palaiologos, the restorer of the

Eastern Empire. The Emperor agreed to his proposals, for his

Empire was threatened by Charles of Anjou. These negotiations

were, it is said, carried on through Giovanni di Procida, a

Sicilian exile, who, as the story goes, had suffered cruel

wrongs from the French. Charles knew something of the plans of

the allies, and both parties were preparing for war, but

affairs were brought to a crisis by a chance occurrence.

{1820}

On March 30, 1282, a brutal insult was offered by a French

soldier to a bride in the presence of her friends and

neighbours outside the walls of Palermo, and the smothered

hatred of the people broke out into open violence. The cry

'Death to the French' was raised, and all who belonged to that

nation in Palermo were slain without mercy. This massacre,

which is called 'The Sicilian Vespers,' spread through the

whole island; the yoke of the oppressor was broken and the

land was delivered. Charles laid siege to Messina, but he was

forced to retire by Peter of Aragon, who landed and was

received as King. Pope Martin in vain excommunicated the

rebels and their allies, and, in 1284, Charles received a

great blow, for his son was defeated and taken prisoner by

Roger of Loria, the Admiral of the Catalan fleet. Charles of

Anjou died in 1286, and two years later his son, also called

Charles, ransomed himself from prison."

W. Hunt,

History of Italy,

chapter 4.

Charles of Anjou "died of grief, leaving his son, the prince

of Salerno, a prisoner, and Martin followed him, before he

could proclaim a general crusade against the invader of the

apostolic fief. Pedro, having enjoyed his two crowns to the

day of his death, left them to his sons, Alphonso and James

respectively, and both were excommunicated by Honorius IV. for

their accession. The prince of Salerno, obtaining his release

by the mediation of Edward of England, was absolved by

Nicholas IV. from the conditions to which he had sworn, and

crowned at Rome king of Apulia (i. e., Naples) and Sicily, A.

D. 1289. His hopes of regaining the island were constantly

disappointed. James, having succeeded to the crown of Arragon

by the death of Alphonso, was persuaded to resign Sicily to

Charles on condition of receiving his daughter in marriage,

with an ample dowry. Boniface VIII. also graciously gave him

leave to conquer the islands of Corsica and Sardinia, from the

republics of Pisa and Genoa. The Sicilians, however, declining

to be so bartered, bestowed their crown on James's brother

Frederic [1295]; and though James contributed his fleet to

reduce him, he retained the island throne [1300], while

Charles and the pope were obliged to rest content with the

continental kingdom. Their only satisfaction was to persist in

calling Naples by the name of Sicily, and to stigmatise their

rival as king of 'Trinacria.'"

G. Trevor,

Rome: from the Fall of the Western Empire,

page 240.

ALSO IN:

S. A. Dunham,

History of Spain and Portugal,

book 3, section 2, chapter 4.

ITALY: A. D. 1294-1299.

War between Venice and Genoa.

See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

ITALY: A. D. 1297-1319.

The perfected aristocratic Constitution of Venice.

See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.

ITALY: A. D. 1300-1313.

New factions of Florence and Tuscany.

Bianchi and Neri.

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

ITALY: 14th Century.

The Renaissance in its beginning.

"It was not the revival of antiquity alone, but its union with

the genius of the Italian people, which achieved the conquest

of the Western world. … The civilisation of Greece and Rome,

which, ever since the fourteenth century, obtained so powerful

a hold on Italian life, as the source and basis of culture, as

the object and ideal of existence, partly also as an avowed

reaction against preceding tendencies—this civilisation had

long been exerting a partial influence on mediæval Europe,

even beyond the boundaries of Italy. The culture of which

Charles the Great was a representative was, in face of the

barbarism of the seventh and eighth centuries, essentially a

Renaissance, and could appear under no other form. … But the

resuscitation of antiquity took a different form in Italy from

that which it assumed in the North. The wave of barbarism had

scarcely gone by before the people, in whom the former life

was but half effaced, showed a consciousness of its past and a

wish to reproduce it. Elsewhere in Europe men deliberately and

with reflection borrowed this or the other element of

classical civilisation; in Italy the sympathies both of the

learned and of the people were naturally engaged on the side

of antiquity as a whole, which stood to them as a symbol of

past greatness. The Latin language, too, was easy to an

Italian, and the numerous monuments and documents in which the

country abounded facilitated a return to the past. With this

tendency other elements—the popular character which time had

now greatly modified, the political institutions imported by

the Lombards from Germany, chivalry and other northern forms

of civilisation, and the influence of religion and the

Church—combined to produce the modern Italian spirit, which

was destined to serve as a model and ideal for the whole

western world. How antiquity began to work in plastic art, as

soon as the flood of barbarism had subsided, is clearly shown

in the Tuscan buildings of the twelfth and in the sculptures

of the thirteenth centuries. … But the great and general

enthusiasm of the Italians for classical antiquity did not

display itself before the fourteenth century. For this a

development of civic life was required, which took place only

in Italy, and there not till then. It was needful that noble

and burgher should first learn to dwell together on equal

terms, and that a social world should arise which felt the

want of culture, and had the leisure and the means to obtain

it. But culture, as soon as it freed itself from the fantastic

bonds of the Middle Ages, could not at once and without help

find its way to the understanding of the physical and

intellectual world. It needed a guide, and found one in the

ancient civilisation, with its wealth of truth and knowledge

in every spiritual interest. Both the form and the substance

of this civilisation were adopted with admiring gratitude; it

became the chief part of the culture of the age."

J. Burckhardt,

The Renaissance in Italy,

part 3, chapter 1 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

J. A. Symonds,

Renaissance in Italy: Age of the Despots,

chapter 1.

See RENAISSANCE.

ITALY: A. D. 1305-1309.

Removal of the Papal Court to Lyons and then to Avignon.

The "Babylonish Captivity."

See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

Visitation of the Emperor Henry VII.

Hostility of Florence and siege of the city.

Repulse from Rome.

The Emperor's death.

"No Emperor had come into Italy since the death of Frederic

II. [1250]. Neither Rudolf nor his two successors [see

GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308] had been crowned Emperor, but on the

death of Albert of Austria, the King of the Romans, in 1308,

the electors chose Henry, Count of Luxemburg [Henry VII.]. In

1310 he entered Italy with a small German army. Unlike most of

these Imperial expeditions, this was approved of by the Pope.

{1821}

The French King Philip IV. was really master of Pope Clement

V., who did not live in Italy, but sometimes within the French

kingdom, or in the English territory of Bordeaux, or in

Avignon, a city of the Empire. But Clement did not like

bearing the French yoke, and was fearful lest some one of

greater talents than Charles of Valois should make an attempt

on Italy, and make it impossible for the Pope to get free from

the power of the French. He therefore favoured the expedition

of King Henry, and hoped that it would revive the Ghibelin

party and counteract the influence of the Guelfs, who were on

the side of France. Dante tells us the feelings which were

roused by the coming of the King. He seemed to come as God's

vicegerent, to change the fortunes of men and bring the exiled

home; by the majesty of his presence to bring the peace for

which the banished poet longed, and to administer to all men

justice; judgment and equity. Henry was worthy of these high

hopes; for he was wise, just, and gracious, courageous in

fight and honourable in council: but the task was too hard for

him. At first all seemed to go well with him. The Ghibelins

were ready to receive him as their natural lord; the Guelfs

were inclined towards him by the Pope. In Milan the chief

power was in the hands of Guido della Torre, the descendant of

Pagano della Torre, who had done good service to the city

after the battle of Corte Nuova. He was a strong Guelf, and

was at the head of a large number of troops; for he was very

rich. His great enemy was the Ghibelin Matteo Visconti, who

continually struggled with Guido for the mastery. The king was

willingly received by the Milanese, and Guido was not

behindhand in bidding him welcome. While he was at Milan, on

Christmas Day, 1310, he was crowned with the iron crown of the

Italian kingdom, which was made of steel in the shape of

laurel leaves, and studded with gems. He made both parties

enter into an outward reconciliation, and the chiefs of both

vied with one another in making him large presents. The King's

need of money soon tired out the Milanese, and an insurrection

was made in which both Matteo and Guido joined; but Matteo

betrayed his rival, and Guido and all the Guelfs were driven

out of Milan, which henceforth remained in the power of the

Ghibelin Visconti [see MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447]. The King's

demands for money made him unpopular, and each city, as he

left it, rose against him. Pisa, and the other Tuscan enemies

of Florence, received him with joy. But the great Guelfic city

shut her gates against him, and made alliance with Robert, the

Angevin King of Naples, the grandson of Charles of Anjou, and

afterwards gave him [Robert] the signoria. Rome received a

garrison from Naples, and the Imperial coronation had to be

performed in the Church of St. John Lateran,"—Henry being

repulsed in an attempt to force his entrance to the quarter of

the Vatican.

W. Hunt,

History of Italy,

chapter 4.

"The city [of Rome] was divided in feeling, and the emperor's

position so precarious that he retired to Tivoli at the end of

August, and moved towards Tuscany, ravaging the Perugian

territory on his way, being determined to bring Florence and

all her allies to submission." By rapid movements he reached

Florence and invested the city before his intentions were

understood. "A sudden assault would probably have carried the

city, for the inhabitants were taken by surprise, were in a

state of consternation, and could scarcely believe that the

emperor was there in person: their natural energy soon

returned, the Gonfaloniers assembled their companies, the

whole population armed themselves, even to the bishop and

clergy; a camp was formed within the walls, the outer ditch

palisaded, the gates closed, and thus for two days they

remained hourly expecting an assault. At last their cavalry

[which had been cut off by the emperor's movement] were seen

returning by various ways and in small detachments; succours

also poured in from Lucca, Prato, Pistoia, Volterra, Colle,

and San Gimignano; and even Bologna, Rimini, Ravenna, Faenza,

Cesina, Agobbio, Città di Castello with several other places

rendered their assistance: indeed so great and extensive was

Florentine influence and so rapid the communication, that

within eight days after the investment 4,000 men at arms and

innumerable infantry were assembled at Florence! As this was

about double the imperial cavalry and four times its infantry,

the city gates were thrown open and business proceeded as

usual, except through that entrance immediately opposite to

the enemy. For two and forty days did the emperor remain

within a mile of Florence, ravaging all the country, but

making no impression on the town; after which he raised the

siege and moved to San Casciano, eight miles south." Later,

the Imperialist army was withdrawn to Poggibonzi, and in

March, 1313, it was moved to Pisa, to prepare for a new

campaign. "The Florentines had thus from the first, without

much military skill or enterprise, proved themselves the

boldest and bitterest enemies of Henry; their opposition had

never ceased; by letters, promises, and money, they corrupted

all Lombardy. … Yet party quarrels did not cease. … The

emperor now turned all his energies to the conquest of Naples,

as the first step towards that of Italy itself. For this he

formed a league with Sicily and Genoa; assembled troops from

Germany and Lombardy; filled his treasury in various ways, and

soon found himself at the head of 2,500 German cavalry and

1,500 Italian men-at-arms, besides a Genoese fleet of 70

galleys under Lamba Doria and 50 more supplied by the King of

Sicily, who with 1,000 men-at-arms had already invaded

Calabria by capturing Reggio and other places." On the 5th of

August, the emperor left Pisa upon his expedition against

Naples; on the 24th of the same month he died at Buonconvento

—not without suspicions of poison, although his illness began

before his departure from Pisa. "The intelligence of this

event spread joy and consternation amongst his friends and

enemies; the army soon separated, and his own immediate

followers with the Pisan auxiliaries carried his body back to

Pisa where it was magnificently interred."

H. E. Napier,

Florentine History,

book 1, chapter 15 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

T. A. Trollope,

History of the Commonwealth of Florence,

book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1).

ITALY: A. D. 1312-1338.

The rising power and the reverses of the Scaligeri of Verona.

Mastino's war with Florence and Venice.

See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338:

{1822}

ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

Guelf leadership of King Robert of Naples.

Wars of Pisa and Florence.

The rise and threatening power of Castruccio Castracani.

Siege of Genoa.

Visit of the Emperor Louis of Bavaria.

Subjection and deliverance of Pisa.

"While the unexpected death of Henry VII. deprived the

Ghibelin party of its leader, and long wars between rival

candidates for the succession to the German throne placed the

imperial authority over Italy in abeyance [see GERMANY: A. D.

1314-1347], Robert, king of Naples, the chief of the Guelf

party, the possessor of Provence, and the favourite of the

church, began to aspire to the general sovereignty of Italy.

He had succeeded to the crowns of Naples and Provence on the

death of his father, Charles II., in opposition to the

recognized laws of inheritance (A. D. 1309). His elder

brother, Charles Martel, by his marriage with the heiress of

Hungary, had been called to the throne of that kingdom, and

had died before his father. His son, Carobert, the reigning

king of Hungary, on the death of his grandfather, Charles II.,

asserted his just rights to all the dominions of that monarch;

but Robert, hastening to Avignon, whither Clement V. had now

removed his court, obtained from the pope, as feudal superior

of the royal fief of Naples, a sentence which set aside the

claims of his nephew in his own favour. The king of Hungary

did not seriously attempt to oppose this decision, and Robert,

a prince of wisdom and address, though devoid of military

talents, soon extended his ambitious views beyond the kingdom

over which he reigned undisturbed." The death of Henry VII.

"left him every opportunity both to attempt the subjugation of

the Ghibelin states, and to convert his alliance with the

Guelfs into the relation of sovereign and subject. … It was

in Tuscany that the storm first broke over the Ghibelins after

the loss of their imperial chief, and that the first ray of

success unexpectedly beamed on their cause. Florence and the

other Guelf cities of the province were no sooner delivered

from the fear of Henry VII. than they prepared to wreak their

vengeance against Pisa for the succours which she had

furnished to the emperor. But that republic, in consternation

at her danger, had taken into pay 1,000 German cavalry, the

only part of the imperial army which could be prevailed upon

to remain in Italy, and had chosen for her general Uguccione

della Faggiuola, a celebrated Ghibelin captain. The ability of

this commander, and the confidence with which he inspired the

Pisans, turned the tide of fortune. … The vigour of his arms

reduced the Guelf people of Lucca to sue for peace; they were

compelled to restore their Ghibelin exiles; and then

Uguccione, fomenting the dissensions which were thus created

within the walls, easily subjected one of the most wealthy and

flourishing cities of Tuscany to his sword (A. D. 1314). The

loss of so valuable an ally as Lucca alarmed the Florentines,

and the whole Guelf party. … King Robert sent two of his

brothers into Tuscany with a body of gens-d'armerie; the

Florentines and all the Tuscan Guelfs uniting their forces to

this succour formed a large army; and the confederates

advanced to relieve the castle of Montecatini which Uguccione

was besieging." The Ghibelin commander had a much smaller

force to resist them with; but he gained, notwithstanding, "a

memorable victory, near Montecatini, in which both a brother

and a nephew of the king of Naples were numbered with the

slain (A. D. 1315). This triumph rendered Uguccione more

formidable than ever; but his tyranny became insupportable

both to the Pisans and Lucchese, and a conspiracy was formed

in concert in both cities. … Excluded from both places and

deserted by his troops, he retired to the court of the Scala

at Verona (A. D. 1316). So Pisa recovered her liberty, but

Lucca was less fortunate or wise, for her citizens only

transferred the power which Uguccione had usurped to the chief

of the Ghibelins. Castruccio Castracani degl' Interminelli,

one of the most celebrated names in Italian history. This

extraordinary man … had early in life shared the common fate

of exile with the White Guelfs or Ghibelins of Lucca. Passing

ten years of banishment in England, France, and the Ghibelin

cities of Lombardy, he had served a long apprenticeship to

arms under the best generals of the age. … He had no sooner

returned to Lucca with the Ghibelin exiles, who were restored

by the terms of the peace with Pisa, than he became the first

citizen of the state. His skill and courage mainly contributed

to the subsequent victory of Montecatini, and endeared him to

the Lucchese; his influence and intrigues excited the

jealousy of Uguccione, and caused his imprisonment; and the

insurrection which delivered Lucca from that chief, liberated

Castruccio from chains and impending death to sovereign

command. Chosen annual captain of the people at three

successive, elections, he at length demanded and obtained the

suffrages of the senate and citizens for his elevation to the

dignity of signor (A. D. 1320): … Under his government Lucca

enjoyed repose for some years. … During these transactions

in Tuscany, the Lombard plains were still desolated by

incessant and unsparing warfare. The efforts of the Neapolitan

king were mainly directed to crush Matteo Visconti [see MILAN:

A. D. 1277-1447] and the Ghibelins in this part of Italy;" but

the power of the latter was continually spreading. "In this

prosperous state of the Ghibelin interests the domestic feuds

of Genoa attracted the tide of war to her gates. The ambitious

rivalry of her four great families, of the Grimaldi, the

Fieschi, the Spinola, and the Doria, had long agitated the

bosom of the republic; and at the period before us the two

former, who headed the Guelf party, had, after various

convulsions, gained possession of the government. The Spinola

and Doria, retiring from the city, fortified themselves in the

smaller towns of the Genoese territory, and immediately

invited the Ghibelin chiefs of Lombardy to their aid. The

lords of Milan and Verona promptly complied with the demand,

… and laid siege to the capital. The rulers of Genoa could

then resort in their terror to no other protection than that

of the Neapolitan king. Robert, conscious of the importance of

preserving the republic from subjection to his enemies,

hastened by sea to its defence, and obtained the absolute

cession of the Genoese liberties into his hands for ten years

as the price of his services. … After the possession of the

suburbs and outworks of Genoa had been obstinately contested

during ten months, the Ghibelins were compelled to raise the

siege. But Robert had scarcely quitted the city to pass into

Provence, when the exiles with aid from Lombardy again

approached Genoa, and during four years continued a war of

posts in its vicinity.

{1823}

But neither the Lombard signors nor Robert engaged in this

fruitless contest, and Lombardy again became the great theatre

of warfare." But the power which Matteo Visconti was steadily

building at Milan, for his family, could not be shaken, even

though an invasion from France (1320), and a second from

Germany (1322), was brought about through papal influence. At

the same time Castruccio Castracani, having consolidated his

despotism at Lucca, was making war upon the Florentines. When,

in 1325, he succeeded in gaining possession of the Guelf city

of Pistoia, "this acquisition, which was highly dangerous to

Florence, produced such alarm in that republic that she called

out her whole native force for the more vigorous prosecution

of the war." Castruccio was heavily outnumbered in the

campaign, but he gained, nevertheless, a great victory over

the Florentines near the castle of Altopascio (November 23,

1325). "The whole Florentine territory was ravaged and

plundered, and the conqueror carried his insults to the gates

of the capital. … In the ruin which threatened the Guelf

party in Tuscany, the Florentines had recourse to King Robert

of Naples, with entreaties for aid," which he brought to them

in 1326, but only on the condition "that his absolute command

over the republic, which had expired in 1321, should be

renewed for ten years in favour of his son Charles, duke of

Calabria." But now a new danger to the Guelf interests

appeared, in the approach of the emperor, Louis IV. of

Bavaria. "After a long contest for the crown of Henry VII.,

Louis of Bavaria had triumphed over his rival, Frederic of

Austria, and taken him prisoner at the sanguinary battle of

Muhldorf, in 1322. Having since passed five years in

confirming his authority in Germany, Louis was now tempted by

ambition and cupidity to undertake an expedition into Italy

(A. D. 1327)." Halting for some time at Milan, where he

received the iron crown of Lombardy, and where he deposed and

imprisoned Galeazzo Visconti, he proceeded into Tuscany "on

his march to Rome, where he intended to receive the imperial

crown. He was welcomed with joy by the signor of Lucca, and

the superior genius of Castruccio at once acquired the entire

ascendant over the weaker mind of Louis. Against the united

forces of the emperor and of Castruccio, the duke of Calabria

and his Guelf army cautiously maintained themselves on the

defensive; but the passage of Louis through Tuscany was

attended with disastrous consequences to the most famous

Ghibelin city of that province." Pisa, notwithstanding the

long fidelity of that republic to the Ghibelin cause, was

sacrificed by the emperor to the covetous ambition of

Castruccio. The forces of the two were joined in a siege to

which the unfortunate city submitted after a month. "She thus

fell in reality into the hands of Castruccio, who shortly

established his absolute authority over her capital and

territory. After extorting a heavy contribution from the

Pisans, and rewarding the services of Castruccio by erecting

the state of Lucca into an imperial duchy in his favour, the

rapacious emperor pursued his march to Rome. There he consumed

in the frivolous ceremony of his coronation [January 17,

1328], and in the vain endeavour to establish an antipope, the

time which he might have employed, with the forces at his

command, and in conjunction with Frederic, king of Sicily, in

crushing for ever the power of Robert of Naples and of all the

Guelfs of Italy who depended on that monarch." In August of

the same year Castruccio, who "had now attained an elevation

which seemed to threaten … the total subjugation of all

Italy," died suddenly of a fever. "Florence breathed again

from impending oppression, Pisa recovered her freedom, and

Lucca sank from ephemeral splendour into lasting obscurity. By

the death of Castruccio the emperor had lost his best

counsellor and firmest support, and he soon ceased to be

formidable to the Guelfs. … Hastily returning into Tuscany,

he plundered the infant orphans of Castruccio of their

inheritance to sell Lucca to a new signor, and to impose

ruinous contributions upon the Pisans, before his return into

Lombardy delivered them from tyranny. … The first proceeding

of Louis in Lombardy had been to ruin the Visconti, and to

drain their states of money: almost his last act in the

province was to make the restoration of this family to power a

new source of profit." In 1330 the emperor returned to

Germany, recalled by troubles in that part of his dominions.

G. Procter,

History of Italy,

chapter 4, part 2.

ALSO IN:

N. Machiavelli,

The Florentine Histories,

book 2.

H. E. Napier,

Florentine History,

book 1, chapters 15-18 (volume 1).

ITALY: A. D. 1314-1327.

The election and contest of rival emperors, Louis of Bavaria

and Frederick of Austria.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.

ITALY: A. D. 1341-1343.

Defeat of the Florentines by the Pisans, before Lucca.

Brief tyranny of the Duke of Athens at Florence.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1341-1343.

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1343-1389.

Troubled reign of Joanna I. in Naples.

Murder of her husband, Andrew of Hungary.

Political effects of the great Schism in the Church.

The war of Charles of Durazzo and Louis of Anjou.

Violent course of Pope Urban VI.

"In Naples itself the house of Anjou fell into disunion.

Charles II. of Naples gained by marriage the dowry of Hungary

[see HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1342], which passed to his eldest son

Charles Martel, while his second son, Robert, ruled in Naples.

But Robert survived his only son, and left as heiress of the

kingdom [1343] his grand-daughter Giovanna [better known as

Joan, or Joanna]. The attempt to give stability to the rule of

a female by marriage with her cousin, Andrew of Hungary, only

aroused the jealousy of the Neapolitan nobles and raised up a

strong party in opposition to Hungarian influence. Charles II.

of Naples, Giovanna's great-grand-father, had left many sons

and daughters, whose descendants of the great houses of

Durazzo and Tarento, like those of the sons of Edward III. in

England, hoped to exercise the royal power. When, in 1845,

Pope Clement VI. was on the point of recognising Andrew as

King of Naples, a conspiracy was formed against him, and he

was murdered, with the connivance, as it was currently

believed, of the Queen. Hereon the feuds in the kingdom blazed

forth more violently than before; the party of Durazzo ranged

itself against that of Tarento, and demanded punishment of the

murderers; Giovanna I., to protect herself, married Lewis of

Tarento in 1347. King Lewis of Hungary, aided by the party of

Durazzo, entered Naples to avenge his brother's death, and for

a while all was confusion. On the death of Lewis of Tarento

(1362), Giovanna I. married James, King of Majorca, and on his

death (1374), Otto, Duke of Brunswick.

{1824}

Giovanna I. was childless, and the slight lull which in the

last years had come over the war of factions in Naples was

only owing to the fact that all were preparing for the

inevitable conflict which her death would bring." Neapolitan

affairs were at this stage when the great schism occurred (see

PAPACY; A. D. 1377-1417), which enthroned two rival popes, one

(Urban VI.) at Rome, and one (Clement VII.) at Avignon. Queen

Giovanna had inclined first to Urban, but was repelled, and

gave her adhesion to Clement. Thereupon, Urban, on the 21st of

April, 1380, "declared her deposed from her throne as a

heretic, schismatic, and traitor to the Pope. He looked for

help in carrying out his decree to King Lewis of Hungary, who

had for a time laid aside his desire for vengeance against

Giovanna, but was ready to resume his plans of aggrandisement

when a favourable opportunity offered. … Lewis was not

himself disposed to leave his kingdom; but he had at his court

the son of his relative, Lewis of Durazzo, whom he had put to

death in his Neapolitan campaign for complicity in Andrew's

murder. Yet he felt compassion for his young son Charles,

brought him to Hungary, and educated him at his court. As

Giovanna was childless, Charles of Durazzo, or Carlo della

Pace, as he was called in Italy, had a strong claim to the

Neapolitan throne at her death." Charles of Durazzo was

accordingly furnished with Hungarian troops for an expedition

against Naples, and reached Rome in November, 1380. "Clement

VII. on his side bestirred himself in behalf of his ally

Giovanna, and for this purpose could count on the help of

France. Failing the house of Durazzo, the house of Valois

could put forward a claim to the Neapolitan throne, as being

descended from the daughter of Charles II. The helpless

Giovanna I. in her need adopted as her heir and successor

Louis, Duke of Anjou, brother of the French king, and called

him to her aid. Clement VII. hastened to confer on Louis

everything that he could; he even formed the States of the

Church into a kingdom of Adria, and bestowed them on Louis;

only Rome itself, and the adjacent lands in Tuscany, Campania

Maritima, and Sabina were reserved for the Pope. The

Avignonese pretender was resolved to show how little he cared

for Italy or for the old traditions of the Italian greatness

of his office. Charles of Durazzo was first in the field, for

Louis of Anjou was detained in France by the death of Charles

V. in September, 1380. The accession of Charles VI. at the age

of twelve threw the government of the kingdom upon the Council

of Regency, of which Louis of Anjou was the chief member. He

used his position to gratify his chief failing, avarice, and

gathered large sums of money for his Neapolitan campaign.

Meanwhile Charles of Durazzo was in Rome, where Urban VI.

equipped him for his undertaking." In June, 1381, Charles

marched against Naples, defeated Otto, the husband of

Giovanna, at San Germano, and had the gates of Naples opened

to him by a rising within the city on the 16th of July.

Giovanna took refuge in the Castel Nuovo, but surrendered it

on the 26th of August. After nine months of captivity, the

unfortunate queen was "strangled in her prison on May 12,

1382, and her corpse was exposed for six days before burial

that the certainty of her death might be known to all.

Thenceforth the question between Charles III. and Louis was

not complicated by any considerations of Giovanna's rights. It

was a struggle of two dynasties for the Neapolitan crown, a

struggle which was to continue for the next century. Crowned

King of Naples by Clement VII., Louis of Anjou quitted Avignon

at the end of May, accompanied by a brilliant array of French

barons and knights. He hastened through North Italy, and

disappointed the hopes of the fervent partisans of Clement

VII. by pursuing his course over Aquila, through the Abruzzi,

and refusing to turn aside to Rome, which, they said, he might

have occupied, seized Urban VI., and so ended the Schism. When

he entered the territory of Naples he soon received large

accessions to his forces from discontented barons, while 22

galleys from Provence occupied Ischia and threatened Naples."

Charles, having inferior forces, could not meet his adversary

in the field, but showed great tactical skill, acting on the

defensive, "cutting off supplies, and harassing his enemy by

unexpected sallies. The French troops perished miserably from

the effects of the climate; … Louis saw his splendid army

rapidly dwindling away." But quarrels now arose between

Charles and Pope Urban; the latter went to Naples to interfere

in affairs; the King made him practically a prisoner and

extorted from him agreements which were not to his liking. But

Urban, on the 1st of January, 1384, "proclaimed a crusade

against Louis as a heretic and schismatic, and Charles

unfurled the banner of the Cross." In May the Pope withdrew

from Naples to Nocera, and there began a series of

interferences which convinced Charles "that Urban was a more

serious adversary than Louis." With the summer came attacks of

the plague upon both armies; but that of Louis suffered most,

and Louis himself died, in September, bequeathing his claims

on Naples to his eldest son. "On the death of Louis the

remnant of his army dispersed, and Charles was free from one

antagonist. … War was now declared between the Pope and the

King. … Charles found adherents amongst Urban's Cardinals."

Urban discovered the plots of the latter and threw six of them

into a dungeon, where he tortured them with brutality. Charles

attacked Nocera and took the town, but the castle in which the

Pope had fortified himself resisted a long siege. "Three or

four times a day the dauntless Pope appeared at a window, and

with bell and torch cursed and excommunicated the besieging

army." In August, 1385, Urban was rescued by some of his

partisans, who broke through the camp of the besiegers and

carried him off, still clinging to his captive cardinals, all

but one of whom he subsequently put to death. He made his way

to Trani and was there met by Genoese galleys which conveyed

him and his party to Genoa. He resided in Genoa rather more

than a year, very much to the discomfort and expense of the

Genoese, and then, after much difficulty, found shelter at

Lucca until September, 1387. Meantime Charles III. had left

Naples, returning to Hungary to head a revolt against the

widowed queen and young daughter of Lewis, who died in 1382.

There he was assassinated in February, 1386. "The death of

Charles III. again plunged the kingdom of Naples into

confusion. The Angevin party, which had been powerless against

Charles, raised against his son Ladislas, a boy of twelve

years old, the claims of Louis II. of Anjou.

{1825}

The exactions of the Queen Regent Margaret awoke

dissatisfaction, and led to the appointment in Naples of a new

civic magistracy, called the Otto di Buono Stato, who were at

variance with Margaret. The Angevins rallied under Tommaso of

Sanseverino, and were reinforced by the arrival of Otto of

Brunswick. The cause of Louis was still identified with that

of Clement VII., who, in May 1385, had solemnly invested him

with the kingdom of Naples. Urban VI., however, refused to

recognise the claims of the son of Charles, though Margaret

tried to propitiate him … and though Florence warmly

supported her prayers for help." The Pope continued obstinate

in this refusal until his death. He declared that the kingdom

of Naples had lapsed to the Holy See, and he tried to gather

money and troops for an expedition to secure it. As a means to

that end, he ordered that the year 1390 should be a year of

jubilee—a decade before the end of the century. It was his

last desperate measure to obtain money. On the 15th of October

1389 he died and one of the most disastrous pontificates in

the history of the Papacy came to an end.

M. Creighton,

History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,

book 1, chapter 1 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

Historical Life of Joanna of Sicily.

Mrs. Jameson,

Memoirs of Celebrated Female Sovereigns,

volume 1, chapter 4.

St. C. Baddeley,

Charles III. of Naples and Urban VI.

ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

The "Free Companies."

Their depredations and the wars employing them.

The Great Company.

The Company of Sir John Hawkwood.

"The practice of hiring troops to fight the battles of the

Commonwealth [of Florence—but in other Italian states no

less] had for some time past been continually on the increase.

… The demand for these mercenary troops,—a demand which …

preferred strangers from beyond the Alps,—had filled Italy

with bands of free lances, ready to take service with any

tyrant, or any free city that was willing to pay them. They

passed from one service to another, and from one side of a

quarrel to the other, with the utmost indifference and

impartiality. But from this manner of life to setting up for

themselves and warring for their own behoof there was but one

step. And no prudent man could have doubted that this step

would ere long be taken. Every circumstance of the age and

country combined to invite and facilitate it. … Already,

immediately after the fall of the Duke of Athens [at Florence,

1343], a German adventurer, one Werner, known in Italian

history as the Duke Guarnieri, had induced a large number of

the hired troops, who were then 'unattached' in Italy, mainly

those dismissed at that time from the service of Pisa, to form

themselves into an independent company and recognize him as

their leader. With equal effrontery and accuracy this ruffian

styled himself 'The enemy of God, of Pity, and of Mercy.' …

This gang of bandits numbered more than 2,000 horsemen. Their

first exploit was to threaten the city of Siena. Advancing

through the Sienese territory towards the city, plundering,

killing, and burning indiscriminately as they went, they

inspired so sudden and universal a terror that the city was

glad to buy them off with a sum of 12,000 florins. From the

Sienese territory they passed to that of Arezzo, and thence to

the district around Perugia; and then turning towards the

Adriatic, overran Romagna, and the Rimini country, then

governed by the Malatesat family. It is difficult adequately

to describe, or even to conceive the sufferings, the

destruction, the panic, the horror, which marked the track of

such a body of miscreants." Finally, by the skilful management

of the Lord of Bologna, the company was bought up and sent

across the Alps, out of Italy, in detachments. "The relief was

obtained in a manner which was sure to operate as an

encouragement to the formation of other similar bands. And

now, after the proclamation of the peace between Florence and

the Visconti, on the 1st of April, 1353, … the experiment

which had answered so well in the hands of the German 'Enemy

to God and to Mercy,' was repeated on a larger scale by a

French Knight Hospitaller of the name of Montreal, known in

Italian history as Frà Moriale. … Being out of place, it

occurred to him to collect all the fighting men in Italy who

were similarly circumstanced, and form an independent company

after the example of Guarnieri, with the avowed purpose of

living by plunder and brigandage. He was so successful that he

collected in a very short time 1,500 men-at-arms and 2,000

foot soldiers; who were subsequently increased to 5,000

cavaliers and 7,000 infantry; and this band was known as 'the

Great Company.'" There was an attempt made, at first, to

combine Florence, Siena and Perugia, with the Romagna, in

resistance to the marauders; but it failed. "The result was

that the Florentines were obliged to buy off the terrible Frà

Moriale with a bribe of 28,000 florins, and Pisa with one of

16,000. … The chief … after Frà Moriale himself, was one

Conrad, Count of Lando; and under him the Company marched

towards Lombardy in search of fresh booty, while Moriale

himself, remaining temporarily behind, went to Rome to confer

privately, as it was believed, with the Colonna chiefs,

respecting a project of employing his band against Rienzi, the

tribune. But whether such was the object of his journey to

Rome or not, it was fatal to the brigand chief. For Rienzi no

sooner knew that the notorious Frà Moriale was within his

jurisdiction than he arrested him, and summarily ordered him

to execution as a common malefactor. The death of the chief,

however, did not put an end to 'the Great Company'; for Conrad

of Lando remained, and succeeded to the command of it." From

1356 to 1359, Italy in different parts was preyed upon by 'the

Great Company,' sometimes in the service of the league of the

lesser Lombard princes against the Visconti of Milan, and once

in the employ of Siena against Perugia; but generally

marauding on their own account, independently. Florence,

alone, stood out in resistance to their exactions, and finally

sent into the field against them 2,000 men-at-arms, all tried

troops, 500 Hungarians: and 2,500 cross-bowmen, besides the

native troops of the city. Subsequently the Florentine forces

were joined by others from Milan, Padua, and elsewhere. The

bandits marched all around the Florentine frontier, with much

bluster, making great threats, but constantly evading an

engagement. At length, on the 20th of July, 1359, the two

armies were in such a position that "it was thought in the

Florentine camp that a decisive battle would be fought on the

morrow. But when that July morning dawned, Lando and his

bandit host were already in full march northwards towards

Genoa, with a precipitation that had all the appearance of

flight. … 'The Great Company never again dared to show its

face in Tuscany.'"

T. A. Trollope,

History of the Commonwealth of Florence,

book 3, chapter 6 (volume 2).

{1826}

"Another company, consisting principally of Englishmen [lately

turned loose in France by the Peace of Bretigny, 1360, which

terminated the invasion of Edward III.], was brought into

Italy at a somewhat later period by the Marquis of Montferrat.

… About the same time another, composed principally of

Germans, and commanded by Amichino Baumgarten, was raised by

Galeazzo Visconti, and afterwards employed by the Pisans.

Another, entitled that of St. George, was formed by Ambrose,

the natural son of Bernabos Visconti, and let loose by him on

the territories of Perugia and Sienna. Thus, at the end of the

14th century, Italy was devastated at one and the same time by

these four companies of adventurers, or, as they might more

justly be called, professional robbers. … Of all these

companies, the military reputation of the English was

undoubtedly the greatest—a circumstance which may be

ascribed, in some degree, to the physical superiority of the

men, but still more to the talents of Sir John Hawkwood, by

whom they were commanded."

W. P. Urquhart,

Life and Times of Francesco Sforza,

book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

One of the marauding companies left in France after the Peace

of Bretigny, and which afflicted that wretched country so

sorely (see FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380), was called the White

Company, and Sir John Hawkwood was one of its commanders. "The

White Company crossed into Lombardy, under the command of one

Albaret, and took service under the Marquis of Montferrat,

then at war with the Duke of Milan. Hawkwood [called Giovanni

Aguto by the Italians] entered the Pisan service, and next

year, when the marquis, being unable to maintain his English

troops, disbanded them, the Pisans engaged them, and gave

Hawkwood the command." Hawkwood and his company served Pisa,

in war with Florence, until 1364, when they experienced a

great defeat, which led to peace and their discharge. During

the next three years they lived as independent freebooters,

the territories of Siena suffering most from their

depredations. Then they took service with Bernabo Visconti,

Lord of Milan, making war for him on Florence and its allies;

but very soon their arms were turned against Milan, and they

were fighting in the pay of Florence and the Pope. "Within the

next five years he changed sides twice. He served Galeazzo

Visconti against the Papal States; and then, brought back to

fight for Holy Church, defeated his late employer in two

pitched battles." After this, when the league against an

aggressive and ambitious pontiff extended, and Florence,

Bologna and other cities joined Milan, Hawkwood took money

from both at the same time, and cheated both, preliminarily to

fighting each in turn. While serving the Pope his ruffians

wantonly destroyed the captured town of Casena, massacring

between 4,000 and 5,000 people, women and children included.

In 1378, when Gregory XI. died, peace followed, and Hawkwood's

company resumed its old freebooting. In 1381 he was engaged in

the Neapolitan civil war. In 1387 he seems to have become

permanently engaged in the service of Florence against the

Duke of Milan. "In 1391, Florence concluded a general peace

with all her enemies. Her foreign auxiliaries were dismissed,

with the exception or Sir John Hawkwood and 1,000 men.

Hawkwood henceforth remained in her service till his death,

which took place on the 6th of March, 1393. He was buried at

the public expense, as a valiant servant of the State."

Sir John Hawkwood

(Bentley's Miscellany,

volume 54, pages 284-291).

ALSO IN:

O. Browning,

Guelphs and Ghibellines,

chapter 12.

ITALY: A. D. 1347-1354.

Rienzi's Revolution at Rome.

See ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.

ITALY: A. D. 1348-1355.

War of Genoa against Venice, the Greeks and Aragonese.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

ITALY: A. D. 1352-1378.

Subjugation and revolt of the States of the Church.

War of the Pope with Florence.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378.

ITALY: A. D. 1378-1427.

The democratizing of Florence.

Tumult of the Ciompi.

First appearance of the Medici.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427.

ITALY: A. D. 1379-1381.

Final triumph of Venice over Genoa in the War of Chioggia.

See VENICE: A. D. 1379-1381.

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1386-1414.

Renewed Civil War in Naples.

Defeat of the Angevins and triumph of Ladislas.

His ambitious career.

His capture and recapture of Rome.

"The death of Charles III. involved the kingdom of Naples in

the most ruinous anarchy; and delivered it for many years a

prey to all the disorders of a long minority and a disputed

throne. Charles had left two children, Ladislaus, a boy of ten

years old, and a daughter, Joanna; and his widow Margaret

acted as regent for her son. On the other hand, the

Sanseverini and other baronial families, rallying the Angevin

party, proclaimed the young son of the late duke of Anjou

king,—also under the guardianship of his mother, Maria,—by

the title of Louis II. Thus Naples was disturbed by the rival

pretensions of two boys, placed beneath the guidance of

ambitious and intriguing mothers, and severally protected by

two popes, who excommunicated each other, and laboured to

crush the minors whom they respectively opposed, only that

they might establish their own authority over the party which

they supported. … For several years the Angevin party seemed

to maintain the ascendancy. Louis II. was withheld in Provence

from the scene of danger by his mother; but the barons who had

raised his standard, forcing Margaret of Durazzo and the

adherents of her son to retire to Greta, possessed themselves

of the capital and great part of the kingdom. When Louis II.,

therefore, was at length suffered by his mother to appear at

Naples, attended by a powerful fleet and a numerous train of

the warlike nobles of France (A. D. 1390), he disembarked at

the capital amidst the acclamations of his people, and would

probably have overpowered the party of Durazzo with ease, if,

as he advanced towards manhood, he had displayed any energy of

character. But he proved very unequal, by his indolence and

love of pleasure, to contend with the son of Charles III.

Educated in the midst of alarms and danger, and surrounded

from his infancy by civil wars and conspiracies, Ladislaus had

early been exercised in courageous enterprise, and trained to

intrigue and dissimulation.

{1827}

At the age of 16, his mother Margaret committed him to the

barons of her party to make his first essay in arms; and from

this period he was ever at the head of his troops. … A

fortunate marriage, which his mother had effected for him with

Constance di Clermont, the heiress of the most opulent noble

of Sicily, increased his resources by an immense dowry; and

while he made an able use of these riches [meanly and

heartlessly divorcing the wife who brought them to him, when

they had been spent], the new Italian pope, Boniface IX., the

successor of Urban VI., recognized him for the legitimate son

and vassal of the church, because Louis was supported by the

Avignon pontiff. This decision gained him many partizans; …

his talents and valour hourly advanced his success; and at

last the Sanseverini and all the barons of the Angevin party,

following the tide of fortune, went over to his standards, and

opened to him the gates of Naples (A. D. 1399). Louis …

retired by sea to his Provençal dominions, and finally

abandoned the kingdom of Naples. Ladislaus, having thus

triumphed over his sluggish antagonist, had leisure to

consolidate his stern authority over the licentious and

turbulent feudal aristocracy of his kingdom. … He …

crushed the Sanseverini and other great families, whose power

might make them dangerous; and having rooted out the seeds of

all resistance to his sway in his own dominions, he prepared

to direct his vigorous ambition to schemes of foreign

conquest."

G. Procter,

History of Italy,

chapter 5, part 3.

Until the death of Pope Boniface IX., Ladislas supported that

pontiff through the hard struggle in which he crushed the

rebellious Colonna and made himself master of the city of

Rome. But when Boniface died, in 1404, the Neapolitan king

began to scheme for bringing the ancient capital and the

possessions of the Church under his own control. "His plan was

to set the Pope [the newly elected Innocent, VII.] and the

Roman people against one another, and by helping now one and

now the other to get them both into his power. … He trusted

that the rebellious Romans would drive the Pope from the city,

and would then be compelled to submit to himself." He had

entered Rome, four days after the papal election, ostensibly

as a mediator between the rival factions, and between the Pope

and the Roman people; and he was easily able to bring about an

arrangement which gave him every opportunity for interference

and for turning circumstances to his own advantage. Events

soon followed as he had expected them, and as he helped,

through his agents, to guide them. The turbulence of the

people increased, until, in 1405, the Pope was driven to

flight. "No sooner had the Pope left Rome than Giovanni

Colonna, at the head of his troops, burst into the Vatican,

where he took up his quarters. … The Vatican was sacked;

even the Papal archives were pillaged, and Bulls, letters and

registers were scattered about the streets. Many of these were

afterwards restored, but the loss of historic documents must

have been great." Ladislas now thought his time for seizing

Rome was come; but when he sent 5,000 horse to join the

Colonna, the Romans took alarm, repelled the Neapolitan

troops, and called back the Pope, who returned in January,

1406, but who died in the following November. Under the next

Pope, Gregory XII., there were negotiations with Avignon for

the ending of the great schism; and all the craft of Ladislas

was exerted to defeat that purpose; because a reunion of

western Christendom would not be favorable to his designs. At

last, a conference of the rival popes was arranged, to take

place at Savona, near Genoa, and in August, 1407, Gregory XII.

left Rome, moving slowly northwards, but finding reasons,

equally with his competitor, for never presenting himself at

the appointed meeting-place. In his absence the disorders of

Rome increased, and when Ladislas, in April, 1408; appeared

before the city with an army of 12,000 horse and as many foot,

it was surrendered to him without resistance. "The craft of

Ladislas had gained its end, and the temporal power of the

Papacy had passed into his hands. … So utterly had the

prestige of Rome, the memories of her glories, passed away

from men's minds, that her sister republic of Florence could

send and congratulate Ladislas on the triumphal victory which

God and his own manhood had given him in the city of Rome."

When, in 1408, the disgusted cardinals of both papal courts

joined in calling a general Council of the Church, to meet at

Pisa the following year, Ladislas threatened to prevent it. By

this time "Gregory had sank to the lowest pitch of

degradation: he sold to Ladislas for the small sum of 25,000

florins the entire States of the Church, and even Rome itself.

After this bargain Ladislas set out for Rome, intending to

proceed into Tuscany and break up the Council." Early in

April, 1409, he marched northwards and threatened Siena. But

Florence had now undertaken the defense of the Council, and

resisted him so effectually that the meeting at Pisa was

undisturbed. The immediate result of the Council was the

election of a third claimant of the Papacy, Alexander V. (see

PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417). Around the new Pope a league was now

formed which embraced Florence, Siena, and Louis of Anjou,

whose claim upon Naples was revived. The league made an

attempt on Rome in the autumn of 1409, and failed; but the

following January the Neapolitans were expelled and the city

was occupied by the papal forces. In May, 1410, Alexander V.

died, and was succeeded by Baldassare Cossa, who took the name

of John XXIII. The new Pope hastened to identify his cause

with Louis of Anjou, and succeeded, by his energy, in putting

into the field an army which comprised the four chief

"condottieri" in Italy, with their veteran followers. Ladislas

was attacked and routed completely at Rocca Secca, on the 19th

of May, 1411. But the worthlessness of Louis and the mercenary

character of his generals made the victory of no effect.

Ladislas bought over the best of the troops and their leaders,

and before the end of summer Louis was back in Provence, again

abandoning his Neapolitan claims. Ladislas made peace, first,

with Florence, by selling Cortona to that city, and then with

the Pope, who recognized him as king, not only of Naples, but

of Sicily as well. But Ladislas was only gaining time by these

treaties. In June, 1413, he drove the Pope from Rome, and his

troops again occupied the city. He seemed to be now well

prepared for realizing his ambition to found an extended

Italian kingdom; but his career was cut short by a mortal

disease, which ended his life on the 6th of August, 1414.

M. Creighton,

History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,

book 1, chapters 3-8 (volume 1).

{1828}

ITALY: A. D. 1390-1402.

Resistance of Florence to the spreading tyranny of the Duke of

Milan.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1402.

ITALY: A. D. 1391-1451.

Extension of the Italian dominions of the House of Savoy.

See SAVOY: 11TH-15TH CENTURIES.

ITALY: A. D. 1396-1409.

The sovereignty of Genoa yielded to the King of France.

See GENOA: A. D. 1381-1422.

ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406.

The crumbling of the Visconti dominion.

Aggrandizement of Venice.

Florentine purchase and conquest of Pisa.

Decline of that city.

"The little states of Romagna, which had for the most part

been conquered by Gian-Galeazzo [Visconti, Duke of Milan],

were at his death [1402] overrun by the Count of Barbiano, who

with his famous company entered the service of Pope Boniface

IX. … The Count of Savoy, the Marquess of Montferrat, and

the lords of Padua, Ferrara, and Mantua, were the only

independent Sovereigns in North Italy in 1402. Of these

Francesco, lord of Padua, was soon to fall. On the death of

Gian-Galeazzo he seized on Verona. Venice would not allow her

old enemy to gain this advantage, and made alliance with

Francesco di Gonzaga, lord of Mantua, and with his help took

Verona, and closely besieged Padua. After a gallant resistance

Francesco da Carrara was forced to yield, and he and his two

sons were taken prisoners to Venice, and were there strangled

by order of the Council of Ten. This war gave the Venetians

great power on the mainland. They reconquered Treviso, and

gained Feltro, Verona [1405], Vicenza, and Padua [1405], and

from this time Venice became an Italian power. In Tuscany, the

death of her great enemy delivered Florence from her distress,

and Siena, which now regained her liberty, placed herself

under her protection. Pisa [which had been betrayed to

Gian-Galeazzo in 1399] had been left to Gabriello Visconti, a

bastard son of the late Duke. He put himself under the

protection of Jean Boucicault, who governed Genoa for Charles

VI., King of France, and with his consent he sold Pisa to the

Florentines. The Pisans resisted this sacrifice of their

freedom, and the war lasted a year, but in 1406 the city was

forced to surrender. Many of the people left their homes; for,

though Florence acted fairly towards her old enemy and new

subject, yet the Pisans could not bear the yoke, and the

greatness of the city, its trade and its wealth, vanished

away."

W. Hunt,

History of Italy,

chapter 6.

"From that day to this it [Pisa] has never recovered,—not its

former greatness, wealth, and energy,—but even sufficient

vitality to arrest it on the downward course. … Of the two

great political tendencies which were then disputing the world

between them it made itself the champion and the symbol of the

losing one. Pisa went down in the world together with the

feudalism and Ghibellinism with which it was identified."

T. A. Trollope,

History of the Commonwealth of Florence,

book 4, chapter 6 (volume 2).

The City in the Sea,

chapter 16.

ALSO IN:

W. C. Hazlitt,

History of the Venetian Republic,

chapter 21 (volume 3).

A. M. F. Robinson,

The End of the Middle Ages,

pages 340-367.

ITALY: A. D. 1409.

The Council of Pisa.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417.

ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

Renewed civil war in Naples.

Defeat of the Angevins by Alfonso of Aragon and Sicily.

Reconquest of Lombardy by Filippo Maria Visconti, and his

wars with Florence, Venice and Naples.

On the death of Ladislaus, king of Naples (1414), "his sister,

Joan II., widow of the son of the duke of Austria, succeeded

him. She was 40 years of age; and, like her brother, abandoned

to the most unrestrained libertinism. She left the government

of her kingdom to her lovers, who disputed power by arms: they

called into her service, or into that of her second husband,

or of the rival princes whom she in turn adopted, the two

armies of Sforza and Braccio [the two great mercenary captains

of that time]. The consequence was the ruin of the kingdom of

Naples, which ceased to menace the rest of Italy. The moment

Ladislaus disappeared, a new enemy arose to disturb the

Florentines—Filippo Maria Visconti [duke of Milan, second son

of Gian Galeazzo Visconti, and successor to his elder brother

Gian Maria, on the assassination of the latter, in 1412]. …

Filippo … married the widow of Facino Cane, the powerful

condottiere who had retained Gian Maria in 'his dependence,

and who died the same day that Gian Maria was assassinated. By

this sudden marriage he secured the army of Facino Cane,—

which was, in fact, master of the greater part of the

Milanese: with its aid he undertook, without delay, to recover

the rest of his states from the hands of those tyrants who had

divided amongst them the dominions of his father. … During

the first year of his reign, which was to decide his existence

as prince or subject, he fought with determined courage; but

from that time, though he continually made war, he never

showed himself to his armies. … In the battle of Monza, by

which he acquired his brother's inheritance, and the only

battle in which he was ever present, he remarked the brilliant

courage of Francesco Carmagnola, a Piedmontese soldier of

fortune, and immediately gave him a command. Carmagnola soon

justified the duke's choice by the most distinguished talents

for war, the most brilliant victories, and the most noble

character. Francesco Carmagnola was, after a few years, placed

at the head of the duke's armies; and, from the year 1412 to

that of 1422, successively attacked all the tyrants who had

divided the heritage of Gian Galeazzo, and brought those small

states again under the dominion of the duke of Milan. Even the

republic of Genoa submitted to him, in 1421, on the same

conditions as those on which it had before submitted to the

king of France,—reserving all its liberties; and granting the

duke's lieutenant, who was Carmagnola himself, only those

prerogatives which the constitution yielded to the doge. As

soon as Filippo Maria had accomplished the conquest of

Lombardy, he resumed the projects of his father against

Romagna and Tuscany. He … renewed his intrigues against the

republic of Florence, and combined them with those which he at

the same time carried on in the kingdom of Naples. Joan, who

had sent back to France her second husband, Jaques, count de

la Marche, and who had no children, was persuaded, in 1420, by

one of her lovers, to adopt Alphonso the Magnanimous, king of

Aragon and Sicily, to whom she intrusted some of the

fortresses of Naples. She revoked this adoption in 1423; and

substituted in his place Louis III. of Anjou, son of Louis II.

The former put himself at the head of the ancient party of

Durazzo; the latter, of that of Anjou.

{1829}

The consequence was a civil war, in which the two great

captains, Sforza and Braccio, were opposed to each other, and

acquired new titles to glory. The duke of Milan made alliance

with Joan II. and Louis III. of Anjou: Sforza, named great

constable of the kingdom, was their general. The Florentines

remained constant to Braccio, whom Alphonso had made governor

of the Abruzzi; and who had seized, at the same time, the

signoria of Perugia, his native city. … But Sforza and

Braccio both perished, as Italy awaited with anxiety the

result of the struggle about to be commenced. Sforza was

drowned at the passage of the Pescara, on the 4th of January,

1424; Braccio was mortally wounded at the battle of Aquila, on

the 2d of June of the same year. Francesco, son of the former,

succeeded to his father's name and the command of his army,

both of which he was destined to render still more

illustrious. The son of Braccio, on the contrary, lost the

sovereignty of Perugia, which resumed its freedom on the 29th

of July of the same year; and the remnant of the army formed

by this great captain elected for his chief his most able

lieutenant, Nicolo Piccinino. This was the moment which

Filippo Maria chose to push on his army to Romagna, and

vigorously attack the Florentines. … The Florentines, having

no tried general at the heart of their troops, experienced,

from the 6th of September, 1423, to the 17th of October, 1425,

no less than six successive defeats, either in Liguria or

Romagna [at Forli, 1423, Zagonara, 1424, Lamone, Rapallo,

Anghiari and Faggiola, 1425]. Undismayed by defeat, they

reassembled their army for the seventh time: the patriotism of

their rich merchants made up for the penury of their exhausted

treasury. They, at the same time, sent their most

distinguished statesmen as ambassadors to Venice, to represent

to that republic that, if it did not join them while they

still stood, the liberty of Italy was lost forever. … An

illustrious fugitive, Francesco Carmagnola, who arrived about

this time at Venice, accomplished what Florence had nearly

failed in, by discovering to the Venetians the project of the

duke of Milan to subjugate them." Carmagnola had been

disgraced and discharged from employment by Filippo Maria,

whose jealousy was alarmed by his great reputation, and he now

took service against his late patron. "A league, formed

between Florence and Venice, was successively joined by the

marquis of Ferrara, the lord of Mantua, the Siennese, the duke

Amadeus VIII. of Savoy, and the king Alphonso of Naples, who

jointly declared war against Filippo Maria Visconti, on the

27th of January, 1426. … The good fortune of Carmagnola in

war still attended him in the campaign of 1426. He was as

successful against the duke of Milan as he had been for him:

he took from him the city and whole province of Brescia. The

duke ceded this conquest to the Venetians by treaty on the

30th of December; but he employed the winter in assembling his

forces; and in the beginning of spring renewed the war." An

indecisive engagement occurred at Casalsecco, July 12, 1427,

and on the 11th of October following, in a marsh near Macalo,

Carmagnola completely defeated the Milanese army commanded by

Carlo Malatesta. A new peace was signed on the 18th of April,

1428; but war recommenced in the latter part of 1430. Fortune

now abandoned Carmagnola. He suffered a surprise and defeat at

Soncino, May 17, 1431, and the suspicious senate of Venice

caused him to be arrested, tortured and put to death. "During

the remainder of the reign of Filippo Maria he was habitually

at war with the two republics of Venice and Florence. He …

almost always lost ground by his distrust of his own generals,

his versatility, his taste for contradictory intrigues, his

eagerness to sign peace every year, and to recommence

hostilities a few weeks afterwards." In 1441, on making peace

with the two republics, he granted his daughter Bianca in

marriage to their general, Francesco Sforza, with two

lordships for her dowry. But he was soon intriguing against

his son-in-law, soon at war again with Florence and Venice,

and Sforza was again in the service of the latter. But in 1447

he made offers of reconciliation which were accepted, and

Sforza was on his way to Milan when news came to him of the

death of the duke, which occurred August 13. "The war of

Lombardy was complicated by its connexion with another war

which at the same time ravaged the kingdom of Naples. The

queen, Joan II., had died there, on the 2d of February, 1435;

three months after the death of her adopted son, Louis III. of

Anjou: by her will she had substituted for that prince his

brother René, duke of Lorraine. But Alphonso, king of Aragon

and Sicily, whom she had primarily adopted, … claimed the

succession, on the ground of this first adoption, as well as

of the ancient rights of Manfred, to whom he had succeeded in

the female line. The kingdom of Naples was divided between the

parties of Aragon and Anjou. The Genoese, who had voluntarily

ranged themselves under the protection of the duke of Milan,

offered their assistance to the duke of Anjou. … On the 5th

of August, 1435, their fleet met that of Alphonso, before the

island of Ponza. They defeated it in a great battle, in which

Alphonso had been made prisoner." Delivered to the duke of

Milan, Alphonso soon convinced the latter that his alliance

with the French interest at Naples was a mistake and a danger

to him, and was set at liberty, with promises of aid. The

Genoese were indignant at this and drove the Milanese garrison

from their city, in December, 1435, recovering their freedom.

"Alphonso, seconded by the duke of Milan, recommenced the war

against René of Anjou with greater advantage. On the 2d of

June, 1442, he took from him the city of Naples; from that

time peace was re-established in that kingdom, and Alphonso

… established himself amidst a people which he had

conquered, but whose hearts he gained; and returned no more

either to Sicily or Aragon. He died at Naples, on the 27th of

June, 1458."

J. C. L. de Sismondi,

History of the Italian Republics,

chapters 9-10.

ALSO IN:

W. P. Urquhart,

Life and Times of Francesco Sforza,

books 3-4 (volume 1).

Mrs. Jameson,

Memoirs of Celebrated Female Sovereigns,

volume 1, chapter 5.

M. A. Hookham,

Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou,

volume 1, introduction and chapter 1.

ITALY: A. D. 1433-1464.

The ascendancy of Cosimo de' Medici at Florence.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1433-1464.

{1830}

ITALY: A. D. 1447-1454.

End of the Visconti in the duchy of Milan.

Disputed succession.

Francesco Sforza in possession.

War of Venice, Naples and other states

against Milan and Florence.

See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

The Pontificate of Nicolas V.

Regeneration of the Papacy.

Revival of letters and art.

Threatening advance of the Turks.

Fresh troubles in Naples.

Expulsion of the French from Genoa.

"The failure of the Council of Basel [see PAPACY: A. D.

1431-1448] restored the position of the Papacy, and set it

free from control. The character and ability of Pope Nicolas

[V., 1447-1455] made him respected, and the part which he took

in politics made him rank amongst the great temporal powers in

Italy. From this time onwards to the end of our history we

shall see the Popes the undisputed Princes of Rome, and the

lords of all that part of Italy which they claimed from the

gift of Kings and Emperors, and not least from the will of the

Countess Matilda. Pope Nicolas used this power better than any

of those who came after him, for he used it in the cause of

peace, and to forward learning and artistic taste. He applied

himself to the general pacification of Italy, and brought

about the Peace of Lodi in 1454, which was signed by Venice

and Milan and by King Alfonso. Christendom had great need of

peace, for, in 1453, Constantinople had been taken by the

Infidels and Mahomet the Second was spreading his conquest

over the East of Europe. Before the fall of the city a great

many Greeks had come to Italy, on different missions, and

especially to attend a Council at Florence, where terms of

union were made between the Greek and Latin Churches. Their

coming revived the taste for Greek learning, which had been so

powerfully felt by Petrarca and Boccaccio. Pope Nicolas made

Rome the centre of this literature, and others followed his

example. Theodore of Gaza, George of Trebizond, and many more,

found enlightened patrons in the Pope, the King of Naples,

Cosmo de'Medici, and Federigo, Count of Urbino. The Pope was a

lover and patron of art as well as of literature. He rebuilt

the churches, palaces, and fortifications of Rome and the

Roman States, and formed the scheme of raising a church worthy

of the memory of St. Peter, and left behind him the Vatican

Palace as a worthy residence for the Apostle's successors. The

Papal Library had been scattered during the Captivity and the

Schism, but Pope Nicolas made a large collection of

manuscripts, and thus founded the Library of the Vatican. The

introduction of printing into Italy about this time gave great

strength to the revival of learning. In 1452 the Pope crowned

Frederic the Third Emperor at Rome with great magnificence.

But he was not without danger in his city, for the next year a

wild plot was made against him. A large number of Romans were

displeased at the great power of the Pope. They were headed by

Stefano Porcaro, who declared that he would free the city

which had once been mistress of the world from the yoke of

priests. The rising was to be ushered in by the slaughter of

the Papal Court and the plunder of its treasures. The plot was

discovered, and was punished with great severity. This was the

last and most unworthy of the various attempts of the Romans

to set up self-government. The advance of the Ottoman Turks

during the latter part of the 15th century [see TURKS: A. D.

1451-1481] caused the greatest alarm in Italy. Venice, from

her possessions and her trade in the Levant, was most exposed

to the attacks of the Infidels, and she became the great

champion against them. The learned Æneas Sylvius was chosen

Pope, in 1458, and took the title of Pius the Second. He

caused a crusade to be preached against the Turks, but he died

in 1464, while the forces were gathering. The Venetians were

constantly defeated in the Archipelago, and lost Eubœa,

Lesbos, and other islands [see GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479]. In

1477 a large Turkish army entered Italy by Friuli, defeated

the Venetians, and crossed the Tagliamento. They laid waste

the country as far as the Piave, and their destroying fires

could be seen from the Campanile of St. Mark's. In 1480

Mahomet's great general, Ahmed Keduk, took the strong city of

Otranto, and massacred its inhabitants. This expedition was

secretly favoured by the Venetians to spite the King of

Naples. The danger to all Italy was very great, for the Sultan

eagerly longed to conquer the older Rome, but the death of

Mahomet the Second, and a disputed succession to his throne,

fortunately checked the further advance of the invaders. When

Alfonso, King of Aragon, Naples, and Sicily, died in 1458, he

left Aragon and Sicily, which he had inherited, to his

legitimate son John; but the crown of Naples, which he had won

for himself, he left to Ferdinand, his illegitimate son.

Ferdinand was a cruel and suspicious man, and the barons

invited John of Calabria to come and help them against him.

John of Calabria was the son of Réné, who had been adopted by

Queen Joanna, and who called himself King. He was the French

Governor of Genoa, and so already had a footing in Italy. He

applied to Sforza to help him, but the Duke of Milan was

firmly attached to the Peace of Lodi, and was too justly

fearful of the French power to do so. Lewis the Eleventh, King

of France, was too wise to meddle in Italian politics.

Florence, which was usually on the French side, was now under

the influence of Cosmo de' Medici, and Cosmo was under the

influence of Francesco Sforza, so that the Duke of Calabria

found no allies. The Archbishop of Genoa, Paola Fregoso,

excited the people to drive out the French [see GENOA: A. D.

1458-1464] and the Doge Prospero Adorno, who belonged to their

party. He then defeated King Réné, and the Duke of Calabria

was forced to give up his attempt on Naples [1464]. The new

government of Genoa was so oppressive that the Genoese put

themselves under the protection of Francesco; Lewis the

Eleventh ceded all his rights to him, and the city thus became

part of the Duchy of Milan. The hopes of the French party in

Italy were thus for the present entirely crushed."

W. Hunt,

History of Italy,

chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

M. Creighton,

History of the Papacy,

book 4, chapters 3-4 (volume 2).

W. P. Urquhart,

Life and Times of Francesco Sforza,

book 7 (volume 2).

L. Pastor,

History of the Popes,

volume 2.

ITALY: A. D. 1466-1469.

Florence under the five agents of Piero de' Medici.

See FLORENCE: 1458-1469.

ITALY: A. D. 1469-1492.

The government of Lorenzo de' Medici, the Magnificent, at

Florence.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.

ITALY: A. D. 1490-1498.

Savonarola at Florence.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

{1831}

ITALY: A. D. 1492-1494.

Charles VIII. of France invited across the Alps to possess

Naples.

The hostile disunion of the Italian states.

With the death of Lorenzo de Medici, which occurred at

Florence in the spring of 1492, "the power vanished which had

hitherto kept Naples and Milan quiet, and which, with subtle

diplomatic skill, had postponed the breach of the peace in

Italy. We find the comparison used, that Florence with Lorenzo

at her head stood like a rocky dam between two stormy seas.

Italy was at that time a free land and independent of foreign

policy. Venice, with her well-established nobles at her head;

Naples under the Aragonese, a branch of the family ruling in

Spain; Milan, with Genoa, under Sforza—all three able powers

by land and sea—counterbalanced each other. Lorenzo ruled

central Italy; the small lords of the Romagna were in his pay,

and the pope was on the best terms of relationship with him.

But in Milan the mischief lay hidden. Ludovico Sforza, the

guardian of his nephew Gian Galeazzo, had completely usurped

the power. He allowed his ward to pine away mentally and

bodily; he was bringing the young prince slowly to death. But

his consort, a Neapolitan princess, saw through the treachery,

and urged her father to change by force their insufferable

position. Sforza could not alone have resisted Naples. No

dependence was to be placed on the friendship of Venice;

Lorenzo mediated as long as he lived, but now, on his death,

Naples was no longer to be restrained. The first thing that

happened was [Piero de Medici's] alliance with this power, and

at the same time Ludovico's appeal for help to France, where a

young and ambitious king had ascended the throne. The death of

Innocent VIII., and the election of Alexander Borgia to the

papacy, completed the confusion which was impending. Long

diplomatic campaigns took place before war actually broke out.

The matter in question was not the interests of nations—of

this there was no thought—nor even the caprices of princes

alone. The nobles of Italy took a passionate concern in these

disputes. The contests of corresponding intrigues were fought

out at the French court. France had been robbed of Naples by

the Aragonese. The exiled Neapolitan barons, French in their

interests, whose possessions the Arngonese had given to their

own adherents, ardently seized the idea of returning

victoriously to their country; the cardinals, hostile to

Borgia—foremost among these stood the Cardinal of San Piero

in Vincula, a nephew of the old Sixtus, and the Cardinal

Ascanio Sforza, Ludovico's brother—urged for war against

Alexander VI.; the Florentine nobles, anticipating Piero's

violent measures, hoped for deliverance through the French,

and advocated the matter at Lyons, where the court was

stationed, and a whole colony of Florentine families had in

time settled. Sforza held out the bait of glory and his just

claims to the old legitimate possession. The Aragonese, on the

other hand, proposed an accommodation. Spain, who would not

forsake her belongings, stood at their side; the pope and

Piero dei Medici adhered to Naples, and the French nobility

were not in favour of an expedition to Italy. Venice remained

neutral; still she might gain by the war, and she did not

dissuade from it; and this opinion, that something was to be

gained, gradually took possession of all parties, even of

those who had at first wished to preserve peace. Spain was a

direct gainer from the first. France ceded to King Ferdinand a

disputed province, on the condition that he would afford no

support to his Neapolitan cousins. Sforza, as lord of Genoa,

wished to have Lucca and Pisa again, with all that belonged to

them; the Visconti had possessed them of old, and he raised

their claims afresh. We have said what were the hopes of Piero

dei Medici [that he should be able to make himself Duke of

Florence]. Pisa hoped to become free. The pope hoped by his

alliance with Naples to make the first step towards the

attainment of the great plans which he cherished for himself

and his sons; he thought one day of dividing Italy among them.

The French hoped to conquer Naples, and then to drive away the

Turks in a vast crusade. As if for a crusade, the king raised

the loan in his own country, which he required for the

campaign. The Venetians hoped to bring the coast cities of the

Adriatic Sea as much as possible under their authority. In the

autumn of 1494, Charles of France placed himself at the head

of his knights and mercenary troops, and crossed the Alps;

whilst his fleet and artillery, the most fearful weapon of the

French, went by sea from Marseilles to Genoa."

H. Grimm,

Life of Michael Angelo,

chapter 3, section 2 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

T. A. Trollope,

History of the Commonwealth of Florence,

book 8, chapter 5.

ITALY: A. D. 1492-1503.

The Papacy in the hands of the Borgias.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1471-1513.

ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

The invasion by Charles VIII.

His triumphant march, his easy conquest of Naples,

and the speedy retreat.

Effects of the expedition on France and Europe.

"On the 1st of March [1494] Charles VIII. made his state entry

into Lyons, to assume the command of the expedition; an

advanced guard under the Scotchman d'Aubigny was already

pushing towards the Neapolitan frontier, and the Duke of

Orleans was at Genoa. The Neapolitans on their side sent the

Prince of Altamura with 30 galleys towards Genoa, while the

Duke of Calabria, an inexperienced youth, entered the

Pontifical States, under the guidance of tried generals. …

The Pope seemed to have lost his head, and no longer knew what

course to adopt. … Charles the VIII., having passed the

Monginevra, entered Asti in the first days of September. He

soon received intelligence that Don Federico and the

Neapolitan fleet had been repulsed with heavy losses before

Porto Venere, and that the Duke of Orleans and his Swiss had

entered Rapallo, sacked the place, and put all the

inhabitants, even the sick in the hospital, to the sword,

thereby striking terror into the Italians, who were

unaccustomed to carry on war in so sanguinary a fashion. On

reaching Piacenza, the king learnt that Gio. Galeazzo, whom he

had recently seen at Pavia, had just died there, poisoned, as

all men said, by the Moor [Lodovico, the usurping uncle of

Gio. Galeazzo the young Duke of Milan, was so called], who,

after celebrating his obsequies at Milan, had entered St.

Ambrogio, at the hour indicated by his astrologer, to

consecrate the investiture already granted to him by

Maximilian, King of the Romans. All this filled the minds of

the French with suspicion, almost with terror; they were

beginning to understand the nature of their closest ally's

good faith.

{1832}

In fact, while Ludovico with one hand collected men and money

for their cause, with the other he wove the threads of a

league intended to drive them from Italy, when the moment

should arrive. … Nevertheless the fortunes of the French

prospered rapidly. The Duke of Calabria, having entered

Romagna, withdrew across the Neapolitan frontier at the first

glimpse of D'Aubigny's forces; and the bulk of the French

army, commanded by the King in person, marched through the

Lunigiana without encountering obstacles of any kind. After

taking Fivizanno, sacking it, and putting to the sword the

hundred soldiers who defended it, and part of the inhabitants,

they pushed on towards Sarzana, through a barren district,

between the mountains and the sea, where the slightest

resistance might have proved fatal to them. But the small

castles, intended for the defence of these valleys, yielded

one after the other, without any attempt to resist the

invaders; and hardly had the siege of Sarzana commenced than

Piero dei Medici arrived, frightened out of his senses,

surrendered at discretion, and even promised to pay 200,000

ducats. But on Piero's return to Florence, on the 8th of

November, he found that the city had risen in revolt, and sent

ambassadors to the French King on its own account to offer him

an honourable reception; but that at the same time it was

making preparations for defence in case of need [see FLORENCE:

A. D. 1490-1498]. So great was the public indignation that

Piero took flight to Venice, where his own ambassador,

Soderini, hardly deigned to look at him, having meanwhile

declared for the republican government just proclaimed in

Florence, where everything had been rapidly changed. The

houses of the Medici and their garden at St. Mark had been

pillaged, exiles had been recalled and acquitted; a price put

on Piero's head and that of his brother, the Cardinal. … The

fabric, so long and so carefully built up by the Medici, was

now suddenly crumbling into dust. On the 17th November Charles

VIII., at the head of his formidable army, rode into Florence

with his lance in rest, believing that that fact sufficed to

make him master of the city. But the Florentines were armed,

they had collected 6,000 soldiers within the walls, and they

knew perfectly well that, from the vantage posts of towers and

houses, they could easily worst an army scattered through the

streets. They therefore repulsed the King's insolent

proposals, and when he threatened to sound his trumpets, Piero

Capponi, tearing up the offered treaty, replied that the

Florentines were more ready to ring their bells. Through this

firmness equitable terms were arranged. The Republic was to

pay 120,000 florins in three quotas; the fortresses, however,

were to be speedily restored to her. On the 28th November the

French left the city, but not without stealing all that

remained of the collection of antiquities in the Medici

Palace. … Nevertheless the citizens were thankful to be

finally delivered alike from old tyrants and new invaders.

Having reached Rome, Charles VIII., in order to have done with

the Pope, who now seemed inclined for resistance, pointed his

guns against the Castle of St. Angelo, and thus matters were

soon settled. … Scarcely encountering any obstacles, Charles

led his army on to Naples." Ferdinand I., or Ferrante, had

died on the 25th of January, 1494, and had been succeeded by

his son Alfonso II, a prince more cruel and more hated than

himself. The latter now renounced the throne in favor of his

son, Ferdinand II., and fled to Sicily. "Ferdinand II., or

Ferrandino, as he was called, after vainly seeking aid from

all, even from the Turk, made a fruitless stand at Monte San

Giovanni, which was taken, destroyed, and all its population

put to the sword. … Naples rebelled in favour of the French,

who marched in on the 22d of February [1495]. The following

day Ferrandino fled to Ischia, then to Messina. And shortly

the ambassadors of the Italian States appeared to offer

congratulations to the conqueror. Now at last the Venetians

were aroused, and having sent their envoys to Milan to know if

Ludovico were disposed to take up arms to drive out the

French, they found him not only ready to do so, but full of

indignation. … He advised that money should be sent to Spain

and to Maximilian, to induce them to attack France; but added

that care must be taken not to call them into Italy; 'since

having already one fever here, we should then have two.' A

league was in fact concluded between the Venetians, Ludovico,

the Pope, Spain and Maximilian. … The Neapolitans, soon

wearied of bad government, had risen in revolt, and Charles

VIII. after a stay of only 50 days in Naples had to make his

departure with excessive haste, before every avenue of retreat

should be cut off, leaving hardly more than 6,000 men in the

kingdom, and taking with him a numerous army, which however

only numbered 10,000 real combatants. On the 6th of July a

pitched battle took place at Fornuovo near the river Taro. The

allies had assembled about 30,000 men, three-fourths of whom

were Venetians, the rest composed of Ludovico's soldiers and a

few Germans sent by Maximilian. … The battle was bloody, and

it was a disputed question which side obtained the victory;

but although the Italians were not repulsed, remaining indeed

masters of the field, the French succeeded in cutting their

way through, which was the chief object they had in view. …

Ludovico, taking advantage of the situation, soon made an

agreement with the French on his own account, without

concerning himself about the Venetians. … The fortunes of

the French now declined rapidly in Italy, and all the more

speedily owing to their bad government in the Neapolitan

kingdom, and their abominable behaviour towards the few

friends who had remained faithful to them. … Ferdinand II.,

with the aid of the Spaniards under Consalvo di Cordova,

advanced triumphantly through Calabria and entered Naples on

the 7th of July, 1496. In a short time all the Neapolitan

fortresses capitulated, and the French who had held them

returned to their own country, more than decimated and in an

altogether deplorable condition. On the 6th of October

Ferdinand II. breathed his last, worn out by the agitation and

fatigues of the war, and was succeeded by his uncle Don

Federico, the fifth King [counting Charles VIII. of France]

who had ascended the Neapolitan throne within the last five

years. … Naples was now in the absolute power of the

Spaniards, who were already maturing their iniquitous designs

upon the kingdom; these, however, were only discovered at a

later period."

P. Villari,

Machiavelli and his Times,

volume 1, chapter 4, section 2.

{1833}

"In spite of its transitory character the invasion of Charles

VIII. … was a great fact in the history of the

Renaissance. It was, to use the pregnant phrase of Michelet,

no less than the revelation of Italy to the nations of the

North. Like a gale sweeping across a forest of trees in

blossom, and bearing their fertilizing pollen, after it has

broken and deflowered their branches, to far distant trees

that hitherto have bloomed in barrenness, the storm of

Charles's army carried far and wide through Europe

thought-dust, imperceptible, but potent to enrich the nations.

The French, alone, says Michelet, understood Italy. … From

the Italians the French communicated to the rest of Europe

what we call the movement of the Renaissance. There is some

truth in this panegyric of Michelet's. The passage of the army

of Charles VIII. marks a turning point in modern history, and

from this epoch dates the diffusion of a spirit of culture

over Europe."

J. A. Symonds,

Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,

chapter 9.

ALSO IN:

P. Villari,

History of Savonarola and his Times,

book 2, chapters 1-3 (volume 1).

J. Dennistoun,

Memoirs of the Dukes of Urbino,

chapters 14-15 (volume 1).

P. de Commines,

Memoirs,

books 7-8.

L. von Ranke,

History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations

from 1494 to 1514,

book 1, chapter 1.

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1492-1515.

ITALY: A. D. 1494-1503.

The growing power of Venice and the jealousies excited by it. See

VENICE: A. D. 1494-1503.

ITALY: A. D. 1424-1509.

The French deliverance of Pisa.

The long struggle and the Florentine reconquest.

See PISA: A. D. 1494-1509.

ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500.

Invasion and conquest of the Milanese by Louis XII. of France.

His claim in right of Valentine Visconti.

Charles VIII. died in April, 1498, and was succeeded by Louis

of Orleans, who ascended the throne as Louis XII. On his

coronation, Louis XII. "assumed, besides his title of King of

France, the titles of King of Naples and of Jerusalem, and

Duke of Milan. This was as much as to say that he would pursue

… a warlike and adventurous policy abroad. … By his policy

at home Louis XII. deserved and obtained the name of 'Father

of the People;' by his enterprises and wars abroad he involved

France still more deeply than Charles VIII. had in that mad

course of distant, reckless, and incoherent conquests for

which his successor, Francis I., was destined to pay by

capture at Pavia and by the lamentable treaty of Madrid, in

1526, as the price of his release. … Outside of France,

Milaness (the Milanese district) was Louis XII.'s first

thought, at his accession, and the first object of his desire.

He looked upon it as his patrimony: His grandmother, Valentine

Visconti, widow of that Duke of Orleans who had been

assassinated at Paris in 1407 by order of John the Fearless,

Duke of Burgundy, had been the last to inherit the duchy of

Milan, which the Sforzas, in 1450, had seized. When Charles

VIII. invaded Italy in 1494, 'Now is the time,' said Louis,

'to enforce the rights of Valentine Visconti, my grandmother,

to Milaness.' And he, in fact, asserted them openly, and

proclaimed his intention of vindicating them so soon as he

found the moment propitious. When he became king, his chance

of success was great. The Duke of Milan, Ludovic, the Moor,

had by his sagacity and fertile mind, by his taste for arts

and sciences and the intelligent patronage he bestowed upon

them, by his ability in speaking, and by his facile character,

obtained in Italy a position far beyond his real power. …

Ludovic was, nevertheless, a turbulent rascal and a greedy

tyrant. … He had, moreover, embroiled himself with his

neighbours, the Venetians, who were watching for an

opportunity of aggrandizing themselves at his expense." Louis

XII. promptly concluded a treaty with Venice, which provided

for the making of war in common upon the Duke of Milan, to

recover the patrimony of the king—the Venetians to receive

Cremona and certain forts and territory adjacent as their

share of the expected spoils. "In the month of August, 1499,

the French army, with a strength of from 20,000 to 25,000 men,

of whom 5,000 were Swiss, invaded Milaness. Duke Ludovic

Sforza opposed to it a force pretty near equal in number, but

far less full of confidence and of far less valour. In less

than three weeks the duchy was conquered; in only two cases

was any assault necessary; all the other places were given up

by traitors or surrendered without a show of resistance. The

Venetians had the same success on the eastern frontier of the

duchy. … Louis was at Lyons when he heard of his army's

victory in Milaness and of Ludovic Sforza's flight. He was

eager to go and take possession of his conquest, and, on the

6th of October, 1499, he made his triumphal entry into Milan

amidst cries of 'Hurrah! for France.' He reduced the heavy

imposts established by the Sforzas, revoked the vexatious

game-laws, instituted at Milan a court of justice analogous to

the French parliaments, loaded with favours the scholars and

artists who were the honour of Lombardy, and recrossed the

Alps at the end of some weeks, leaving as governor of Milaness

John James Trivulzio, the valiant Condottiere, who, four years

before, had quitted the service of Ferdinand II., King of

Naples, for that of Charles VIII. Unfortunately Trivulzio was

himself a Milanese and of the faction of the Guelphs. He had

the passions of a partisan and the habits of a man of war; and

he soon became as tyrannical and as much detested in Milaness

as Ludovic the Moor had but lately been. A plot was formed in

favour of the fallen tyrant, who was in Germany expecting it,

and was recruiting, during expectancy, amongst the Germans and

Swiss, in order to take advantage of it. On the 25th of

January, 1500, the insurrection broke out; and two months

later Ludovic Sforza had once more became master of Milaness,

where the French possessed nothing but the castle of Milan.

… Louis XII., so soon as he heard of the Milanese

insurrection, sent into Italy Louis de la Trémoille, the best

of his captains, and the Cardinal d' Amboise, his privy

councillor and his friend. … The campaign did not last long.

The Swiss who had been recruited by Ludovic and those who were

in Louis XII.'s service had no mind to fight one another; and

the former capitulated, surrendered the strong place of

Novara, and promised to evacuate the country on condition of a

safe-conduct for themselves and their booty." Ludovic

attempted flight in disguise, but fell into the hands of the

French and remained in captivity, at the castle of Loches, in

Touraine, during the remainder of his life,—eight years.

"And 'thus was the duchy of Milan, within seven months and a

half, twice conquered by the French,' says John d' Auton in

his 'Chronique,' 'and for the nonce was ended the war in

Lombardy, and the authors thereof were captives and exiles.'"

F. P. Guizot,

Popular History of France,

chapter 27.

ALSO IN:

A. M. F. Robinson,

The End of the Middle Ages:

Valentine Visconti; The French claim to Milan.

E. Walford,

Story of the Chevalier Bayard,

chapters 3-4.

{1834}

ITALY: 15-16th Centuries.

Renaissance.

Intellectual advance and moral decline.

"At the end of the fifteenth century, Italy was the centre of

European civilization: while the other nations were still

plunged in a feudal barbarism which seems almost as far

removed from all our sympathies as is the condition of some

American or Polynesian savages, the Italians appear to us as

possessing habits of thought, a mode of life, political,

social, and literary institutions, not unlike those of to-day;

as men whom we can thoroughly understand, whose ideas and

aims, whose general views, resemble our own in that main,

indefinable characteristic of being modern. They had shaken

off the morbid monastic ways of feeling, they had thrown aside

the crooked scholastic modes of thinking, they had trampled

under foot the feudal institutions of the Middle Ages; no

symbolical mists made them see things vague, strange, and

distorted; their intellectual atmosphere was as clear as our

own, and, if they saw less than we do, what they did see

appeared to them in its true shape and proportions. Almost for

the first time since the ruin of antique civilization; they

could show well-organized, well-defined States; artistically

disciplined armies; rationally devised laws; scientifically

conducted agriculture; and widely extended, intelligently

undertaken commerce. For the first time, also, they showed

regularly built, healthy, and commodious towns; well-drained

fields; and, more important than all, hundreds of miles of

country owned not by feudal lords, but by citizens; cultivated

not by serfs, but by free peasants. While in the rest of

Europe men were floundering among the stagnant ideas and

crumbling institutions of the effete Middle Ages, with but

vague half-consciousness of their own nature, the Italians

walked calmly through a life as well arranged as their great

towns, bold, inquisitive, and sceptical; modern

administrators, modern soldiers, modern politicians, modern

financiers, scholars, and thinkers. Towards the end of the

fifteenth century, Italy seemed to have obtained the

philosophic, literary, and artistic inheritance of Greece; the

administrative, legal, and military inheritance of Rome,

increased threefold by her own strong, original, essentially

modern activities. Yet, at that very time, and almost in

proportion as all these advantages developed, the moral

vitality of the Italians was rapidly decreasing, and a

horrible moral gangrene beginning to spread: liberty was

extinguished; public good faith seemed to be dying out; even

private morality flickered ominously; every free State became

subject to a despot, always unscrupulous and often infamous;

warfare became a mere pretext for the rapine and extortions of

mercenaries; diplomacy grew to be a mere swindle; the

humanists inoculated literature with the filthiest refuse cast

up by antiquity; nay, even civic and family ties were

loosened; assassinations and fratricides began to abound, and

all law, human and divine, to be set at defiance. … The men

of the Renaissance had to pay a heavy price for …

intellectual freedom and self-cognizance, which they not only

enjoyed themselves, but transmitted to the rest of the world;

the price was the loss of all moral standard, of all fixed

public feeling. They had thrown aside all accepted rules and

criteria, they had cast away all faith in traditional

institutions, they had destroyed and could not yet rebuild. In

their instinctive and universal disbelief in all that had been

taught them, they lost all respect for opinion, for rule, for

what had been called right and wrong. Could it be otherwise?

Had they not discovered that what had been called right had

often been unnatural, and what had been called wrong often

natural? Moral teachings, remonstrances, and judgments

belonged to that dogmatism from which they had broken loose;

to those schools and churches where the foolish and the

unnatural had been taught and worshiped; to those priests and

monks who themselves most shamefully violated their teachings.

To profess morality was to be a hypocrite; to reprobate others

was to be narrow-minded. There was so much error mixed up with

truth that truth had to share the discredit of error."

Vernon Lee,

Euphorion,

volume 1, pages 27-29, 47-48.

"The conditions under which the Italians performed their task

in the Renaissance were such as seem at first sight

unfavourable to any great achievement. Yet it is probable

that, the end in view being the stimulation of mental

activity; no better circumstances than they enjoyed could have

been provided. Owing to a series of adverse accidents, and

owing also to their own instinctive preference for local

institutions, they failed to attain the coherence and the

centralised organisation which are necessary to a nation as we

understand that word. Their dismemberment among rival

communities proved a fatal source of political and military

weakness, but it developed all their intellectual energies by

competition to the utmost. At the middle of the fifteenth

century their communes had lost political liberty, and were

ruled by despots. Martial spirit declined. Wars were carried

on by mercenaries; and the people found itself in a state of

practical disarmament, when the neighboring nations quarrelled

for the prize of those rich provinces. At the same time

society underwent a rapid moral deterioration. When

Machiavelli called Italy 'the corruption of the world,' he did

not speak rhetorically. An impure and worldly clergy; an

irreligious, though superstitious, laity; a self-indulgent and

materialistic middle class; an idle aristocracy, excluded from

politics and unused to arms; a public given up to pleasure and

money-getting; a multitude of scholars, devoted to trifles,

and vitiated by studies which clashed with the ideals of

Christianity—from such elements in the nation proceeded a

widely-spread and ever-increasing degeneracy. Public energy,

exhausted by the civil wars and debilitated by the arts of the

tyrants, sank deep and deeper into the lassitude of

acquiescent lethargy. Religion expired in laughter, irony and

licence. Domestic simplicity yielded to vice, whereof the

records are precise and unmistakable. The virile virtues

disappeared. What survived of courage assumed the forms of

ruffianism, ferocity and treasonable daring. Still,

simultaneously with this decline in all the moral qualities

which constitute a powerful people, the Italians brought their

arts and some departments of their literature to a perfection

that can only be paralleled by ancient Greece. The anomaly

implied in this statement is striking; but it is revealed to

us by evidence too overwhelming to be rejected. … It was

through art that the creative instincts of the people found

their true and adequate channel of expression.

{1835}

Paramount over all other manifestations of the epoch,

fundamental beneath all, penetrative to the core of all, is

the artistic impulse. The slowly self-consolidating life of a

great kingdom, concentrating all elements of national

existence by the centripetal force of organic unity, was

wanting. Commonwealths and despotisms, representing a more

imperfect stage of political growth, achieved completion and

decayed. But art survived this disintegration of the medieval

fabric; and in art the Italians found the cohesion denied them

as a nation. While speaking thus of art, it is necessary to

give a wide extension to that word. It must be understood to

include literature. … We are justified in regarding the

literary masterpieces of the sixteenth century as the fullest

and most representative expression of the Italian temperament

at the climax of its growth. The literature of the golden age

implies humanism, implies painting. … It is not only

possible but right to speak of Italy collectively when we

review her work in the Renaissance. Yet it should not be

forgotten that Italy at this time was a federation, presenting

upon a miniature scale the same diversities in her component

parts as the nations of Europe do now. … At the beginning of

such a review, we cannot fail to be struck with the

predominance of Florence. The superiority of the Tuscans was

threefold. In the first place, they determined the development

of art in all its branches. In the second place, they gave a

language to Italy, which, without obliterating the local

dialects, superseded them in literature when the right moment

for intellectual community arrived. That moment, in the third

place, was rendered possible by the humanistic movement, which

began at Florence. … What the Lombards and Venetians

produced in fine art and literature was of a later birth. Yet

the novelists of Lombardy, the Latin lyrists of Garda, the

school of romantic and dramatic poets at Ferrara, the group of

sculptors and painters assembled in Milan by the Sforza

dynasty, the maccaronic Muse of Mantua, the unrivalled

magnificence of painting at Venice, the transient splendour of

the Parmese masters, the wit of Modena, the learning of the

princes of Mirandola and Carpi, must be catalogued among the

most brilliant and characteristic manifestations of Italian

genius. In pure literature Venice contributed but little. …

Her place, as the home of Aldo's Greek press, and as the

refuge for adventurers like Aretino and Folengo, when the rest

of Italy was yielding to reactionary despotism, has to be

commemorated. … The Romans who advanced Italian culture,

were singularly few. The work of Rome was done almost

exclusively by aliens, drawn for the most part from Tuscany

and Lombardy. After Frederick II.'s brilliant reign, the

Sicilians shared but little in the intellectual activity of

the nation."

J. A. Symonds,

Renaissance in Italy: Italian Literature,

chapter 17.

ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

Perfidious treaty for the partition of Naples between Louis

XII. of France and Ferdinand of Aragon.

Their joint conquest.

Their quarrel and war.

The French expelled.

The Spaniards in possession.

"In the spring of 1501, the French army was ready to pursue

its march to Naples. King Frederick, alarmed at the storm

which was gathering round his head, had some months before

renewed the propositions formerly made by his father Ferdinand

to Charles VIII.; namely, to acknowledge himself a feudatory

of France, to pay an annual tribute, and to pledge several

maritime towns as security for the fulfilment of these

conditions. Louis, however, would not hear of these liberal

offers, although Ferdinand the Catholic [of Aragon] undertook

to guarantee the payment of the tribute proffered by

Frederick, and strongly remonstrated against the contemplated

expedition of the French King. Ferdinand finding that he could

not divert Louis from his project, proposed to him to divide

Naples between them, and a partition was arranged by a treaty

concluded between the two monarchs at Granada, November 11th,

1500. Naples, the Terra di Lavoro, and the Abruzzi were

assigned to Louis, with the title of King of Naples and

Jerusalem; while Ferdinand was to have Calabria and Apulia

with the title of Duke." This perfidious arrangement was kept

secret, of course, from Frederick. "Meanwhile the forces of

Ferdinand, under Gonsalvo of Cordova [the 'Great Captain,' as

he was styled after his Italian campaign], were admitted as

friends into the Neapolitan fortresses, which they afterwards

held as enemies. Frederick opened to them without suspicion

his ports and towns, and thus became the instrument of his own

ruin. The unhappy Frederick had in vain looked around for

assistance. He had paid the Emperor Maximilian 40,000 ducats

to make a diversion in his favour by attacking Milan, but

Maximilian was detached from the Neapolitan alliance by a

counter bribe, and consented to prolong the truce with France.

Frederick had then had recourse to Sultan Bajazet II., with as

little effect; and this application only served to throw an

odium on his cause. … The French army, which did not exceed

13,000 men, began its march towards Naples about the end of

May, 1501, under the command of Stuart d'Aubigny, with Cæsar

Borgia [son of Pope Alexander VI.] for his lieutenant. When it

arrived before Rome, June 25th, the French and Spanish

ambassadors acquainted the Pope with the treaty of Granada,

and the contemplated partition of Naples, in which the

suzerainty of this kingdom was guaranteed to the Holy See; a

communication which Alexander received with more surprise than

displeasure, and he proceeded at once to invest the Kings of

France and Aragon with the provinces which they respectively

claimed. Attacked in front by the French, in the rear by

Gonsalvo, Frederick did not venture to take the field. He

cantoned his troops in Naples, Averso, and Capua, of which the

last alone made any attempt at defence. It was surprised by

the French while in the act of treating for a capitulation

(July 24th), and was subjected to the most revolting cruelty;

7,000 of the male inhabitants were massacred in the streets;

the women were outraged; and forty of the handsomest reserved

for Borgia's harem at Rome; where they were in readiness to

amuse the Court at the extraordinary and disgusting fete given

at the fourth marriage of Lucretia. Rather than expose his

subjects to the horrors of a useless war, Frederick entered

into negociations with d'Aubigny, with the view of

surrendering himself to Louis XII. … In October, 1501, he

sailed for France with a small squadron, which remained to him.

{1836}

In return for his abandonment of the provinces assigned to the

French King, he was invested with the county of Maine, and a

life pension of 30,000 ducats, on condition that he should not

attempt to quit France; a guard was set over him to enforce

the latter proviso, and this excellent prince died in

captivity in 1504. Meanwhile Gonsalvo of Cordova was

proceeding with the reduction of Calabria and Apulia. … The

Spaniards entered Taranto March 1st, 1502; the other towns of

southern Italy were soon reduced, and the Neapolitan branch of

the House of Aragon fell for ever, after reigning 65 years. In

the autumn of 1501, Louis had entered into negociations with

the Emperor, in order to obtain formal investiture of the

Duchy of Milan. With this view, Louis's daughter Claude, then

only two years of age, was affianced to Charles [afterwards

the Emperor, Charles V.], grandson of Maximilian, the infant

child of the Archduke Philip and Joanna of Aragon. A treaty

was subsequently signed at Trent, October 13th, 1501, by

Maximilian and the Cardinal d'Amboise, to which the Spanish

sovereigns find the Archduke Philip were also parties. By this

instrument Louis engaged, in return for the investiture of

Milan, to recognise the pretensions of the House of Austria to

Hungary and Bohemia, and to second Maximilian in an expedition

which he contemplated against the Turks. It was at this

conference that those schemes against Venice began to be

agitated, which ultimately produced the League of Cambray. The

treaty between Louis and Ferdinand for the partition of Naples

was so loosely drawn, that it seemed purposely intended to

produce the quarrels which occurred." Disputes arose as to the

possession of a couple of provinces, and the Spaniards were

driven out. "In the course of 1502 the Spaniards were deprived

of everything, except Barletta and a few towns on the coast of

Bari. It was in the combats round this place that Bayard, by

his deeds of courage and generosity, won his reputation as the

model of chivalry, and became the idol of the French

soldiery." The crafty and unscrupulous king of Aragon now

amused Louis with the negotiation of a treaty for the

relinquishment of the whole Neapolitan domain to the lately

affianced infants, Charles of Austria and Claude of France,

while he diligently reinforced the "Great Captain." Then

"Gonsalvo suddenly resumed the offensive with extraordinary

vigour and rapidity, and within a week two decisive battles

were fought"—at Seminara, in Calabria, April 21, 1503, and at

Cerignola, near Barletta, April 28. In the last named battle

the French army was dispersed and almost destroyed. On the

14th of May, Gonsalvo entered Naples, and by the end of July

the French had completely evacuated the Neapolitan territory.

The king of France made prompt preparations for vigorous war,

not only in Naples but in Spain itself, sending two armies to

the Pyrenees and one across the Alps. The campaign of the

latter was ruined by Cardinal d'Amboise, who stopped its march

near Rome, to support his candidacy for the papal chair, just

vacated by the death of Alexander VI. Malaria made havoc in

the ranks of the French, and they were badly commanded. They

advanced to the seat of war in October, and forced the passage

of the Garigliano, November 9. "Here their progress was

arrested. … The seasons themselves were hostile to the

French; heavy rains set in with a constancy quite unusual in

that climate; and the French soldiers perished by hundreds in

the mud and swamps of the Garigliano. The Spanish army,

encamped near Sessa, was better supplied and better

disciplined; and at length, after two months of inaction,

Gonsalvo, having received some reinforcements, assumed the

offensive, and in his turn crossed the river. The French,

whose quarters were widely dispersed, were not prepared for

this attack, and attempted to fall back upon Gaeta; but their

retreat soon became a disorderly flight; many threw down their

arms without striking a blow; and hence the affair has

sometimes been called the rout of the Garigliano [December 29,

1503]. Peter de' Medici, who was following the French army,

perished in this retreat. … Very few of the French army

found their way back to France. Gaeta surrendered at the first

summons, January 1st, 1504. This was the most important of all

Gonsalvo's victories, as it completed the conquest of Naples.

The two attacks on Spain had also miscarried. … A truce of

five months was concluded, November 15th, which was

subsequently converted into a peace of three years."

T. H. Dyer,

History of Modern Europe,

book 1, chapters 5-6 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

L. von Ranke,

History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations, 1494-1514,

book 1, chapter 4,

and book 2, chapter 1.

T. A. Trollope,

History of the Commonwealth of Florence,

book 9, chapters 8-9 (volume 4).

M. J. Quintana,

The Great Captain

(Lives of Celebrated Spaniards)

G. P. R. James,

Memoirs of Great Commanders,

volume 1: Gonzalvez de Cordoba.

L. Larchey,

History of Bayard,

book 2.

ITALY: A. D. 1504-1506.

The Treaties of Blois.

Tortuous diplomacy of Louis XII.

His double renunciation of Naples.

"There was danger [to Louis XII. of France] that the loss of

the Milanese should follow that of the kingdom of Naples.

Maximilian was already preparing to assert his imperial rights

beyond the Alps, and Gonsalvo de Cordova was marching toward

the northern part of the peninsula. Louis XII. divided and

disarmed his enemies by three treaties, signed at Blois on the

same day (1504). By the first Louis and Maximilian agreed to

attack Venice, and to divide the spoil; by the second Louis

promised the king of the Romans 200,000 francs in return for

the investiture of the Milanese; by the third he renounced the

kingdom of Naples in favor of Maximilian's grandson Charles,

who was to marry Claude,' daughter of Louis XII., and receive

as her dowry three French provinces,—Burgundy, Brittany, and

Blois. A more disastrous agreement could not have been made.

Charles was to obtain by inheritance from his father, Philip

the Handsome, the Netherlands; from his mother, Castile; from

his paternal grandfather, Austria; from his maternal

grandfather, Aragon. And now he was assured of Italy, and

France was to be dismembered for him. This was virtually

giving him the empire of Europe. France protested, and Louis

XII. seized the first occasion to respond to her wishes. He

found it in 1505, when Ferdinand the Catholic married Germaine

de Foix, niece of Louis XII. Louis by treaty made a second

cession of his rights over the kingdom of Naples to his niece,

thus breaking one of the principal conditions of his treaty

with Maximilian. He convoked the States-General at Tours in

order openly to break the others (1506).

{1837}

The Assembly declared that the fundamental law of the state

did not permit alienations of the domains of the crown, and

besought the king to give his daughter in marriage to his heir

presumptive, Francis, Duke of Angoulême, in order to insure

the integrity of the territory and the independence of France.

Louis XII. found little difficulty in acceding to their

request. Maximilian and Ferdinand were at the time unable to

protest."

V. Duruy,

History of France,

chapter 38.

ITALY: A. D. 1508-1509.

The League of Cambrai against Venice.

The continental provinces of the Republic torn away.

See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

Dissolution of the League of Cambrai and formation of the Holy

League against France.

The French expelled from Milan and all Italy.

Restoration of the Medici.

Recovery of Venetian territories.

As the League of Cambrai began to weaken and fall in pieces,

the vigorous republic of Venice "came forth again, retook

Padua, and kept it through a long and terrible siege, at last

forcing the Emperor to withdraw and send back his French

allies. The Venetians recovered Vicenza, and threatened

Verona; Maximilian, once more powerless, appealed to France to

defend his conquests. Thus things stood [1510] when Julius II.

made peace with Venice and began to look round him for allies

against Louis XII. He negotiated with the foreign kings; but

that was only in order thereby to neutralise their influence,

sowing discord among them; it was on the Swiss mercenaries

that he really leant. Now that he had gained all he wanted on

the northern frontier of the States of the Church, he thought

that he might safely undertake the high duty of protecting

Italy against the foreigner: he would accomplish what Cæsar

Borgia had but dreamed of doing, he would chase the Barbarian

from the sacred soil of culture. … He 'thanked God,' when he

heard of the death of the Cardinal of Amboise, 'that now he

was Pope alone!' … He at once set himself to secure the

Swiss, and found a ready and capable agent in Matthew

Schynner, Bishop of Sion in the Valais. … Bishop Schynner

was rewarded for this traffic with a cardinal's hat. And now,

deprived by death of the guiding hand [of Cardinal d'Amboise],

Louis XII. began to follow a difficult and dangerous line of

policy: he called a National Council at Tours, and laid before

it, as a case of conscience, the question whether he might

make war on the Pope. The Council at once declared for the

King, distinguishing, as well they might under Julius II.,

between the temporal and the spiritual in the Papacy, and

declaring that any papal censure that might be launched would

be null and void. Above all, an appeal was made to a General

Council. … Meanwhile war went on in Italy. A broadly-planned

attack on the Milanese, on Genoa, and Ferrara, concerted by

Julius II. with the Venetians and Swiss, had come to nothing.

Now the warlike pontiff—one knows his grim face from

Raphael's picture, and his nervous grasp of the arms of his

chair, as though he were about to spring forward into

action—took the field in person. At Bologna he fell ill; they

thought he would die; and Chaumont of Amboise was marching up

with the French at his heels to surround and take him there.

But by skilful treating with the French general Julius gained

time, till a strong force of Venetians had entered Bologna.

Then the Pope rose from his sick-bed, in the dead of winter,

1511, and marched out to besiege Mirandola," which

capitulated. "Bayard soon after attacked him, and all but took

him prisoner. A congress at Mantua followed: but the Pope

sternly refused to make terms with the French: the war must go

on. Then Louis took a dangerous step. He convoked an

ecclesiastical council at Pisa, and struck a medal to express

his contempt and hatred for Julius II. … The Pope had gone

back to Rome, and Bologna had opened her gates to the French;

the coming council, which should depose Julius, was proclaimed

through Northern Italy. But, though the moment seemed

favourable, nothing but a real agreement of the European

powers could give success to such a step. And how far men were

from such an agreement Louis was soon to learn; for Julius,

finding that the French did not invade the States of the

Church, resumed negociations with such success that in October

1511 a 'Holy League' was formed between the Pope, Venice,

Ferdinand of Aragon, and Henry VIII. of England. Maximilian

wavered and doubted; the Swiss were to be had—on payment. At

first Louis showed a bold front; in spite of this strange

whirl of the wheel of politics from the League of Cambrai to

the Holy League, he persevered, giving the command of Milan to

his nephew, Gaston of Foix, Duke of Nemours, a man of 23

years, the most promising of his younger captains. He relieved

Bologna, seized Brescia, and pillaged it [1512]; and then

pushed on to attack Ravenna; it is said that the booty of

Brescia was so great that the French soldiers, having made

their fortunes, deserted in crowds, and left the army much

weakened. With this diminished force Gaston found himself

caught between the hostile walls of Ravenna, and a relieving

force of Spaniards, separated from him only by a canal. The

Spaniards, after their usual way of warfare, made an

entrenched camp round their position. The French first tried

to take the city by assault; but being driven back, determined

to attack the Spanish camp." They made the assault [on Easter

Day, 1512] and took the camp, with great slaughter; but in his

reckless pursuit of the retreating enemy Gaston de Foix was

slain. "The death of the young Prince more than balanced the

great victory of the day: for with Gaston, as Guicciardini

says, perished all the vigour of the French army. … Though

Ravenna was taken, the French could no longer support

themselves. Their communications with Milan were threatened by

the Swiss: they left garrisons in the strong places and fell

back. The council of Pisa also had to take refuge at Milan.

When the Swiss came down from their mountain-passes to restore

the Sforza dynasty, the harassed council broke up from Milan,

and fled to Lyons; there it lingered a while, but it had

become contemptible; anon it vanished into thin air. The Pope

retook Bologna, Parma, Piacenza; the Medici returned to

Florence [see FLORENCE: A. D. 1502-1569]; Maximilian Sforza

was re-established [see MILAN: A. D. 1512], while the Grisons

Leagues received the Valteline as their reward: the English

annoyed the coast without any decisive result. … Ferdinand

seized Navarre, which henceforward became Spanish to the

Pyrenees.

{1838}

Before winter, not one foot of Italian soil remained to the

French. Julius II., the formidable centre of the Alliance,

died at this moment (1513). … The allies secured the

election of a Medicean Pope, Leo X., a pontiff hostile to

France, and certain not to reverse that side of his

predecessor's policy. … Louis, finding himself menaced on

every side, suddenly turned about and offered his friendship

to Venice. … Natural tendencies overbore all resentments on

both sides, and a treaty between them both guaranteed the

Milanese to Louis and gave him a strong force of Venetian

soldiers. Meanwhile, Ferdinand had come to terms with

Maximilian and boyish Henry VIII., who … had framed a scheme

for the overthrow of France. The French king, instead of

staying at home to defend his frontiers, was eager to retake

Milan, and to join hands with the Venetians. … But the Swiss

round Maximilian Sforza defended him without fear or

treachery; and catching the French troops under La Trémoille

in a wretched position not far from Novara, attacked and

utterly defeated them (1513). The French withdrew beyond the

Alps; the Venetians were driven off with great loss by the

Spaniards, who ravaged their mainland territories down to the

water's edge. For the short remainder of his life Louis XII.

had no leisure again to try his fortunes in Italy: he was too

busy elsewhere."

G. W. Kitchin,

History of France,

volume 2, book 2, chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

P. Villari,

Life and Times of Machiavelli,

book 1, chapters 12-14 (volume 3).

M. Creighton,

History of the Papacy,

book 5, chapters 15-16 (volume 4).

L. von Ranke,

History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations

from 1494 to 1514,

book 2, chapter 3.

Sir R. Comyn,

History of the Western Empire,

chapters 37-38 (volume 2).

L. Larchey,

History of Bayard,

book 2, chapters 21-44.

H. E. Napier,

Florentine History,

book 2, chapter 9 (volume 4).

ITALY: A. D. 1515-1516.

Invasion and reconquest of Milan by Francis I.

His treaty with the Pope.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1515; and 1515-1518.

ITALY: A. D. 1516-1517.

Abortive attempt against Milan by the Emperor, Maximilian.

His peace with Venice and surrender of Verona.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.

ITALY: A. D. 1520-1542.

Early Reformation movements

and their want of popular support.

The Council of Trent.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.

ITALY: A. D. 1521-1522.

Re-expulsion of the French from Milan.

The treason of the Constable Bourbon.

His appointment to the command of the Imperial army.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.

The double dealings of Pope Clement VII.

Invasion of Milanese by Francis I. and his defeat and capture

at Pavia.

The Holy League against Charles V.

The attack on Rome by Constable Bourbon.

Giulio de' Medici, natural son of Guiliano de' Medici, and

cousin of Leo X., had succeeded Adrian VI. in the Papacy in

1523, under the name of Clement VII. "Nothing could have been

more unfortunate than the new Pope's first steps on the

zig-zag path which he proposed to follow. Becoming alarmed at

the preponderating power of Charles [the Fifth, Emperor, King

of Spain and Naples; Duke of Burgundy, and ruler of all the

Netherlands, in 1524 be entered into a league with Francis

[the First, king of France];

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526;

and GERMANY: A. D. 1519.

but scarcely had this been concluded when the memorable battle

of Pavia resulting in the entire defeat of the French, on the

24th of February, 1525, and the captivity of the French king,

frightened him back again into seeking anew the friendship of

Charles, in April of that year.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525

Each of these successive treaties was of course duly sworn to

and declared inviolable; but it could hardly be expected that

he who exercised the power of annulling other men's oaths

would submit to be bound by his own, when the observance of

them became inconvenient. Clement accordingly was not

prevented by the solemn treaty of April, 1525, from conspiring

against his new ally in the July following. The object of this

conspiracy was to induce Ferdinando Francesco d'Avalos,

Marquis of Pescara, who commanded the army of Charles V.

before Milan, to revolt against his sovereign, and join the

Italians in an attempt to put an end for ever to Spanish sway

in Italy. … But the Spanish general had no sooner secured

clear evidence of the plans of the conspirators, by pretending

to listen to their proposals, than he reported the whole to

Charles. The miscarriage of this scheme, and the exposure

consequent upon it, necessarily threw the vacillating and

terrified Pontiff once more into the arms of Francis. 'The

Most Christian'—as the old Italian historians often

elliptically call the Kings of France—obtained his release

from his Madrid prison by promising on oath, on the 17th of

January, 1526, all that Charles, driving a hard bargain, chose

to demand of him.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1525-1526.

And Clement hastened to prove the sincerity of his renewed

friendship by a professional contribution to the success of

their new alliance, in the welcome shape of a plenary

absolution from all observance of the oaths so sworn. … On

the 22nd of May following [at Cognac], the Pope entered into a

formal league with Francis [called 'Holy' for the reason that

the Pope was a party to it]. Venice joined her troops to those

of the Ecclesiastical States, and they marched together to the

support of the Milanese, who had risen in revolt against the

Emperor. Assistance had also been promised by Henry of

England, who had stipulated, however, that he should not be

named as a party to the alliance, but only considered as its

protector. This was the most strenuous and most united attempt

Italy had yet made to rid herself of the domination of the

stranger, and patriotic hopes beat high in several Italian

hearts. … It may be easily imagined that the 'Most Catholic'

monarch [Charles V.] felt towards Clement at this time in a

manner which led him to distinguish very nicely between the

infallible head of the universal Church and the sovereign of

the Ecclesiastical States. … Though he retained the utmost

respect and reverence for the vicegerent of heaven, he thought

that a little correction administered to the sovereign of Rome

would not be amiss, and nothing could be easier than to find

means ready to his hand for the infliction of it. The Colonnas

were of course ready for a rebellion on the slightest

encouragement. … So when Don Ugo di Moncada, Charles's

general at Naples, proposed to the Colonnas to join him in a

little frolic at Clement's expense, the noble and most

reverend members of that powerful family jumped at the

proposal. … The united forces of the Viceroy and the

Colonnas accordingly one morning entered Rome, altogether

without opposition, and marched at once to the Vatican.

{1839}

They completely sacked, not only the Pope's palace, and the

residences of many gentlemen and prelates, but also, says the

historian [Varchi], 'with unheard-of avarice and impiety,'

robbed the sacristy of St. Peter of everything it contained.

Clement had barely time to escape into the castle of St.

Angelo; but as he found there neither soldiers nor ammunition,

nor even food for above three days, … he consented to a

treaty by which the Pope agreed to pardon the Colonnas freely

for all they had done against him; to take no steps to revenge

himself on them; to withdraw his troops from Lombardy; and to

undertake nothing in any way, or under any pretext, against

the Emperor." As a hostage for the fulfilment of this treaty,

Pope Clement gave his dear friend Filippo Strozzi; but no

sooner was he delivered from his captors than he hired seven

"black companies" of adventurers and 2,000 Swiss, and began a

furious war of extermination upon the Colonnas and all their

dependents. At the same time he wrote private letters to the

heads of his "Holy League," "warning them to pay no heed to

any statement respecting a treaty made by him with the

Emperor, and assuring them of his intention to carry on the

war with the utmost energy." A little later, however, this

remarkable Holy Father found it convenient to make another

treaty with the Viceroy of Naples, for the release of his

friend Strozzi, which bound him still more to friendly

relations with the Emperor. This latter treaty, of March,

1527, "would seem in some sort to imply the reconciliation

once again of the Pope and the Emperor." But Charles had

already set forces in motion for the chastisement of the

faithless Pope and his allies, which either he could not or

did not care to arrest. "The Constable Bourbon, whom the gross

injustice of Francis I., and the intolerable persecution of

his infamous mother, Louise de Savoie, had driven to abandon

his country and allegiance [see FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523], …

was now … marching southwards, with the imperial troops, to

chastise the different members of the League against the

Emperor, which Clement, as has been seen, had formed. George

Frundsberg, a German leader of reputation, had also crossed

the Alps with 15,000 men,—'all Lutherans and Lanzknechts,' as

the Italians write with horror and dismay,—and had joined

these forces to the Spaniards under Bourbon. … The combined

force was in all respects more like a rabble rout of brigands

and bandits than an army; and was assuredly such as must, even

in those days, have been felt to be a disgrace to any

sovereign permitting them to call themselves his soldiers.

Their pay was, as was often the case with the troops of

Charles V., hopelessly in arrear, and discipline was of course

proportionably weak among them. … The progress southward of

this bandit army … filled the cities exposed to their inroad

with terror and dismay. They had passed like a destroying

locust swarm over Bologna and Imola, and crossing the

Apennines, which separate Umbria from Tuscany, had descended

into the valley of the Arno not far from Arezzo. Florence and

Rome both trembled. On which would the storm burst? That was

the all-absorbing question. Pope Clement, with his usual

avarice-blinded imbecility, had, immediately on concluding the

above-mentioned treaty with the Neapolitan viceroy, discharged

all his troops except a body-guard of about 600 men. Florence

was nearly in as defenceless a position"; but a small army of

the League, under the Duke of Urbino, was at Incisa, and it

was "probably the presence of this army, little as it had

hitherto done to impede the progress of the enemy, which

decided Bourbon eventually to determine on marching towards

Rome. It seems doubtful how far they were in so doing,

executing the orders, or carrying out the wishes, of the

Emperor. … Upon the whole we are warranted in supposing that

Bourbon and Frundsberg would hardly have ventured on the

course they took, if they had not had reason to believe that

it would not much displease their master. … On the 5th of

May [1527] Bourbon arrived beneath the walls of Rome. … On

the evening of the 6th of May the city was stormed and given

over to the unbridled cupidity and brutality of the soldiers.

… Bourbon himself had fallen in the first moments of the

attack."

T. A. Trollope,

History of the Commonwealth of Florence,

book 10, chapter 3 (volume 4).

ALSO IN:

T. A. Trollope,

Filippo Strozzi,

chapter 7.

W. Robertson,

History of the Reign of Charles V.,

book 4 (volume 2).

L. von Ranke,

History of the Reformation in Germany,

book 4, chapters 1-3.

ITALY: A. D. 1527.

The Sack of Rome by the Spanish and German Imperialists.

"Bourbon fell at the first assault; but by evening the Vatican

suburb was in the hands of the enemy. Clement, who was even

best informed of the state of things, had not anticipated such

an issue. He scarcely saved himself by flight from the Vatican

to the castle of St. Angelo, whither the fugitive population

hurried, as the shipwrecked crew of an entire fleet hastens to

a single boat which cannot receive them. In the midst of the

thronging stream of men, the portcullis was lowered. Whoever

remained without was lost. Benvenuto Cellini was at that time

in Rome, and was among the defenders of the walls. He boasted

that his ball had destroyed Bourbon. He stole fortunately into

the citadel, before it was closed, and entered the Pope's

service as bombardier. Even at this last moment, Clement might

have saved Rome itself, which, situated on the opposite shore

of the river, had not yet been entered by the enemy. They

offered to spare it for a ransom; but finding this too high,

and awaiting hourly Urbino's army, to which, though nothing

was yet to be seen of it, he looked as a deliverer in the time

of need, he would hear nothing of it. And thus the undefended

city fell into the hands of the imperialists. Almost without

resistance they entered Trastevere, a small quarter of the

city lying to the west of the Tiber; and then crossing the

bridges, which no one had demolished, they pressed forwards

into the heart of Rome. It was the depth of the night.

Benvenuto Cellini was stationed on the tower of the castle of

St. Angelo, at the foot of the colossal angel, and saw the

flames bursting forth in the darkness, and heard the sorrowful

cry all around. For it was late before the soldiers began to

cast off all restraint. They had entered quietly. The Germans

stood in battalions. But when they saw the Spaniards broken up

and plundering, the desire was aroused in them also; and now a

spirit of emulation appeared, as to which nation could outdo

the other in cruelty. The Spaniards, it is asserted by

impartial Italians, carried the day.

{1840}

There had been no siege, no bombardment, no flight of any

great extent; but as if the earth had opened, and had

disgorged a legion of devils, so suddenly came these hosts.

Everything was in a moment abandoned to them. We must

endeavour to conceive what kind of men these German soldiers

were. They formed an intermediate class between the prime and

the refuse of the people. Gathered together by the hope of

booty, indifferent what end was assigned them, rendered wild

by hunger and tardy pay, left without a master after the death

of their commander, they found themselves unrestrained in the

most luxurious city of the world—a city abounding with gold

and riches, and at the same time decried for centuries in

Germany, as the infernal nest of the popes, who lived there as

incarnate devils, in the midst of their Babylonian doings. The

opinion that the pope of Rome, and Clement VII. in particular,

was the devil, prevailed not only in Germany, but in Italy and

in Rome the people called him so. In the midst of plague and

famine he had doubled the taxes and raised the price of bread.

What with the Romans, however, was an invective arising from

indignation, was an article of faith among the Germans. They

believed they had to do with the real antichrist, whose

destruction would be a benefit to Christendom. We must

remember, if we would understand this fury of the German

soldiery, in whose minds, as in those of all Germans, Lutheran

ideas at that time prevailed, how Rome had been preached and

written upon in the north. The city was represented to people

as a vast abyss of sin; the men as villains, from the lowest

up to the cardinals; the women as courtesans; the business of

all as deceit, theft, and murder; and the robbing and deluding

of men that had for centuries been emanating from Rome, was

regarded as the universal disease from which the world was

languishing. Thither for centuries the gold of Germany had

flowed; there had emperors been humbled or poisoned; from Rome

every evil had sprung. And thus, while satiating themselves

with rapine and murder, they believed a good work was being

done for the welfare of Christendom, and for the avenge of

Germany. Never, however—this we know—does the nature of man

exhibit itself more beast-like, than when it becomes furious

for the sake of ideas of the highest character. Before the

castle of St. Angelo, which, carefully fortified with walls

and fosses, alone afforded resistance, the German soldiers

proclaimed Martin Luther as pope. Luther's name was at that

time a war-cry against pope and priestcraft. The rude

multitude surmised not what Luther desired when he attacked

the papacy. In front of St. Peter's church, they represented

an imitation of the papal election with the sacred garments

and utensils. They compelled one priest to give extreme

unction to a dying mule. One protested that he would not rest

until he had consumed a piece of the pope's flesh. It is true,

Italians for the most part relate this, but the German reports

themselves do not deny the excessive barbarity which was

permitted. Ten millions of precious metal was carried away.

How much blood did this money involve, and what was done to

those from whom it was taken? Fewer were put to death than

were plundered, says one of the records, but what does that

imply? It is true, the Germans often quarrelled with the

Spaniards, because the horrors which they saw them practise

were too terrible for them. Otherwise the sparing of human

life was less an act of clemency than of covetousness.

Prisoners of war were at that time regarded as slaves; they

were carried away as personal property, or a ransom was

extorted. … This system was carried to a great pitch in

Rome. The possessors of palaces were obliged to purchase their

ransom, the Spanish cardinals as well as the Italian—no

difference was made. Thus at least escape was possible. …

And as the people were treated, so were the things. Upon the

inlaid marble floor of the Vatican, where the Prince of Orange

took up his abode—the command of the army devolving upon him

after Bourbon's death—the soldiers lighted their fire. The

splendid stained glass windows, executed by William of

Marseilles, were broken for the sake of the lead. Raphael's

tapestries were pronounced excellent booty; in the paintings

on the walls the eyes were put out; and valuable documents

were given as straw to the horses which stood in the Sistine

Chapel. The statues in the streets were thrown down; the

images of the Mother of God in the churches were broken to

pieces. For six months the city thus remained in the power of

the soldiery, who had lost all discipline, Pestilence and

famine appeared. Rome had more than 90,000 inhabitants under

Leo X.; when Clement VII. returned a year after the conquest,

scarcely a third of that number then existed—poor, famished

people, who had remained behind, because they knew not whither

to turn. All this lay on the conscience of the man who now for

months had been condemned to look down upon this misery from

the castle of St. Angelo, in which the Spaniards held him

completely blockaded, and where pestilence and want of

provisions appeared just as much as down below in Rome. At

last, after waiting day after day, he saw Urbino's army

approaching from afar: their watch-fires were to be perceived;

and every moment he expected that the duke would attack and

deliver the city. But he moved not. It is thought he intended

now to avenge the rapine which the Medici under Leo. X. had

carried on against him. … After having rested for some time

in sight of the city, in which the imperialists had opened

their intrenchments round the castle of St. Angelo for a

regular siege, he withdrew back again to the north, and left

the pope to his fate."

H. Grimm,

Life of Michael Angelo,

chapter 10, section 3 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

Benvenuto Cellini,

Life,

translated by J. A. Symonds,

book 1, sections 34-38 (volume 1).

Benvenuto Cellini,

Life,

translated by T. Roscoe,

chapter 7.

J. S. Brewer,

The Reign of Henry VIII.,

chapter 25 (volume 2).

ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

Siege and captivity of the Pope.

New league against the Emperor.

French invasion and disastrous siege of Naples.

Genoese independence recovered.

Treaties of Barcelona and Cambrai.

Francis renounces all pretensions beyond the Alps.

Charles V. supreme.

Shut up in Castle St. Angelo, the Pope, Clement VII.,

"deprived of every resource, and reduced to such extremity of

famine as to feed on asses' flesh, was obliged to capitulate

on such conditions as the conquerors were pleased to

prescribe. He agreed to pay 400,000 ducats to the army; to

surrender to the emperor all the places of strength belonging

to the Church; and, besides giving hostages, to remain a

prisoner himself until the chief articles were performed. …

The account of this extraordinary and unexpected event was no

less surprising than agreeable to the emperor.

{1841}

But in order to conceal his joy from his subjects, who were

filled with horror at the success and crimes of their

countrymen, and to lessen the indignation of the rest of

Europe, he declared that Rome had been assaulted without any

order from him. He wrote to all the princes with whom he was

in alliance, disclaiming his having had any knowledge of

Bourbon's intention. He put himself and court into mourning;

commanded the rejoicings which had been ordered for the birth

of his son Philip to be stopped; and, employing an artifice no

less hypocritical than gross, he appointed prayers and

processions throughout all Spain for the recovery of the

pope's liberty, which, by an order to his generals, he could

have immediately granted him. … Francis and Henry [of France

and England], alarmed at the progress of the imperial arms in

Italy, had, even before the taking of Rome, entered into a

closer alliance; and, in order to give some check to the

emperor's ambition, had agreed to make a vigorous diversion in

the Low Countries. The force of every motive which had

influenced them at that time was now increased; and to these

was added the desire of rescuing the pope out of the emperor's

hands, a measure no less politic than it appeared to be pious.

This, however, rendered it necessary to abandon their hostile

intentions against the Low Countries, and to make Italy the

seat of war. … Besides all … public considerations, Henry

was influenced by one of a more private nature: having begun,

about this time, to form his great scheme of divorcing

Catharine of Aragon, towards the execution of which he knew

that the sanction of papal authority would be necessary, he

was desirous to acquire as much merit as possible with

Clement, by appearing to be the chief instrument of his

deliverance. … Henry … entered so eagerly into this new

alliance, that, in order to give Francis the strongest proof

of his friendship and respect, he formally renounced the

ancient claim of the English monarchs to the crown of France,

which had long been the pride and ruin of the nation; as a

full compensation for which he accepted a pension of 50,000

crowns, to be paid annually to himself and his successors. The

pope, being unable to fulfil the conditions of his

capitulation, still remained a prisoner. … The Florentines

no sooner heard of what had happened at Rome, than they ran to

arms … and, declaring themselves a free state, reëstablished

their ancient popular government.

See FLORENCE: A. D.1502-1569.

The Venetians, taking advantage of the calamity of their ally,

the pope, seized Ravenna, and other places belonging to the

church, under pretext of keeping them in deposite." On the

other hand, Lannoy, Charles' viceroy at Naples, "marched to

Rome, together with Moncada and the Marquis del Guasto, at the

head of all the troops which they could assemble in the

kingdom of Naples. The arrival of this reinforcement brought

new calamities on the unhappy citizens of Rome; for the

soldiers, envying the wealth of their companions, imitated

their license, and with the utmost rapacity gathered the

gleanings which had escaped the avarice of the Spaniards and

Germans. There was not now any army in Italy capable of making

head against the imperialists." But the troops who had enjoyed

months of license and riotous pillage in Rome could not be

brought back to discipline, and refused to quit the perishing

city. They had chosen for their general the Prince of Orange,

who "was obliged to pay more attention to their humours than

they did to his commands. … This gave the king of France and

the Venetians leisure to form new schemes, and to enter into

new arrangements for delivering the pope, and preserving the

liberties of Italy. The newly-restored republic of Florence

very imprudently joined with them, and Lautrec … was …

appointed generalissimo of the league. … The best troops in

France marched under his command; and the king of England,

though he had not yet declared war against the emperor,

advanced a considerable sum towards carrying on the

expedition. Lautrec's first operations [1527] were prudent,

vigorous and successful. By the assistance of Andrew Doria,

the ablest sea-officer of that age, he rendered himself master

of Genoa, and reëstablished in that republic the faction of

the Fregosi, together with the dominion of France. He obliged

Alexandria to surrender after a short siege, and reduced all

the country on that side of the Tessino. He took Pavia, which

had so long resisted the arms of his sovereign, by assault,

and plundered it with … cruelty. … But Lautrec durst not

complete a conquest which would have been so honourable to

himself and of such advantage to the league. Francis … was

afraid that, if Sforza were once reëstablished in Milan, they

[his confederates] would second but coldly the attack which he

intended to make on the kingdom of Naples. … Happily the

importunities of the pope and the solicitations of the

Florentines, the one for relief, and the other for protection,

were so urgent as to furnish him with a decent pretext for

marching forward. … While Lautrec advanced slowly towards

Rome, the emperor" came to terms with the pope, and Clement

obtained his liberty at the cost of 350,000 crowns, a tenth of

the ecclesiastical revenues of Spain, and an agreement to take

no part in the war against Charles. The latter next made

overtures to the French king, offering some relaxation of the

treaty of Madrid; but they were received in a manner that

irritated even his cold temper. He, in turn, provoked his

antagonist, until a ridiculous exchange of defiances to

personal combat passed between them. Meantime "Lautrec

continued his operations, which promised to be more decisive.

His army, which was now increased to 35,000 men, advanced by

great marches towards Naples." The remains of the imperial

army retreated, as he advanced, from Rome, where it had held

riot for ten months, and took shelter behind the

fortifications of the Neapolitan capital. Lautrec undertook

(April, 1528) the siege of Naples, with the co-operation of

the Genoese admiral, Doria, who blockaded its port. But he was

neglected by his own frivolous king, and received little aid

from the Pope, the king of England, or other confederates of

the league. Moreover, Doria and the Genoese suffered treatment

so insolent, oppressive and threatening, from the French court

that the former opened negotiations with the emperor for a

transfer of his services. "Charles, fully sensible of the

importance of such an acquisition, granted him whatever terms

he required.

{1842}

Doria sent back his commission, together with the collar of

St. Michael, to Francis, and, hoisting the imperial colours,

sailed with all his galleys towards Naples, not to block up

the harbour of that unhappy city, as he had formerly engaged,

but to bring them protection and deliverance. His arrival

opened the communication with the sea, and restored plenty in

Naples, which was now reduced to the last extremity; and the

French … were soon reduced to great straits for want of

provisions." With the heat of summer came pestilence; Lautrec

died, and the wasted French army, attempting to retreat, was

forced to lay down its arms and march under guard to the

frontiers of France. "The loss of Genoa followed immediately

upon the ruin of the army in Naples." Doria took possession of

the town; the French garrison in the citadel capitulated

(September 12, 1528), and the citadel was destroyed. "It was

now in Doria's power to have rendered himself the sovereign of

his country, which he had so happily delivered from

oppression." But he magnanimously refused any preeminence

among his fellow citizens. "Twelve persons were elected to

new-model the constitution of the republic. The influence of

Doria's virtue and example communicated itself to his

countrymen; the factions which had long torn and ruined the

state seemed to be forgotten; prudent precautions were taken

to prevent their reviving; and the same form of government

which hath subsisted with little variation since that time in

Genoa, was established with universal applause." In Lombardy,

the French army, under St. Pol, was surprised, defeated and

ruined at Landriano (June, 1529), as completely as the army in

Naples had been a few months before. All parties were now

desirous of peace, but feared to seem too eager in making

overtures. Two women took the negotiations in hand and carried

them to a conclusion. "These were Margaret of Austria,

dutchess dowager of Savoy, the emperor's aunt, and Louise,

Francis's mother. They agreed on an interview at Cambray, and,

being lodged in two adjoining houses, between which a

communication was opened, met together without ceremony or

observation, and held daily conferences, to which no person

whatever was admitted." The result was a treaty signed August

5, 1529, known as the Peace of Cambray, or "the Ladies'

Peace," or "Peace of the Dames." By its terms, Francis was to

pay 2,000,000 crowns for the ransom of his sons; restore such

towns as he still held in the Milanese; resign and renounce

his pretensions to Naples, Milan, Genoa, and every other place

beyond the Alps, as well as to Flanders and Artois; and

consummate his marriage with the emperor's sister, Eleanora.

On the other hand, the emperor only agreed not to press his

claims on Burgundy, for the present, but reserved them, in

full force. Another treaty, that of Barcelona, had already, in

1529, been concluded between the emperor and the pope. The

former gave up the papal states which he occupied, and agreed

to reëstablish the dominion of the Medici in Florence; besides

giving his natural daughter in marriage to Alexander, the head

of that family. In return he received the investiture of

Naples, absolution for all concerned in the plundering of

Rome, and the grant to himself and his brother of a fourth of

the ecclesiastical revenues throughout their dominions.

W. Robertson,

History of the Reign of Charles V.,

books 4-5.

ALSO IN:

F. P. Guizot,

Popular History of France,

chapter 28.

C. Coignat,

Francis I. and his Times,

chapter 9.

G. B. Malleson,

Studies from Genoese History,

chapter 1.

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1528-1570.

Naples under the Spanish Viceroys.

Ravages of the Turks along the coast.

Successful revolt against the Inquisition.

Unsuccessful French invasion under Guise.

"After the memorable and unfortunate expedition of Lautrec, in

1528, Philibert of Chalons, Prince of Orange, who commanded

the Imperial army, exercised the severest vengeance [in

Naples] on the persons and estates of all those nobles who had

joined the French, or who appeared to demonstrate any

attachment towards that nation. … These multiplied … acts

of oppression received no effectual redress during the short

administration [1529-1532] of Cardinal Colonna, who succeeded

to the Prince of Orange. … In the place of Cardinal Colonna

was substituted Don Pedro de Toledo, who governed Naples with

almost unlimited powers, during the space of near 21 years.

His viceroyalty, which forms a memorable Epocha in the annals

of the country, demands and fixes attention. We are impressed

with horror at finding, by his own confession, … that during

the progress of his administration, he put to death near

18,000 persons, by the hand of the executioner. Yet a fact

still more extraordinary is that Giannoné, himself a

Neapolitan, and one of the ablest as well as most impartial

historians whom the 18th century has produced, not only

acquits, but even commends Toledo's severity, as equally

wholesome and necessary," on account of the terrible

lawlessness and disorder which he found in the country. "The

inflexible and stern character of the viceroy speedily

redressed these grievances, and finally restored order in the

capital. … All the provinces experienced equal attention,

and became the objects of his personal inspection. The

unprotected coasts of Calabria and of Apulia, subject to the

continual devastation of the Turks, who landed from their

gallies, were fortified with towers and beacons to announce

the enemy's approach. … Repeated attempts were made by

Solyman II., Emperor of the Turks, either alone or in

conjunction with the fleets of France, to effect the conquest

of Naples, during this period: but the exertions of Toledo

were happily attended with success in repulsing the Turkish

invaders. … In no part of the middle ages … were the

coasts of Naples and Sicily so frequently plundered, ravaged,

and desolated, as at this period. Thousands of persons of both

sexes, and of all conditions, were carried off by Barbarossa,

Dragut, Sinan, and the other Bashaws, or admirals of the

Porte. Not content with landing on the shores and ravaging the

provinces, their squadrons perpetually appeared in sight of

Naples; laid waste the islands of Ischia and Procida, situate

in its immediate vicinity; attacked the towns of Pouzzoli and

Baiæ; and committed every outrage of wanton barbarity. … The

invasion of 1552, when Dragut blocked up the harbour of

Naples, with 150 large gallies, during near four weeks, spread

still greater consternation; and if the fleet of France had

arrived, as had been concerted, it is more than probable that

the city must have fallen into their hands. But the delays of

Henry II., Solyman's ally, proved its preservation. The

Turkish admiral, corrupted by a present of 200,000 ducats,

which the Viceroy found means of conveying to him, retired and

made sail for Constantinople. …

{1843}

The administration of Toledo … was … completely subverted

from the moment that he attempted [1546] to introduce the

Inquisition. … The Neapolitans, patient under every other

species of oppression, instantly revolted. … They even

forgot, in the general terror, the distinction of ranks; and

the Barons united with their fellow-citizens to oppose that

formidable tribunal. The Viceroy, returning to the capital,

reinforced by 3,000 veteran Spaniards, determined

nevertheless, to support the measure. Hostilities took place,

and the city, during near three months, was abandoned to

anarchy, while the inhabitants, having invested the castle,

besieged their governor. … The Emperor, convinced by

experience of the impracticability of success in his attempt,

at length desisted." Toledo died in 1553, and "was succeeded

by the Cardinal Pacheco, as Viceroy; and the abdication of

Charles V., in the following year, devolved on his son Philip

II. the sovereignty of Naples. Alarmed at the preparations

made by Henry II., King of France, in conjunction with Paul

IV., who had newly ascended the papal throne, Philip

dispatched Ferdinand, Duke of Alva, to the aid of his

Neapolitan subjects; and to the vigorous measures embraced by

him on his arrival was due the safety of the kingdom.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

… The administration of the Duke of Alcala, to whom Philip

delegated the supreme power soon after the recall of Alva

[1558], lasted near 12 years, and was marked by almost every

species of calamity."

Sir N. W. Wraxall,

History of France, 1574-1610,

chapter 9 (volume 2).

"The march of the Mareschal of Lautrec was the last important

attempt of the French to reconquer Naples. … Spain remained

in possession of this beautiful country for two centuries. …

Their [the Spaniards'] ascendancy was owing as well to an iron

discipline as to that inveterate character of their race, the

firmness of purpose which had gradually developed itself in

the long struggle for the country which they wrenched inch by

inch from their tenacious enemies. The Neapolitans found that

they had in the Spaniards different rulers from the French."

A. de Reumont,

The Carafas of Maddaloni:

Naples under Spanish Dominion,

book 1.

ITALY: A. D. 1529.

Siege of Florence by the Imperial forces.

Reinstatement of the Medici.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1502-1569.

ITALY: A. D. 1530-1600.

Under the Spanish domination, and the Papacy of the

Counter-Reformation.

The Inquisition.

The Jesuits.

The Vice-regal rule.

Deplorable state of the country.

"It will be useful, at this point, to recapitulate the net

results of Charles's administration of Italian affairs in

1530. The kingdom of the Two Sicilies, with the island of

Sardinia and the Duchy of Milan, became Spanish provinces, and

were ruled henceforth by viceroys. The House of Este was

confirmed in the Duchy of Ferrara, including Modena and

Reggio. The Duchies of Savoy and Mantua and the Marquisate of

Montferrat, which had espoused the Spanish cause, were

undisturbed. Genoa and Siena, both of them avowed allies of

Spain, the former under Spanish protection, the latter subject

to Spanish coercion, remained with the name and empty

privileges of republics. Venice had made her peace with Spain,

and though she was still strong enough to pursue an

independent policy, she showed as yet no inclination, and had,

indeed, no power, to stir up enemies against the Spanish

autocrat. The Duchy of Urbino, recognised by Rome and

subservient to Spanish influence, was permitted to exist. The

Papacy once more assumed a haughty tone, relying on the firm

alliance struck with Spain. This league, as years went by, was

destined to grow still closer, still more fruitful of results.

Florence alone had been excepted from the articles of peace.

It was still enduring the horrors of the memorable siege when

Clement left Bologna at the end of May. … Finally, on August

12, the town capitulated. Alessandro de' Medici, who had

received the title of Duke of Florence from Charles at

Bologna, took up his residence there in July 1531, and held

the State by help of Spanish mercenaries under the command of

Alessandro Vitelli. … Though the people endured far less

misery from foreign armies in the period between 1530 and 1600

than they had done in the period from 1494 to 1527, yet the

state of the country grew ever more and more deplorable. This

was due in the first instance to the insane methods of

taxation adopted by the Spanish viceroys, who held monopolies

of corn and other necessary commodities in their hands, and

who invented imposts for the meanest articles of consumption.

Their example was followed by the Pope and petty princes. …

The settlement made by Charles V. in 1530, and the various

changes which took place in the duchies between that date and

the end of the century, had then the effect of rendering the

Papacy and Spain omnipotent in Italy. … What they only

partially effected in Europe at large, by means of S.

Bartholomew massacres, exterminations of Jews in Toledo and of

Mussulmans in Granada, holocausts of victims in the Low

Countries, wars against French Huguenots and German Lutherans,

naval expeditions and plots against the state of England,

assassinations of heretic princes, and occasional burning of

free thinkers, they achieved with plenary success in Italy.

… It is the tragic history of the eldest and most beautiful,

the noblest and most venerable, the freest and most gifted of

Europe's daughters, delivered over to the devilry that issued

from the most incompetent and arrogantly stupid of the

European sisterhood, and to the cruelty, inspired by panic, of

an impious theocracy. When we use these terms to designate the

Papacy of the Counter-Reformation, it is not that we forget

how many of those Popes were men of blameless private life and

serious views for Catholic Christendom. When we use these

terms to designate the Spanish race in the sixteenth century,

it is not that we are ignorant of Spanish chivalry and

colonising enterprise, of Spanish romance, or of the fact that

Spain produced great painters, great dramatists, and one great

novelist in the brief period of her glory. We use them

deliberately, however, in both cases; because the Papacy at

this period committed itself to a policy of immoral,

retrograde, and cowardly repression of the most generous of

human impulses under the pressure of selfish terror; because

the Spaniards abandoned themselves to a dark fiend of

religious fanaticism; because they were merciless in their

conquests and unintelligent in their administration of

subjugated provinces; because they glutted their lusts of

avarice and hatred on industrious folk of other creeds within

their borders; because they cultivated barren pride and

self-conceit in social life; because at the great epoch of

Europe's reawakening they chose the wrong side and adhered to

it with fatal obstinacy. …

{1844}

After the year 1530 seven Spanish devils entered Italy. These

were the devil of the Inquisition, with stake and

torture-room, and war declared against the will and soul and

heart and intellect of man; the devil of Jesuitry, with its

sham learning, shameless lying, and casuistical economy of

sins; the devil of vice-royal rule, with its life-draining

monopolies and gross incapacity for government; the devil of

an insolent soldiery, quartered on the people, clamorous for

pay, outrageous in their lusts and violences; the devil of

fantastical taxation, levying tolls upon the bare necessities

of life, and drying up the founts of national well-being at

their sources; the devil of petty-princedom, wallowing in

sloth and cruelty upon a pinchbeck throne; the devil of

effeminate hidalgoism, ruinous in expenditure, mean and

grasping, corrupt in private life, in public ostentatious,

vain of titles, cringing to its masters, arrogant to its

inferiors. In their train these brought with them seven other

devils, their pernicious offspring: idleness, disease,

brigandage, destitution, ignorance, superstition,

hypocritically sanctioned vice. These fourteen devils were

welcomed, entertained, and voluptuously lodged in all the

fairest provinces of Italy. The Popes opened wide for them the

gates of outraged and depopulated Rome. … After a tranquil

sojourn of some years in Italy, these devils had every where

spread desolation and corruption. Broad regions, like the

Patrimony of S. Peter and Calabria, were given over to

marauding bandits; wide tracts of fertile country, like the

Sienese Maremma, were abandoned to malaria; wolves prowled

through empty villages round Milan; in every city the

pestilence swept off its hundreds daily; manufactures,

commerce, agriculture, the industries of town and rural

district, ceased; the Courts swarmed with petty nobles, who

vaunted paltry titles, and resigned their wives to cicisbei

and their sons to sloth; art and learning languished; there

was not a man who ventured to speak out his thought or write

the truth; and over the Dead Sea of social putrefaction

floated the sickening oil of Jesuitical hypocrisy."

J. A. Symonds,

Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,

part 1, chapter 1.

ITALY: A. D. 1536-1544.

French invasion of Piedmont.

French and Turkish siege of Nice.

Turkish ravages on the coast.

The Treaty of Crespy.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

ITALY: A. D. 1545-1556.

Creation of the duchy of Parma and Placentia,

under the rule of the House of Farnese.

See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.

ITALY: A. D. 1559-1580.

End of the French occupation of Savoy and Piedmont.

The notable reign of Emanuel Philibert.

See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580;

and FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

ITALY: A. D. 1559-1600.

Peace without Prosperity.

Foreign and domestic Despotism.

Exhaustion and helplessness of the country.

"From the epoch of the treaty of Château Cambresis [1559] to

the close of the 16th century, Italy remained, in one sense,

in profound and uninterrupted peace. During this long period

of 41 years, her provinces were neither troubled by a single

invasion of foreign armies, nor by any hostilities of

importance between her own feeble and nerveless powers. But

this half century presented, nevertheless, anything rather

than the aspect of public happiness and prosperity. Her

wretched people enjoyed none of the real blessings of peace.

Subject either to the oppressive yoke of their native despots,

or to the more general influence of the arch-tyrant of Spain,

they were abandoned to all the exactions of arbitrary

government, and compelled to lavish their blood in foreign

wars and in quarrels not their own. While France, torn by

religious and civil dissensions, sank for a time from her

political station among the powers of the continent, and was

no longer capable of affording protection or exciting

jealousy, Philip II. was left free to indulge in the peninsula

all the obdurate tyranny of his nature. … The popes were

interested in supporting his career of bigotry and religious

persecution; the other powers of Italy crouched before him in

abject submission. To feed the religious wars, in which he

embarked as a principal or an accessory, in the endeavour to

crush the protestant cause in France, in the Low Countries,

and in Germany, he drained Italy of her resources in money and

in men. … While the Italian soldiery fought with the courage

of freemen, they continued the slaves of a despot, and while

the Italian youth were consumed in transalpine warfare, their

suffering country groaned under an iron yoke, and was

abandoned a prey to the unresisted assaults of the infidels.

Her coasts, left without troops, or defences in fortifications

and shipping, were insulted and ravaged by the constant

descents of the corsairs of Turkey and Barbary. Her maritime

villages were burnt, her maritime population dragged off into

slavery; and her tyrants, while they denied the people the

power of defending themselves, were unable or careless also to

afford them protection and safety."

G. Procter,

History of Italy,

chapter 9.

ITALY: A. D. 1569.

Creation of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1502-1569.

ITALY: A. D. 1597.

Annexation of Ferrara to the States of the Church.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1597.

ITALY: A. D. 1605-1607.

Venice under the guidance of Fra Paolo Sarpi.

Successful contest of the Republic with the Papacy.

See VENICE: A. D. 1606-1607;

and PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.

ITALY: A. D. 1620-1626.

The Valtelline War.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

Disputed succession to the Duchy of Mantua.

War of France with Spain, Savoy and the Emperor.

"About Christmas in the year 1627, Vincenzo II., Duke of

Mantua, of the house of Gonzaga, died without issue. His next

of kin, beyond all controversy, was Charles Gonzaga, Duke of

Nevers, whose family had settled in France some fifty years

before, and acquired by marriage the dukedoms of Nevers and

Rethel. Although there was a jealousy on the part both of

Austria and Spain that French influences should be introduced

into Upper Italy, there seems to have been no intention, in

the first instance, of depriving Charles of his Italian

inheritance. … But … when the old Duke Vincenzo's days

were evidently numbered, Charles's son, the young Duke of

Rethel, by collusion with the citizens, arrived at Mantua to

seize the throne which in a little while death would make

vacant."

{1845}

At the same time, he took from a convent in the city a young

girl who represented whatever claims might exist in the direct

native line, and married her, the pope granting a

dispensation. "Both the King of Spain and the Emperor … were

incensed by conduct which both must needs have regarded as

indicative of hostility, and the latter as an invasion of his

feudal rights. Spain flew to arms at once. The emperor

summoned the young duke before his tribunal, to answer the

charges of having seized the succession without his

investiture, and married his ward without his consent. …

Charles, supported by the promises of Richelieu, refused to

acknowledge the emperor's rights of superiority, or to submit

to his jurisdiction."

B. Chapman,

History of Gustavus Adolphus,

chapter 8.

"The emperor … sequestered the disputed territory, and a

Spanish army invaded Montferrat [embraced in the dominions of

the Duke of Mantua] and besieged Casale, the capital. Such was

the paramount importance attached by Richelieu to his

principle of opposition to the house of Austria, that he

induced Louis to cross the Alps in person with 36,000 men, in

order to establish the Duke of Nevers in his new possessions.

The king and the cardinal forced the pass of Susa in March,

1629, in spite of the Duke of Savoy, who was another

competitor for Montferrat, and so decisive was the superiority

of the French arms that the duke immediately afterward signed

a treaty of peace and alliance with Louis, by which he

undertook to procure the abandonment of the siege of Casale

and the retreat of the Spaniards into their own territory.

This engagement was fulfilled, and the Duke of Nevers took

possession of his dominions without farther contest. But the

triumph was too rapid and easy to be durable."

N. W. Jervis,

Students' History of France,

chapter 19.

"The Spaniards remained, however, in Milaness, ready to burst

again upon the Duke of Mantua. The king was in a hurry to

return to France, in order to finish the subjugation of the

Reformers in the south, commanded by the Duke of Rohan. The

cardinal placed little or no reliance upon the Duke of Savoy.

… A league … was formed between France, the republic of

Venice, the Duke of Mantua, and the Duke of Savoy, for the

defence of Italy in case of fresh aggression on the part of

the Spaniards; and the king, who had just concluded peace with

England, took the road back to France. Scarcely had the

cardinal joined him before Privas when an Imperialist army

advanced into the Grisons and, supported by the celebrated

Spanish general Spinola, laid siege to Mantua. Richelieu did

not hesitate: he entered Piedmont in the month of March, 1630,

to march before long on Pignerol, an important place

commanding the passage of the Alps; it, as well as the

citadel, was carried in a few days. … The Duke of Savoy was

furious, and had the soldiers who surrendered Pignerol cut in

pieces. The king [Louis XIII.] had put himself in motion to

join his army. … The inhabitants of Chambéry opened their

gates to him; Annecy and Montmélian succumbed after a few

days' siege; Maurienne in its entirety made its submission,

and the king fixed his quarters there, whilst the cardinal

pushed forward to Casale [the siege of which had been resumed

by Spinola] with the main body of the army. Rejoicings were

still going on for a success gained before Veillane over the

troops of the Duke of Savoy, when news arrived of the capture

of Mantua by the Imperialists. This was the finishing blow to

the ambitious and restless spirit of the Duke of Savoy. He saw

Mantua in the hands of the Spaniards, 'who never give back

aught of what falls into their power' … ; it was all hope

lost of an exchange which might have given him back Savoy; he

took to his bed and died on the 26th of July, 1630, telling

his son that peace must be made on any terms whatever." A

truce was arranged, followed by negotiations at Ratisbon, and

Casale was evacuated by both parties—the Spaniards having

had possession of the city, while the citadel was held by the

French. "It was only in the month of September, 1631, that the

states of Savoy and Mantua were finally evacuated by the

hostile troops. Pignerol had been given up to the new Duke of

Savoy, but a secret agreement had been entered into between

that prince and France: French soldiers remained concealed in

Pignerol; and they retook possession of the place in the name

of the king, who had purchased the town and its territory, to

secure himself a passage into Italy. … The affairs of the

emperor in Germany were in too bad a state for him to rekindle

war, and France kept Pignerol."

F. P. Guizot,

Popular History of France,

chapter 41.

"The peace left all parties very nearly in the condition in

which they were when the war began; the chief loser was the

emperor, who was now compelled to acknowledge De Nevers as

Duke of Mantua and Montserrat; and the chief gainer was the

Duke of Savoy, whose territories were enlarged by the addition

of Alba, Trino, and some portions of the territory of

Montserrat which lay nearest to his Piedmontese dominions.

France; too, made some permanent acquisitions to compensate

her for the cost of the war. She eluded the stipulation which

bound her to evacuate Casal, and Victor Amedée subsequently

suffered her to retain both that fortress and Pignerol, such

permission, as was generally believed, … having furnished

the secret reason which influenced Richelieu to consent to the

duke's obtaining the portion of Montserrat already mentioned,

the cardinal thus making the Duke of Mantua furnish the

equivalent for the acquisitions made by Louis."

C. D. Yonge,

History of France under the Bourbons,

chapter 7 (volume 1).

ITALY: A. D. 1631.

Annexation of Urbino to the States of the Church.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.

ITALY: A. D. 1635.

Italian alliances of Richelieu against the Spaniards in Milan.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

Invasion of Milanese by French and Italian armies.

Civil war and foreign war in Savoy and Piedmont.

The extraordinary siege of Turin.

Treaty of the Pyrenees.

Restoration of territory to Savoy.

"Richelieu … having obtained the alliance of the Dukes of

Savoy, Parma, and Mantua, and having secured the neutrality of

the Republics of Venice and Genoa, now bent all his efforts to

expel the Spaniards from Milan, which was at that time but

weakly defended. … In 1635, a French army of 15,000 men was

accordingly assembled in Dauphiny, and placed under the

command of Mareschal Crequi. Having crossed the Alps, it

formed a junction with 8,000 troops under the Duke of Parma,

and 12,000 under the Duke of Savoy, to whom the supreme

command of this formidable army of 35,000 men was entrusted.

{1846}

Such a force, if properly employed, ought to have proved

sufficient to overwhelm the Dutchy of Milan, in its present

unprotected condition. … But the confederates were long

detained by idle disputes among themselves, their

licentiousness and love of plunder." When they did advance

into Milanese, their campaign was ineffective, and they

finally "separated with mutual disgust," but "kept the field,

ravaging the open and fertile plains of Milan. They likewise

took possession of several towns, particularly Bremi, on the

Po. … On hearing of the distress of Milan, the King of Spain

took immediate steps for the relief of that bulwark of his

Italian power. In 1636 he appointed to its government Diego

Guzman, Marques of Leganez, who was a near relative of

Olivarez. … He had not long entered on the government

intrusted to him when he succeeded in expelling the enemy from

every spot in Milan, with exception of Bremi, which they still

retained. Milan having been thus delivered, Leganez

transferred the theatre of war to the States of the Duke of

Parma, and completely desolated those fertile regions,"

compelling the Duke to renounce his French alliance (1637).

"The Duke of Savoy, Victor Amadeus, did not long survive these

events; and it was strongly suspected, both in Spain and

Italy, though probably on no just grounds, that he had been

poisoned. … The demise of the Duke of Mantua occurred nearly

about the same period; and on the decease of these two

princes, the Court of Spain used every exertion to detach

their successors from the French confederacy. Its efforts

succeeded, at least to a certain extent, with the

Dutchess-dowager of Mantua. … But the Dutchess of Savoy, …

being the sister of Louis XIII., could not easily be drawn off

from the French interests. Olivarez [the Spanish minister],

despairing to gain this princess, excited by his intrigues the

brothers of the late Duke [Cardinal Maurice and Prince Thomas]

to dispute with her the title to the regency." Leganez, now

(1638) laid siege to Bremi, and Marshal Crequi, in attempting

to relieve the place, was killed by a cannon shot. "By the

loss of Bremi, the French were deprived of the last receptacle

for their supplies or forces in the Dutchy of Milan; and in

consequence of the death of Crequi, they had now no longer any

chief of their own nation in Italy. The few French nobility

who were still in the army returned to their own country, and

the soldiery dispersed into Montferrat and Piedmont. Leganez,

availing himself of this favourable posture of affairs,

marched straightway into Piedmont, at the head of an army of

20,000 men. … He first laid siege to Vercelli, which, from

its vicinity to Milan, had always afforded easy access for the

invasion of that dutchy, by the French and Savoyards." A new

French army, of 13,000 men, under Cardinal La Valette, was

sent to the relief of the place, but did not save it from

surrender. "After the capture of Vercelli, the light troops of

Leganez ravaged the principality of Piedmont as far as the

gates of Turin."

J. Dunlop,

Memoirs of Spain, from 1621 to 1700,

volume 1, chapter 4.

Fabert and Turenne were now sent from France to the assistance

of La Valette, "and soon changed the aspect of affairs.

Turenne aided powerfully in driving back Leganez and Prince

Thomas from Turin, in seizing Chivasso and in organizing a

decisive success." In November, 1639, the French, through want

of provisions, were forced to retreat to Carignano, repelling

an attack made upon them in the course of the retreat. The

command was now handed over to Turenne, "with instructions to

revictual the citadel of Turin, which was defended by French

troops against Prince Thomas, who had gained most of the town.

Turenne succeeded … in conveying food and munitions into the

citadel. In the following spring d'Harcourt [resuming command]

undertook to relieve Casale, which belonged to the Duke of

Mantua. … The place was besieged by Leganez." The attempt

succeeded, the besieging army was beaten, and the siege

raised. "After the relief of Casale d'Harcourt resolved, on

the advice of Turenne, to besiege Turin. The investment was

made on the 10th May, 1640. This siege offered a curious

spectacle; the citadel which the French held was besieged by

Prince Thomas, who held the town. He himself was besieged by

the French army, which in its turn was besieged in its lines

of circumvallation by the Spanish army of Leganez. The place

capitulated on the 17th September. … Prince Thomas

surrendered; Leganez recrossed the Po; Marie Christine [the

Dowager-Duchess] re-entered Turin; and d'Harcourt, being

recalled to France by the cardinal, left the command of the

army to Turenne."

H. M. Hozier,

Turenne,

chapter 2.

"The fall of Turin did not put an end to the civil war, but

its main exploits were limited to the taking of Cuneo by

Harcourt (September 15th, 1641), … and of Revel, which was

reduced by the Piedmontese troops who fought on the French

side. … In the meantime the Regent, no less than her

opponents, began to grow weary of the burdensome protection of

their respective allies. … Under such circumstances, a

reconciliation between the hostile parties became practicable,

and was indeed effected on the 24th of July, 1642. The Princes

were admitted to a share of the Regent's power, and from that

time they joined the French standard, and took from the

Spaniards most of the places they had themselves placed in

their hands. … In the meanwhile the great agitator of

Europe, Richelieu, had died (1642), and had been followed by

the King, Louis XIII., five months later. … The struggle

between the two great rival powers, France and Spain, scarcely

interrupted by the celebrated peace of Westphalia, which put

an end to the Thirty Years' War in the North, in 1648,

continued throughout the greatest part of this period; but the

rapid decline of Spain, the factions of Alessio in Sicily and

of Massaniello in Naples, as much paralysed the efforts of the

Court of Madrid as the disorders of the Fronde weakened that

of Paris. The warlike operations in North Italy were languid

and dull. The taking of Valenza by the French (September 3rd,

1656) is the greatest event on record, and even that [was]

void of results. By the treaty of the Pyrenees (November 17th,

1059) Savoy was restored to her possessions, and Vercelli was

evacuated by the Spaniards. The citadel of Turin had been

given up by the French two years before, owing to the

influence of Mazarin, who married on that occasion his niece

Olimpia Mancini to Eugene Maurice, son of Thomas, Prince of

Carignano, and first cousin to Charles Emanuel II. From that

union, it is well known, was born in Paris, in 1663, Prince

Eugene of Savoy.

{1847}

The French nation were highly displeased at the loss of the

Turin citadel, and never forgave the Cardinal this mere act of

just and tardy restitution. Pinerola and Perosa, however,

still remained in their hands, and placed the Court of Turin

entirely at their discretion. During all this lapse of years,

and until the latter end of the century, the history of

Piedmont presents but a melancholy blank."

A. Gallenga,

History of Piedmont,

volume 3, chapter 2.

ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.

French hostility to the Pope.

Siege of Orbitello.

Masaniello's revolt at Naples.

French intrigue and failures.

"The war [of France and Spain] in Italy had for some years

languished, but hostility to the Pope [on the election of

Innocent X., which Cardinal Mazarin, then supreme in France,

had opposed] stirred it again into life. New vessels were

fitted out for the navy, and large preparations were made for

the invasion of Italy. … On April 26, 1646, the expedition

set sail, and on the 9th of May it cast anchor off the

important city of Orbitello. The fleet consisted of 156 sail,

and was expected to land 10,000 men, and Mazarin wrote that

all Italy was in terror. The ships were commanded by the Duke

of Brézé, and no more skilful or gallant leader could have

been found. … The command of the land forces was, however,

entrusted to a leader whose deficiencies more than

counterbalanced Brézé's skill. Mazarin desired an Italian

prince to lead his expedition, and Prince Thomas of Savoy had

been chosen for the command. … Fearing that disease would

come with the hot weather, Mazarin urged Prince Thomas to

press forward with the siege. But the most simple advances

seemed beyond his skill. … A severe misfortune to the navy

made the situation worse. In a sharp and successful engagement

with the Spanish fleet, a cannon ball struck and killed the

Duke of Brézé. His death was more disastrous than would have

been the loss of 20 sail. The French fleet retired to Provence

and left the sea open to the Spanish. Sickness was fast

reducing the army on land, and on July 18th Prince Thomas

raised the siege, which was no further advanced than when it

was begun, and led back the remains of his command to

Piedmont. … So mortifying an end to this expensive venture

only strengthened Mazarin's resolution to make his power felt

in Italy. The battered ships and fever-wasted soldiers were

scarcely back in Provence, when the minister began to prepare

a second expedition for the same end. … By September a fleet

of 200 sail, with an army of 8,000 men commanded by the

Marshals of La Meilleraie and Du Plessis, was under way. The

expedition was conducted with skill and success. Orbitello was

not again attacked, but Porto Longone, on the island of Elba,

and Piombino, on the mainland, both places of much strategic

importance, were captured after brief sieges. With this result

came at once the change in the feelings of Innocent X. for

which Mazarin had hoped," and certain objects of the latter's

desire—including a cardinal's hat for his brother

Michael—were brought within his reach. His attention was now

turned to the more southerly portion of the peninsula. "During

the expedition to Orbitello in 1646, Mazarin had closely

watched Naples, whose coming revolution he foresaw. The

ill-suppressed discontents of the city now showed themselves

in disturbances, sudden and erratic as the eruptions of

Vesuvius, and they offered to France an opportunity for

seizing the richest of the remaining possessions of Spain.

After the vicissitudes of centuries, Naples and Sicily were

now subject to the Spanish crown. They were governed by a

viceroy, and were subjected to the drain of men and money

which was the result of Spain's necessities and the

characteristic of her rule. Burdened with taxation, they

complained that their viceroy, the Duke of Arcos, was sending

to Spain money raised solely for their own defence. The

imposition of a duty on fruits, in a country where fruit

formed a cheap article of diet for the poor, and where almost

all were poor, kindled the long smouldering discontent. Under

the leadership of a fisherman [Tommaso Aniello], nicknamed

Masaniello, the people of Naples in 1647 rose in revolt.

Springing from utter obscurity, this young man of

twenty-seven, poor and illiterate, became powerful almost in a

day. While the Duke of Arcos hid himself away from the revolt,

Masaniello was made Captain-General of Naples. So sudden a

change turned his head. At first he had been bold, popular,

and judicious. He sought only, he said, to deliver the people

from their taxes, and when that was done, he would return

again to selling soles and red mullets. But political delirium

seized him when he reached an elevation which, for him, was as

dizzy as the throne of the Roman emperors, and like some who

reached that terrible eminence, his brain was crazed by the

bewilderment and ecstasy of power. He made wild and incoherent

speeches. He tore his garments, crying out against popular

ingratitude, attacking groups of passers-by, riding his horse

wildly through the multitude, and striking with his lance to

the right and left. The populace wearied of its darling.

Exalted to power on July 7th, he was murdered on the 16th,

with the approval of those who had worshipped him a week

before. But the revolution did not perish with him. Successive

chiefs were chosen and deposed by a fickle people. When the

insurrection was active, the representatives of Spain promised

untaxed fruits and the privileges allowed by Charles V., and

they revoked their promises when it appeared to subside. In

the meantime, Mazarin watched the movement, uncertain as to

the course he should pursue. … While the minister hesitated,

the chance was seized by one who was never accused of too

great caution." This was the Duke of Guise—the fifth Henry of

that Dukedom—a wild, madcap young nobleman, who accepted an

invitation from the Neapolitan insurgents to become their

chief. Guise landed at Naples on the 15th of November, 1647,

with half a dozen attendants, and a month later he was

followed by a French fleet. But the latter did nothing, and

Guise was helplessly without means. "The truth was that

Mazarin, even if desirous of crippling the Spaniards, was very

averse to assisting Guise. He believed that the duke either

desired to form a republic, of which he should be chief, or a

monarchy, of which he should be king, and neither plan was

agreeable to the cardinal." At the end of a fortnight the

fleet sailed away. Guise held his ground as the leader of the

revolt until the following April, when certain of the

Neapolitan patriots, corrupted by the enemy, betrayed the city

into the hands of the Spaniards.

{1848}

"Guise endeavored, with a handful of followers, to escape

towards Capua, but they were captured by a detachment of

Spaniards. … By the petition of powerful friends, and by the

avowal of France, Guise was saved from the public execution

which some of his enemies demanded, but he was presently taken

to Spain, and there was kept a prisoner during four years."

Meantime, Mazarin had prepared another expedition, which

appeared before Naples in the summer of 1648, but only to

discover that the opportunity for deriving any advantage from

the popular discontent in that city was past. "Receiving no

popular aid, the expedition, after some ineffective endeavors,

was abandoned." Six years afterwards, in 1654, Mazarin sent a

third expedition to Naples, and entrusted it to the command of

the Duke of Guise, who had lately been released from his

captivity in Spain. "Guise hoped that the Neapolitans would

rise in revolt when it was known that their former leader was

so near, but not a person in the city showed any desire to

start a movement in behalf of the Duke of Guise. The Spanish

met him with superior forces." After some slight encounters

the expedition sailed back to France.

J. B. Perkins,

France under Mazarin,

chapter 8 (volume 1),

and chapter 16 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

A. De Reumont,

The Carafas of Maddaloni:

Naples under Spanish Dominion,

book 3.

F. Midon,

Rise and Fall of Masaniello.

Mrs. H. R. St. John,

Masaniello of Naples.

H. G. Smith,

Romance of History,

chapter 1.

ITALY: A. D. 1648.

The Peace of Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713.

Savoy and Piedmont.

The War of the Spanish Succession.

The Peace of Utrecht.

"Compelled to take part, with one of the contending parties

[in the War of the Spanish Succession—see SPAIN: A. D.

1698-1700, and 1701-1702], Victor [Duke of Savoy] would have

been prompted by his interest to an alliance with Austria; but

he was beset on all sides by the combined forces of France and

Spain, and was all the more at their mercy as Louis XIV. had

(April 5th, 1701) obtained from Ferdinand Gonzaga of Mantua

permission to garrison his capital, in those days already one

of the strongest places in Italy. The Duke of Savoy had

already, in 1697, married his daughter, Adelaide, to one of

Louis's grandsons, the Duke of Burgundy; he now gave his

younger daughter, Mary Louise, to Burgundy's brother, the new

King of Spain (September 11th, 1701), and took the field as

French commander-in-chief. He was opposed by his own cousin,

Prince Eugene, at the head of the Imperial armies. The war in

Lombardy was carried on with some remissness, partly owing to

the natural repugnance or irresolution of the Duke of Savoy,

partly to the suspicion with which, on that very account, he

was looked upon by Catinat and Vaudemont, the French and

Spanish commanders under him. The King, in an evil hour,

removed his able marshal, Catinat, and substituted for him

Villeroi, a carpet knight and court warrior, who committed one

fault after another, allowed himself to be beaten by Eugene at

Chiari (September 1st), and to be surprised and taken prisoner

at Cremona (1702, January 21st), to the infinite relief of his

troops. Vendôme restored the fortunes of the French, and a

very brilliant but undecisive action was fought at Luzzara

(August 15th), after which Prince Eugene was driven from the

neighbourhood of Mantua, and fell back towards the mountains

of Tyrol. With the success of the French their arrogance

increased, and with their arrogance the disgust and ill-will

of Victor Amadeus." The Duke withdrew from the camp and began

to listen to overtures from the Powers in the Grand Alliance.

"Report of the secret intercourse of the Duke with Austrian

agents reached Louis XIV., who sent immediate orders to

Vendôme to secure and disarm the Piedmontese soldiers (3,800

to 6,000 in number) who were fighting under French standards

at Mantua. This was achieved by treachery, at San Benedetto,

on the 29th of September, 1703. An attempt to seize the Duke

himself, whilst hunting near Turin, miscarried. Savoy

retaliated by the arrest of the French and Spanish

ambassadors, and war was declared (October 5th). The moment

was ill-chosen. Victor had barely 4,000 men under his orders.

The whole of Savoy was instantly overrun; and in Piedmont

Vercelli, Ivrea, Verrua, as well as Susa, Bard, and Pinerolo,

and even Chivasso, fell into the enemy's hands during the

campaigns of 1704 and 1705. In the ensuing year the tide of

invasion reached Nice and Villafranca; nothing was left to

Victor Amadeus but Cuneo and Turin, and the victorious French

armies appeared at last under the very walls of the capital

(March, 1706). The war had, however, been waged with different

results beyond the Alps, where the allies had crushed the

French at Blenheim (1704) and at Ramillies (1705). One of the

heroes of those great achievements, Prince Eugene, now

hastened to the rescue of his cousin. He met with a severe

check at Cassano (August 16th, 1705), and again at Calcinato

(April 19th, 1706); but his skilful antagonist, Vendôme, was

called away to Flanders, and Prince Eugene so out-manœuvred

his successors as to be able to join Victor at Turin. The

French had begun the siege of this place on the 13th of May,

1706. They had between 50,000 and 60,000 men, and 170 pieces

of artillery with them." When Prince Eugene, early in

September, reached the neighborhood of Turin, he concerted

with Victor Amadeus an attack on the investing army which

destroyed it completely. "Its relics withdrew in awful

disorder towards Pinerolo, pursued not only by the victorious

troops but also by the peasantry, who, besides attachment to

their princes, obeyed in this instance an instinct of revenge

against the French, who had barbarously used them. Out of

50,000 or 60,000 men who had sat down before Turin in March,

hardly 20,000 recrossed the Alps in September. Three of the

French generals lay dead on the field; … 6,000 prisoners

were marched through the streets of the liberated town, and 55

French banners graced the main altar of the cathedral. In the

following year, Victor and Eugene, greatly against their

inclination, were induced by the allies to undertake an

expedition against Toulon, which, like all previous invasions

of Provence, led to utter discomfiture, and the loss of 10,000

combatants (1707, July 1st to September 1st). An attack upon

Briançon, equally undertaken against the sound judgment of the

Duke of Savoy, in 1708, led to no better results; but Savoy

won back Exilles, Perosa, Fenestrelles, and, one by one, all

the redoubts with which during those wars the Alps were

bristling.

{1849}

The war slackened in Italy, and the fates of Europe were

decided in the Netherlands. … By the Peace of Utrecht [A. D.

1713] France renounced to Savoy all the invaded territories,

and, besides, the valleys of Oulx, Cesanne, Bardonneche, and

Castel Delfino, ancient possessions of Dauphiny, east of the

Alps, from the 12th century, whilst, for her own part, Savoy

gave up the western valley of Barcellonette; thus the limits

between the two nations (with the exception of Savoy and Nice)

were at last fixed on the mountain-crest, at 'the parting of

the waters.' By virtue of an agreement signed with Austria,

November 8th, 1703, the whole of Montferrat, as well as

Alessandria, Valenza, Lomellina, and Val Sesia, dependencies

of the duchy of Milan, and the imperial fiefs in the Langhe

(province of Alba), were ceded to Savoy."

A. Gallenga,

History of Piedmont,

volume 3, chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

Colonel G. B. Malleson,

Prince Eugene of Savoy,

chapters 5, and 7-9.

H. Martin,

History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,

volume 2, chapters 5-6.

W. Coxe,

History of the House of Austria,

chapters 68, 69, 73-75, 77 (volume 2-3).

See, also,

UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

ITALY: A. D. 1713-1714.

Milan, Naples and Sardinia ceded to the House of Austria and

Sicily to the Duke of Savoy.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

Ambitions of Elizabeth Farnese, the Spanish queen.

The Austro-Spanish conflict.

The Quadruple Alliance.

Acquisition of Naples by the Spanish Bourbons.

By the provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht, Philip V. of Spain

was left with no dominions in Italy, the Italian possessions

of the Spanish monarchy having been transferred to Austria.

Philip might have accepted this arrangement without demur. Not

so his wife—"Elizabeth Farnese, a lady of the Italian family

for whom the Duchy of Parma had been created by the Pope. The

crown of Spain was settled on her step-son. For her own child

the ambitious queen desired the honours of a crown. Cardinal

Alberoni, a reckless and ambitious ecclesiastic, was the

minister of the Spanish court. Under his advice and instigated

by the queen, Philip claimed the possessions in Italy, which

in the days of his grandfather had belonged to the Spanish

crown. When his title to that crown was admitted, he denied

the right of the other powers of Europe to alienate from it

its possessions. This was not all: in right of his queen he

claimed the duchies of Parma and of Tuscany. She determined to

recover for him all the Italian possessions of the Spanish

crown, and to add to them the duchies of Parma and Tuscany.

The Duke of Parma was old and childless. The extinction of the

reigning line of the Medici was near. Cosmo di Medici, the

reigning sovereign, was old. His only son, Jean Gaston, was

not likely to leave heirs. To Parma Elizabeth advanced her

claims as heiress of the family of Farnese; to Tuscany she

asserted a more questionable title in right of a descent from

the family of Medici. These duchies she demanded for her son,

Don Carlos, in whose behalf she was ready to waive her own

claims. The success of these demands would have given to the

Spanish monarchy even greater power than it had before

enjoyed. To Naples, Sicily, and Milan, would have been added

the territories of Parma and Tuscany. All Europe denounced the

ambitious projects of Alberoni as entirely inconsistent with

that balance of power which it had then become a political

superstition to uphold. Philip's French relatives were

determined in opposition to his claims; and to resist them the

quadruple alliance was formed between Holland, England, France

and the emperor. The parties to this alliance offered to the

Spanish Bourbons that the emperor should settle on Don Carlos

the reversion to the duchies of Parma and Tuscany on their

lapsing to him by the failure of the reigning families without

heirs. These proposals were rejected, and it was not until the

Spanish court found the combination of four powerful monarchs

too strong for them, that they reluctantly acceded to the

terms of the Quadruple Alliance, and accepted for Don Carlos

the promised reversion of Parma and Tuscany. To induce the

emperor to accede to this arrangement the Duke of Savoy was

compelled to surrender to him his newly-acquired kingdom of

Sicily, receiving instead the island of Sardinia with its

kingly title. It is as kings of Sardinia that the princes of

Savoy have since been known in European history. The treaty of

the quadruple alliance was thus the second by which at this

period the European powers attempted to arrange the affairs of

Italy. This treaty left the house of Austria in possession of

Sicily and Naples. It was assented to by Spain in 1720.

European complications unconnected with Italy produced new

wars and a new treaty; and the treaty of Seville in 1724,

followed by one entered into at Vienna two years later,

confirmed Don Carlos in the duchy of Parma, of which, on the

death of the last of the Farnese in 1734, he entered into

possession. A dispute as to the election of a king of Poland

gave the Spanish court an opportunity of once more attempting

the resumption of the Neapolitan dominions. Don Carlos, the

second son of Philip and Elizabeth, was now just grown to

man's estate. His father placed in his hand the sword which he

himself had received from Louis XIV. Don Carlos was but

seventeen years old when he took possession of his sovereignty

of Parma. In the same year [1734] he was called from it to

invade the Sicilian dominions of Austria. He conquered in

succession the continental territories, and the island of

Sicily; and on the 15th of June, 1734, he was proclaimed as

King of the Two Sicilies. The war of the Polish Succession was

ended in the following year by a peace, the preliminaries of

which were signed at Vienna. In this treaty an entirely new

arrangement of Italian affairs was introduced. The rights of

Don Carlos to the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily were

recognised. Parma was surrendered to the emperor; and, lastly,

the duchy of Tuscany was disposed of to a new claimant

[Francis of Lorraine] for the honours of an Italian prince."

I. Butt,

History of Italy,

volume 1, chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

E. Armstrong,

Elisabeth Farnese,

chapters 2-10.

P. Colletta,

History of the Kingdom of Naples, 1734-1856,

book 1, chapter 1-2.

See, also,

SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;

and FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

ITALY: A. D. 1719.

The Emperor and the Duke of Savoy exchange Sardinia for

Sicily.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

ITALY: A. D. 1733-1735.

Franco-Austrian War.

Invasion of the Milanese by the French.

Naples and Sicily occupied by the Spaniards and erected into a

kingdom for Don Carlos.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

{1850}

ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.

The War of the Austrian Succession:

Ambitious undertakings of Spain.

"The struggle between England and Spain had altogether merged

in the great European war, and the chief efforts of the

Spaniards were directed against the Austrian dominions in

Italy.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.

The kingdom of Naples, which had passed under Austrian rule

during the war of the [Spanish] Succession, had, as we have

seen, been restored to the Spanish line in the war which ended

in 1740, and Don Carlos, who ruled it, was altogether

subservient to Spanish policy. The Duke of Lorraine, the

husband of Maria Theresa, was sovereign of Tuscany; and the

Austrian possessions consisted of the Duchy of Milan, and the

provinces of Mantua and Placentia. They were garrisoned at the

opening of the war by only 15,000 men, and their most

dangerous enemy was the King of Sardinia, who had gradually

extended his dominions into Lombardy, and whose army was,

probably, the largest and most efficient in Italy. 'The

Milanese,' his father is reported to have said, 'is like an

artichoke, to be eaten leaf by leaf,' and the skill and

perseverance with which for many generations the House of

Savoy pursued that policy, have in our own day had their

reward. Spanish troops had landed at Naples as early as

November 1741. The King of Sardinia, the Prince of Modena, and

the Republic of Genoa were on the same side. Venice was

completely neutral, Tuscany was compelled to declare herself

so, and a French army was soon to cross the Alps. The King of

Sardinia, however, at this critical moment, was alarmed by the

ambitious projects openly avowed by the Spaniards, and he was

induced by English influence to change sides. He obtained the

promise of certain territorial concessions from Austria, and

of an annual subsidy of £200,000 from England; and on these

conditions he suddenly marched with an army of 30,000 men to

the support of the Austrians. An the plans of the confederates

were disconcerted by this defection. The Spaniards went into

winter quarters near Bologna in October, fought an

unsuccessful battle at Campo Santo in the following February

[1743], and then retired to Rimini, leaving Lombardy in

complete tranquillity. The British fleet in the Mediterranean

had been largely strengthened by Carteret, and it did good

service to the cause. It burnt a Spanish squadron in the

French port of St. Tropez, compelled the King of Naples, by

the threat of bombardment, to withdraw his troops from the

Spanish army, and sign an engagement of neutrality, destroyed

large provisions of corn collected by the Genoese for the

Spanish army, and cut off that army from all communications by

sea."

W. E. H. Lecky,

History of England, 18th Century,

chapter 3 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

W. Coxe,

History of the House of Austria,

chapter 102 (volume 3).

ITALY: A. D. 1743.

The War of the Austrian Succession: Treaty of Worms.

"By a treaty between Great Britain, the Queen of Hungary, and

the King of Sardinia, signed at Worms September 23rd, 1743,

Charles Emanuel renounced his pretensions to Milan; the Queen

of Hungary ceding to him the Vigevanesco, that part of the

duchy of Pavia between the Po and the Tessino, the town and

part of the duchy of Piacenza, and a portion of the district

of Anghiera. Also whatever rights she might have to the

marquisate of Finale hoping that the Republic of Genoa would

facilitate this agreement, in order that the King of Sardinia

might have a communication with the sea. The Queen of Hungary

promised to increase her army in Italy to 30,000 men as soon

as the affairs of Germany would permit; while the King of

Great Britain engaged to keep a strong fleet in the

Mediterranean, and to pay Charles Emanuel annually £200,000,

so long as the war lasted, he keeping in the field an army of

45,000 men."

T. H. Dyer,

History of Modern Europe,

book 6, chapter 4 (volume 3).

ITALY: A. D. 1743.

The Bourbon Family Compact (France and Spain) for establishing

Spanish claims.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).

ITALY: A. D. 1744.

The War of the Austrian Succession:

Indecisive campaigns.

"In Italy, the discordant views and mutual jealousies of Maria

Theresa and the king of Sardinia prevented the good effects

which might have been derived from their recent union. The

king was anxious to secure his own dominions on the side of

France, and to conquer the marquisate of Finale; while Maria

Theresa was desirous to direct her principal force against

Naples, and recover possession of the two Sicilies. Hence,

instead of co-operating for one great object, their forces

were divided; and, after an arduous and active campaign, the

Austrians were nearly in the same situation as at the

commencement of the year. Prince Lobcowitz being reinforced,

compelled the Spaniards to retreat successively from Pesara

and Senegallia, attacked them at Loretto and Reconati, and

drove them beyond the Fronto, the boundary of the kingdom of

Naples. Alarmed by the advance of the Austrians, the king of

Naples broke his neutrality, quitted his capital at the head

of 15,000 men, and hastened to join the Spaniards. But Prince

Lobcowitz … turned towards Rome, with the hope of

penetrating into Naples on that side; and, in the commencement

of June, reached the neighbourhood of Albano. His views were

anticipated by the king of Naples, who, dividing the Spanish

and Neapolitan troops into three columns, which were led by

himself, the duke of Modena, and the count de Gages, passed

through Anagm, Valmonte, and Monte Tortino, and reunited his

forces at Veletri, in the Campagna di Roma. In this situation,

the two hostile armies, separated only by a deep valley,

harassed each other with continual skirmishes. At length

prince Lobcowitz, in imitation of prince Eugene at Cremona,

formed the project of surprising the head-quarters of the king

of Naples. In the night of August 10th, a corps of Austrians,

led by count Brown, penetrated into the town of Veletri,

killed all who resisted, and would have surprised the king and

the duke of Modena in their beds, had they not been alarmed by

the French ambassador, and escaped to the camp. The Austrian

troops, giving way to pillage, were vigorously attacked by a

corps of Spaniards and Neapolitans, despatched from the camp,

and driven from the town with great slaughter, and the capture

of the second in command, the marquis de Novati. In this

contest, however, the Spanish army lost no less than 3,000

men. This daring exploit was the last offensive attempt of the

Austrian forces. Prince Lobcowitz perceiving his troops

rapidly decrease by the effects of the climate, and the

unwholesome air of the Pontine marshes, began his retreat in

the beginning of November, and though followed by an army

superior in number, returned without loss to Rimini, Pesaro,

Cesano, and Immola; while the combined Spaniards and

Neapolitans took up their quarters between Viterbo and Civita

Vecchia.

{1851}

In consequence of the expedition against Naples, the king of

Sardinia was left with 30,000 men, many of them new levies,

and 6,000 Austrians, to oppose the combined army of French and

Spaniards, who advanced on the side of Nice. After occupying

that place, the united army forced the intrenched camp of the

Sardinians, though defended by the king himself, made

themselves masters of Montalbano and Villafranca, and prepared

to penetrate into Piedmont along the sea coast. The Genoese,

irritated by the transfer of Finale, were inclined to

facilitate their operations; but were intimidated by the

presence of an English squadron which threatened to bombard

their capital. The prince of Conti, who commanded under the

infant Don Philip, did not, however, relinquish the invasion

of Piedmont, but formed the spirited project of leading his

army over the passes of the Alps, although almost every rock

was a fortress, and the obstacles of nature were assisted by

all the resources of art. He led his army, with a large train

of artillery, and numerous squadrons of cavalry, over

precipices and along beds of torrents, carried the fort of

Chateau Dauphin, forced the celebrated Barricades which were

deemed impregnable, descended the valley of the Stura, took

Demont after a slight resistance, and laid siege to Coni. The

king of Sardinia, having in vain attempted to stop the

progress of this torrent which burst the barriers of his

country, indignantly retired to Saluzzo, to cover his capital.

Being reinforced by 6,000 Austrians, he attempted to relieve

Coni, but was repulsed after a severe engagement, though he

succeeded in throwing succours into the town. This victory,

however, did not produce any permanent advantage to the

confederate forces; Coni continuing to hold out, the approach

of winter and the losses they had sustained, amounting to

10,000 men, compelled them to raise the siege and repass the

Alps, which they did not effect without extreme difficulty."

W. Coxe,

History of the House of Austria,

chapter 105 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

W. Russell,

History of Modern Europe,

part 2, chapter 28.

ITALY: A. D. 1745.

The War of he Austrian Succession:

Successes of the Spaniards, French and Genoese.

"The Italian campaign of 1745, in boldness of design and

rapidity of execution, scarcely finds a parallel in military

history, and was most unpropitious to the Queen of Hungary and

King of Sardinia. The experience of preceding years had taught

the Bourbon Courts that all attempts to carry their arms

across the Alps would be fruitless, unless they could secure a

stable footing in the dominions of some Italian state on the

other side, to counteract the power of their adversary, who

had the entire command of the passes between Germany and

Italy, by means of which reinforcements could be continually

drafted to the scene of action. Accordingly they availed

themselves of the jealousy and alarm excited at Genoa, by the

transfer of Finale to the King of Sardinia, to engage that

republic on their side. The plan was to unite the two armies

which had wintered on the distant frontiers of Naples and

Provence, in the vicinity of Genoa, where they were to be

joined by 10,000 auxiliaries on the part of the republic.

Charles Emanuel was sensible of the terrible consequences to

himself, should the Genoese declare openly for the house of

Bourbon, and sent General Pallavicini, a man of address and

abilities, to renounce his pretensions to Finale, while

Admiral Rowley, with a British fleet, hovered on their coasts.

In spite of all this, nevertheless, the treaty of Aranjuez was

concluded between France, Spain, and Genoa. After surmounting

amazing difficulties, and making the most arduous and

astonishing marches, the army commanded by Don Philip, who was

accompanied by the French General Maillebois, and that

commanded by Count de Gages, effected their junction on the

14th of June, near Genoa, when their united forces, now under

Don Philip, amounted to 78,000 men. All that the King of

Sardinia could do under these circumstances, was to make the

best dispositions to defend the Milanese, the Parmesan, and

the Plaisantine; but the whole disposable force under the King

and Count Schulenburg, the successor of Lobkowitz, did not

amount to above 45,000 men. Count Gages with 30,000 men was to

be opposed to Schulenburg, and took possession of Serravalle,

on the Scrivia; then advancing towards Alessandria he obliged

the Austrians to retire under the cannon of Tortona. Don

Philip made himself master of Acqui, so that the King of

Sardinia, with the Austrian General, Count Schulenburg, had to

retreat behind the Tanaro. On the 24th of July the strong

citadel of Tortona was taken by the Spaniards, which opened

the way to the occupation of Parma and Placentia. The combined

army of French, Spanish, Neapolitans, and Genoese being now

masters of an extensive tract with all the principal towns

south of the Po, they readily effected a passage near the

confluence of the Ticino, and with a detachment surprised

Pavia. The Austrians, fearful for the Milanese, separated

accordingly from the Sardinian troops. The Bourbon force

seeing this, suddenly reunited, gained the Tanaro by a rapid

movement on the night of the 27th of September, forded it in

three columns, although the water reached to the very necks of

the soldiers, fell upon the unsuspecting and unprepared

Sardinians, broke their cavalry in the first charge, and drove

the enemy in dismay and confusion to Valenza. Charles Emanuel

fled to Casale, where he reassembled his broken army, in order

to save it from utter ruin. The confederate armies still

advanced, drove the King back and took Trino and Verua, which

last place lay but twenty miles from his capital: fearful now

that this might be bombarded he hastened thither, withdrew his

forces under its cannon, and ordered the pavement of the city

to be taken up. Maillebois, on his side, penetrated into the

Milanese, and by the month of October the territories of the

house of Austria in Italy were wholly subdued. The whole of

Lombardy being thus open, Don Philip made a triumphant entry

into Milan on the 20th of December, fondly hoping that he had

secured for himself an Italian kingdom, as his brother, Don

Carlos, had done at Naples. The Austrian garrison, however,

still maintained the citadel of Milan and the fortress of

Mantua."

Sir E. Cust,

Annals of the Wars of the 18th Century,

volume 2, pages 75-76.

ALSO IN:

A. Gallenga,

History of Piedmont,

volume 3, chapter 4.

{1852}

ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.

The War of the Austrian Succession: A turn of fortune.

The Spaniards and French abandon North Italy.

The Austrians in Genoa, and their expulsion from the city.

"Of all the Austrian possessions in Lombardy, little remained

except the fortress of Mantua and the citadel of Milan; while

the citadels of Asti and Alessandria, the keys of Piedmont,

were expected to fall before the commencement of the ensuing

campaign. On the return of the season for action, the struggle

for the mastery of Italy was renewed, and the queen of Spain

already saw in imagination the crown of Lombardy gracing the

brow of her second son. On the east, the French and Spanish

armies had extended themselves as far as Reggio, Placentia,

and Guastalla; on the north they were masters of the whole

country between the Adda and Tesino; they blockaded the

passages by the lake of Como and the Lago Maggiore, and were

preparing to reduce the citadel of Milan; on the west their

posts extended as far as Casale and Asti, though of the last

the citadel was still held by the Sardinians. The main body of

the French secured the communication with Genoa and the

country south of the Po; a strong body at Reggio, Parma, and

Placentia, covered their conquests on the east; and the

Spaniards commanded the district between the Po and the

mountains of Tyrol. The Sardinians were collected into the

neighbourhood of Trino; while the Austrians fell back into the

Novarrese to effect a junction with the reinforcements which

were daily expected from Germany. In this situation, a sudden

revolution took place in the fortune of the war. The empress

queen [Maria Theresa], by the conclusion of a peace with

Prussia, was at liberty to reinforce her army in Italy, and

before the end of February 30,000 men had already descended

from the Trentine Alps, and spread themselves as far as the

Po." This change of situation caused the French court to make

overtures to the king of Sardinia, which gave great offense to

Spain. The wily Sardinian gained time by his negotiations with

the French, until he found an opportunity, by suddenly ending

the armistice, to capture the French garrison in Asti, to

relieve the citadel of Alessandria and to lay siege to

Valenza. "These disasters compelled Maillebois [the French

general] to abandon his distant posts and concentrate his

forces between Novi and Voghera, in order to maintain the

communication with Genoa. Nor were the Spaniards beyond the Po

in a less critical situation. A column of 10,000 Austrians

under Berenclau having captured Codogno, and advanced to Lodi,

the Spanish general was compelled to withdraw his troops from

the passes towards the lakes, to send his artillery to Pavia

and draw towards the Po. The infant had scarcely quitted Milan

before a party of Austrian hussars entered the place."

Meantime, the Spanish general Castelar, blockaded in Parma by

the Austrians, broke through their lines and gained the

eastern Riviera, with the loss of half his force. In June, the

Spaniards and French, concentrated at Placentia, made a

powerful attack on the Austrians, to arrest their progress,

but were repulsed with heavy loss. The Sardinians soon

afterwards formed a junction with the Austrians, which

compelled the Spaniards and French to evacuate Placentia and

retreat to Genoa, abandoning stores and artillery and losing

many men. In the midst of these disasters, the Spanish king,

Philip V., died, and his widowed queen, Elizabeth Farnese

—the "Spanish termagant," Carlyle calls her—who had been

the moving spirit of the struggle for Italy, lost the reins of

government. His son (by his first wife, Maria Louisa of Savoy)

who succeeded him, had no ambitions and no passions to

interest him in the war, and resolved to escape from it. The

marquis Las Minas, whom he sent to take command of the

retreating army, speedily announced his intention to abandon

Italy. "Thus deserted, the situation of the French and Genoese

became desperate. … Maillebois, after exhorting the Genoese

to defend their territory to the last extremity, was obliged

to follow the example of Las Minas in withdrawing towards

Provence. Abandoned to their fate, the Genoese could not

withstand the combined attacks of the Austro-Sardinians,

assisted by the British fleet. The city surrendered almost at

discretion; the garrison were made prisoners of war; the

stores, arms and artillery were to be delivered; the doge and

six senators to repair to Vienna and implore forgiveness. The

marquis of Botta, who had replaced Lichtenstein in the

command, took possession of the place with 15,000 men, while

the king of Sardinia occupied Finale and reduced Savona. In

consequence of this success the Austrian court meditated the

re-conquest of Naples and Sicily, which had been drained of

troops to support the war in Lombardy." But this project was

overruled by the British government, and the allied army

crossed the Var, to carry the war into the southeastern

provinces of France. "Their progress was, however, instantly

arrested by an insurrection at Genoa, occasioned by the

exactions and oppressions of the Austrian commanders. The

garrison was expelled by the tumultuary efforts of the

populace; and the army, to obviate the mischiefs of this

unexpected reverse, hastily measured back its steps. Instead

of completing the disasters of the Bourbon troops, the

Austro-Sardinians employed the whole winter in the investment

of Genoa." The siege was protracted but unsuccessful, and the

allies were forced to abandon it the following summer, on the

approach of the Bourbon forces, which resumed the offensive

under Marshal Belleisle. After delivering Genoa, the latter

sent a detachment of his army into Piedmont, where it met with

disaster. No further operations of importance were undertaken

before the conclusion of the peace, which was then being

negotiated at Aix-la-Chapelle.

W. Coxe,

Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,

chapters 46-48 (volumes 3-4).

ALSO IN:

J. T. Bent,

Genoa,

chapter 16.

ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.

Peace in the Peninsula.

The Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle "left nothing to Austria in

Italy except the duchies of Milan and Mantua. Although the

grand-duchy of Tuscany was settled on the family of

Hapsburg-Lorraine, every precaution was taken to prevent that

province from being united with the German possessions of

their house. The arrangements of the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle

continued up to the period of the French revolution

undisturbed. Those arrangements, although the result of a

compromise of the interests and ambitions of rival statesmen,

were not, considering the previous state of Italy,

unfavourable to the cause of Italian independence.

{1853}

Piedmont, already recognised as the protector of Italian

nationality, gained not only in rank, but in substantial

territory, by the acquisition of the island of Sardinia, still

more by that of the High Novarese, and by extending her

frontier to the Ticino. Naples and Sicily were released from

the tyranny of viceroys, and placed under a resident king,

with a stipulation to secure their future independence, that

they should never be united to the Spanish crown. … In the

45 [?] years which elapsed between the treaty of

Aix-la-Chapelle and the French revolution, Italy enjoyed a

perfect and uninterrupted peace. In some, at least, of its

principalities, its progress in prosperity and in legislation

was rapid. Naples and Sicily, under the government of Charles

III., and subsequently under the regency of his minister,

Tanucci, were ruled with energy and prudence. Tuscany

prospered under the sway of the princes of Lorraine, Milan and

Mantua were mildly governed by the Austrian court; and

Lombardy rose from the misery to which the exactions of

Spanish viceroys had reduced even the great resources of that

rich and fertile province. In the other Italian States at

least no change had taken place for the worse. Industry

everywhere flourished under the presence of the most essential

of all blessings,—peace."

I. Butt,

History of Italy,

volume 1, chapter 5.

ITALY: A. D. 1792-1793.

Annexation of Savoy and Nice to the French Republic.

Sardinia and the Two Sicilies in the coalition against France.

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

and 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

ITALY: A. D. 1794-1795.

Passes of the Maritime Alps secured by the French.

The coalition abandoned by the Grand Duke of Tuscany.

French successes at Loano.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY);

and 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

ITALY: A. D. 1796-1797.

French invasion.

Bonaparte's first campaigns.

His victories and his pillage.

Expulsion of the Austrians.

French treaties with Genoa and Naples.

The Cispadane and Cisalpine Republics.

Surrender of Papal territories.

Peace preliminaries of Leoben.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER);

and 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

ITALY: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

Creation of the Ligurian and Cisalpine Republics.

The Peace of Campo-Formio.

Lombardy relinquished by Austria.

Venice and Venetian territory made over to her.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

ITALY: A. D. 1797-1798 (December-May).

French occupation of Rome.

Formation of the Roman Republic.

Removal of the Pope.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1798 (DECEMBER-MAY).

ITALY: A. D. 1798-1799.

Overthrow of the Neapolitan Kingdom.

Creation of the Parthenopeian Republic.

Relinquishment of Piedmont by the king of Sardinia.

French reverses.

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

ITALY: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-AUGUST).

Successful Austro-Russian campaign.

Suwarrow's victories.

French evacuation of Lombardy, Piedmont and Naples.

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

ITALY: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

Austrian successes.

Expulsion of the French.

Fall of the Parthenopeian and Roman Republics.

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

ITALY: A. D. 1800.

Bonaparte's Marengo campaign.

Northern Italy recovered by the French.

Siege and capture of Genoa by the Austrians.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

ITALY: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).

The king of Naples spared by Napoleon.

Restoration of Papal authority at Rome.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).

ITALY: A. D. 1802.

Name of the Cisalpine Republic changed to Italian Republic.

Bonaparte president.

Annexation of part of Piedmont, with Parma and Elba, to

France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803,

and 1802 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

ITALY: A. D. 1805.

Transformation of the Italian Republic into the Kingdom of

Italy.

Election and coronation of Napoleon.

Annexation of Genoa to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

ITALY: A. D. 1805.

Cession of Venetian territory by Austria to the Kingdom of

Italy.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

ITALY: A. D. 1805-1806.

Napoleon's dethronement of the dynasty of Naples.

Joseph Bonaparte made king of the Two Sicilies.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).

ITALY: A. D. 1807-1808.

Napoleon's visit.

His arbitrary changes in the constitution.

His public works.

His despotism.

His annexation of Tuscany to France, and seizure of the Papal

States.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808 (NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY).

ITALY: A. D. 1808 (JULY).

The crown of Naples resigned by Joseph Bonaparte (now king of

Spain) and conferred on Joachim Murat.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1808-1809.

Beginning of the reign of Murat at Naples.

Expulsion of the English from Capri.

Insolence of Murat's soldiery.

Popular discontent and hatred.

Rise of the Carbonari.

Civil war in Calabria.

"Joachim Murat, the new King of Naples, announced his

accession to the nation [July, 1808]. 'The august Napoleon,'

he said, 'had given him the kingdom of the two Sicilies.

Gratitude to the donor, and a desire to benefit his subjects,

would divide his heart.' … The commencement of Murat's reign

was felicitous; the English, however, occupied the island of

Capri, which, being placed at the opening of the gulf, is the

key of the bay of Naples. Their presence stimulated all who

were averse to the new government, intimidated its adherents,

and impeded the freedom of navigation, to the manifest injury

of commerce; besides, it was considered disgraceful, that one

of the Napoleonides should suffer an enemy so near, and that

enemy the English, who were at once so hated and so despised.

The indolence of Joseph had patiently suffered the disgrace;

but Joachim, a spirited soldier, was indignant at it, and he

thought it necessary to commence his reign by some important

enterprise. He armed therefore against Capri: Sir Hudson Lowe

was there in garrison with two regiments collected from all

the nations of Europe, and which were called the Royal

Corsican and the Royal Maltese. … A body of French and

Neapolitans were sent from Naples and Salerno, under the

command of General Lamarque, to reduce the island; and they

effected a landing, by means of ladders hung to the rocks by

iron hooks, and thus possessed themselves of Anacarpi, though

not without great difficulty, as the English resolutely

defended themselves. …

{1854}

The siege proceeded but slowly—succours of men and

ammunition reached the besieged from Sicily; but fortune

favoured the enemy, as an adverse wind drove the English out

to sea. The King, who superintended the operations from the

shore of Massa, having waited at the point of Campanella,

seizing the propitious moment, sent fresh squadrons in aid of

Lamarque, and the English, being already broken, and the forts

dismantled, now yielded to the conqueror. The Neapolitans were

highly gratified by the acquisition of Capri, and from that

event augured well of the new government. The kingdom of

Naples contained three classes of people—barons, republicans,

and populace. The barons willingly joined the party of the new

king, because they were pleased by the honours granted to

them, and they were not without hopes of recovering their

ancient privileges, or at least of acquiring new ones. … The

republicans were, on the contrary, inimical to Joachim, not

because he was a king, for they easily accommodated themselves

to royalty; but because his conduct in Tuscany, where he had

driven them forth or bound them in chains like malefactors,

had rendered him personally obnoxious to them. They were

moreover disgusted by his incredible vanity, which led him to

court and caress with the most zealous adulation every bearer

of a feudal title. … The populace, who cared no more for

Joachim than they had done for Joseph, would easily have

contented themselves with the new government, if it had

protected them from the oppressions of the barons, and had

procured for them quiet and abundance. But Joachim, wholly

intent on courting the nobles, neglected the people, who,

oppressed by the barons and soldiery, became alienated from

him. … The spirit of discontent was further increased by his

introduction of the conscription laws of France. … Joachim,

a soldier himself, permitted every thing to his soldiery; and

an insupportable military license was the result. Hence, also,

they became the sole support of his power, and it took no root

in the affections of the people. The insolence of the troops

continually augmented not only every desire, but every caprice

of the head of a regiment, nay, even of the inferior officers,

was to be complied with, as if they were the laws of the

realm; and whosoever even lamented his subjection to their

will was ill-treated and incurred some risk of being declared

an enemy to the King. … The discontents produced by the

enormities committed by the troops of Murat gave hopes to the

court of Palermo that its fortunes might be re-established in

the kingdom beyond the Faro. Meanwhile, the civil war raged in

Calabria; nor were the Abruzzi tranquil. In these disturbances

there were various factions in arms, and various objects were

pursued: some of those who fought against Joachim, and had

fought against Joseph, were adherents of Ferdinand,—others

were the partisans of a republican constitution. … The sect

of the Carbonari arose at this period."

C. Botta,

Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,

chapter 5.

"The most famous, the most widely disseminated, and the most

powerful of all the secret societies which sprang up in Italy

was that of the Carbonari, or Charcoal-makers. … The

Carbonari first began to attract attention in the Kingdom of

Naples about the year 1808. A Genoese named Maghella, who

burned with hatred of the French, is said to have initiated

several Neapolitans into a secret order whose purpose it was

to goad their countrymen into rebellion. They quitted Naples,

where Murat's vigilant policy kept too strict a watch on

conspirators, and retired to the Abruzzi, where in order to

disarm suspicion they pretended to be engaged in

charcoal-burning. As their numbers increased, agents were sent

to establish lodges in the principal towns. The Bourbon king,

shut up in Sicily, soon heard of them, and as he had not

hesitated at letting loose with English aid galley-prisoners,

or at encouraging brigands, to harass Murat, so he eagerly

connived with these conspirators in the hope of recovering his

throne. Murat, having striven for several years to suppress

the Carbonari, at last, when he found his power slipping from

him, reversed his policy towards them, and strove to

conciliate them. But it was too late: neither he nor they

could prevent the restoration of the Bourbons under the

protection of Austria. The sectaries who had hitherto

foolishly expected that, if the French could be expelled,

Ferdinand would grant them a Liberal government, were soon

cured of their delusion, and they now plotted against him as

sedulously as they had plotted against his predecessor. Their

membership increased to myriads; their lodges, starting up in

every village in the Kingdom of Naples, had relations with

branch-societies in all parts of the Peninsula: to the anxious

ears of European despots the name Carbonaro soon meant all

that was lawless and terrible; it meant anarchy, chaos,

assassination. But when we read the catechism, or confession

of faith, of the Carbonari we are surprised by the

reasonableness of their aims and tenets. The duties of the

individual Carbonaro were, 'to render to the Almighty the

worship due to Him; to serve the fatherland with zeal; to

reverence religion and laws; to fulfil the obligations of

nature and friendship; to be faithful to promises; to observe

silence, discretion, and charity; to cause harmony and good

morals to prevail; to conquer the passions and submit the

will; and to abhor the seven deadly sins.' The scope of the

Society was to disseminate instruction; to unite the different

classes of society under the bond of love; to impress a

national character on the people, and to interest them in the

preservation and defense of the fatherland and of religion; to

destroy by moral culture the source of crimes due to the

general depravity of mankind; to protect the weak and to raise

up the unfortunate. … It went still farther and asserted the

un-Catholic doctrine of liberty of conscience: 'to every

Carbonaro,' so reads one of its articles, 'belongs the natural

and unalterable right to worship the Almighty according to his

own intuition and understanding.' We must not be misled,

however, by these enlightened professions, into a wrong notion

of the real purposes of Carbonarism. Politics, in spite of a

rule forbidding political discussion, were the main business,

and ethics but the incidental concern of the conspirators.

They organized their Order under republican forms as if to

prefigure the ideal towards which they aspired. The Republic

was subdivided into provinces, each of which was controlled by

a grand lodge, that of Salerno being the 'parent.' There were

also four 'Tribes,' each having a council and holding an

annual diet.

{1855}

Each tribe had a Senate, which advised a House of

Representatives, and this framed the laws which a magistracy

executed. There were courts of the first instance, of appeal,

and of cessation, and no Carbonaro might bring suit in the

civil courts against a fellow member, unless he had first

failed to get redress in one of these. … The Carbonari

borrowed some of their rites from the Freemasons, with whom

indeed they were commonly reported to be in such close

relations that Freemasons who joined the 'Carbonic Republic'

were spared the formality of initiation; other parts of their

ceremonial they copied from the New Testament, with such

additions as the special objects of the order called for."

W. R. Thayer,

The Dawn of Italian Independence,

book 2, chapter 4 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

P. Colletta,

History of the Kingdom of Naples,

book 7 (volume 2).

T. Frost,

Secret Societies of the European Revolution,

volume 1, chapter 5.

General Sir H. Bunbury,

The Great War with France,

page 343, and after.

The Chevalier O'Clery,

History of the Italian Revolution

chapter 3.

ITALY: A. D. 1809 (APRIL-MAY).

Renewed war of Austria with France.

Austrian advance and retreat.

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

ITALY: A. D. 1809 (MAY-JULY).

Annexation of the Papal States to the French Empire.

Removal of the Pope to Savona.

Rome declared to be a free and imperial city.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

ITALY: A. D. 1812.

Removal of the captive Pope to Fontainebleau.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

ITALY: A. D. 1812.

Participation in Napoleon's disastrous Russian campaign.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER), and after.

ITALY: A. D. 1813.

Participation in the war in Germany.

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

ITALY: A. D. 1814.

Desertion of Napoleon by Murat.

His treaty with the Allies.

Expulsion of the French from the Peninsula.

Murat, king of Naples, "foreseeing the downfall of the

Emperor, had attempted to procure from Napoleon, as the price

of his fidelity, the union under his own sceptre of all Italy

south of the Po; but, failing in this, he prepared to abandon

the cause of his benefactor. On the 11th January, 1814, he

concluded a treaty with the Allies, by which he was guaranteed

possession of Naples; and forthwith advancing on Rome with

20,000 men, occupied the second city in his brother-in-law's

empire (January 19); having previously published a flaming

proclamation, in which the perfidy and violence of the

imperial government were denounced in terms which came

strangely from a chief of the Revolution. … At the end of

December, 1813, Eugene had withdrawn to the Adige with 36,000

men, before Bellegarde and 50,000 Austrians; and he was

already taking measures for a further retreat, when the

proclamation of Murat, and his hostile advance, rendered such

a movement inevitable. He had accordingly fallen back to the

Mincio, when, finding himself threatened on the flank by a

British expedition from Sicily under Lord William Bentinck, he

determined on again advancing against Bellegarde, so as to rid

himself of one enemy before he encountered another. The two

armies, however, thus mutually acting on the offensive, passed

each other, and an irregular action at last ensued on the

Mincio (February 8), in which the advantage was rather with

the French, who made 1,500 prisoners, and drove Bellegarde

shortly after over the Mincio, about 3,000 being killed and

wounded on each side. But, in other quarters, affairs were

going rapidly to wreck. Verona surrendered to the Austrians on

the 14th, and Ancona to Murat on the 16th; and the desertion

of the Italians, unequal to the fatigues of a winter campaign,

was so great that the Viceroy was compelled to fall back to

the Po. Fouché, meanwhile, as governor of Rome, had concluded

a convention (February 20) with the Neapolitan generals for

the evacuation of Pisa, Leghorn, Florence, and other garrisons

of the French empire in Italy. A proclamation, however, by the

hereditary prince of Sicily, who had accompanied Bentinck from

Sicily, gave Murat such umbrage that he separated his troops

from the British, and commenced operations, with little

success, against Eugene on the Po, in which the remainder of

March passed away. Bentinck, having at length received

reinforcements from Catalonia, moved forward with 12,000 men,

and occupied Spezia on the 29th of March, and, driving the

French (April 8) from their position at Sestri, forced his way

through the mountains, and appeared on the 16th in front of

Genoa. On the 17th the forts and positions before the city

were stormed; and the garrison, seeing preparations made for a

bombardment, capitulated on the 18th, on condition of being

allowed to march out with the honours of war. Murat had by

this time recommenced vigorous operations, and after driving

the French (April 13) from the Taro, had forced the passage of

the Stura; but the news of Napoleon's fall put an end to

hostilities. By a convention with the Austrians, Venice,

Palma-Nuova, and the other fortresses still held by the

French, were surrendered; the whole of Lombardy was occupied

by the Germans; and in the first week of May the French troops

finally repassed the Alps."

Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,

sections 775, and 807-808.

ITALY: A. D. 1814-1815.

Return of the Despots.

Restoration of Austrian tyranny in the North.

The Pope in Rome again.

"With little resistance, Northern Italy was taken from the

French. Had it been otherwise, had Murat and Beauharnais

joined their forces, they might have long held the Austrians

in check, perhaps even have made a descent on Vienna; and

although this might not have hindered the ultimate overthrow

of Napoleon, yet it must have compelled the Allies, at the day

of settlement, to respect the wishes of the Italians. But

disunited, and deluded into the belief that they were partners

in a war of liberation, the Italians woke up to find that they

had escaped from the talons of the French eagle, only to be

caught in the clutch of the two-headed monstrosity of Austria.

They were to be used, in the language of Joseph De Maistre,

like coins, wherewith the Allies paid their debts. This was

plain enough when the people of the just-destroyed Kingdom of

Italy prepared to choose a ruler for themselves: one party

favored Beauharnais, another wished an Austrian prince, a

third an Italian, but all agreed in demanding independence.

Austria quickly informed them that they were her subjects, and

that their affairs would be decided at Vienna. Thus, almost

without striking a blow, and without a suspicion of the lot

awaiting them, the Northern Italians fell back under the

domination of Austria. In the spring and early summer of 1814

the exiled princelings returned: Victor Emanuel I. from his

savage refuge in Sardinia to Turin; Ferdinand III. from

Würzburg to Florence; Pius VII. from his confinement at

Fontainebleau and Savona to Rome.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814;

{1856}

Francis IV. to Modena. Other aspirants anxiously waited for

the Congress of Vienna to bestow upon them the remaining

provinces. The Congress … dragged on into the spring of the

following year. … In Lombardy and Venetia, Metternich soon

organized a thoroughly Austrian administration. The government

of the two provinces was separate, that of Lombardy being

centred at Milan, that of Venetia at Venice; but over all was

placed an Austrian archduke as Viceroy. Each district had its

civil and military tribunals, but the men who composed these

being appointees of the viceroy or his deputies, their

subservience could usually be reckoned upon. The trials were

secret, a provision which, especially in political cases, made

convictions easy. … Feudal privileges, which had been

abolished by the French, could be recovered by doing homage to

the Emperor and by paying specific taxes. In some respects

there was an improvement in the general administration, but in

others the deterioration was manifest. … Art, science, and

literature were patronized, and they throve as potted plants

thrive under the care of a gardener who cuts off every new

shoot at a certain height. … We may liken the people of the

Austro-Italian provinces to those Florentine revelers who, at

the time of the plague, tried to drive away their terror by

telling each other the merry stories reported by Boccaccio.

The plague which penetrated every corner of Lombardy and

Venetia was the Austrian police. Stealthy, but sure, its

unseen presence was dreaded in palace and hovel, in church,

tribunal, and closet. … Every police-office was crammed with

records of the daily habits of each citizen, of his visitors,

his relatives, his casual conversations,—even his style of

dress and diet were set down. … Such was the Metternichian

system of police and espionage that counteracted every mild

law and every attempt to lessen the repugnance of the

Italians. They were not to be deceived by blandishments:

Lombardy was a prison, Venetia was a prison, and they were all

captives, although they seemed to move about unshackled to

their work or pleasure."

W. R. Thayer,

The Dawn of Italian Independence,

book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1).

See, also,

VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF;

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846;

and HOLY ALLIANCE.

ITALY: (Southern): A. D. 1815.

Murat's attempt to head a national movement.

His failure, downfall and death.

Restoration of the Bourbons at Naples.

"Wild as was the attempt in which, after Napoleon's return

from Elba, the King of Naples lost his crown, we must yet

judge of it both by his own character and the circumstances in

which he was placed. … In the autumn of 1813 communications

took place at Milan between Murat and the leaders of the

secret societies which were then attempting to organise

Italian patriotism in arms. In 1814, when the restoration of

Austrian rule in Lombardy so cruelly disappointed the national

hopes, these communications were renewed. The King of Naples

was assured that he needed but to raise the standard of

Italian independence to rally round him thousands and tens of

thousands of volunteers. … These calculations … were

readily adopted by the rash and vain-glorious monarch to whom

they were presented. … His proud spirit chafed and fretted

under the consciousness that he had turned upon Napoleon, and

the mortification of finding himself deserted by those in

reliance upon whose faith this sacrifice had been made. The

events in France had taken him by surprise. In joining the

alliance against Napoleon he had not calculated on the

deposition of the emperor, still less had he dreamed of the

destruction of the empire. … He bitterly reproached his own

conduct for having lent himself to such results. … When his

mind was agitated with these mingled feelings, the

intelligence reached him that Napoleon had actually left Elba,

on that enterprise in which he staked everything upon

regaining the imperial throne of France. It came to him direct

from Napoleon. … He foresaw that the armies of the allied

powers would be engaged in a gigantic struggle with the

efforts which Napoleon would be sure to make. Under such

circumstances, he fancied Italy an easy conquest; once master

of this he became a power with whom, in the conflict of

nations, any of the contending parties could only be too happy

to treat. He determined to place himself at the head of

Italian nationality, and strike one daring blow for the

chieftainship of the nation. … His ministers, his friends,

the French generals, even his queen, Napoleon's sister,

dissuaded him from such a course. … But with an obstinacy by

which the vacillating appear sometimes to attempt to atone for

habitual indecision, he persevered in spite of all advice. …

He issued a proclamation and ordered his troops to cross the

Papal frontier. … The Pope appointed a regency and retired,

accompanied by most of the cardinals, to Florence. … On the

30th of March his [Murat's] troops attacked the Austrian

forces at Cesena. The Germans were driven, without offering

much resistance, from the town. On the evening of that day he

issued from Rimini his proclamation to the Italian people,

which was against Austria a declaration of war. … A

declaration of war on the part of Austria immediately

followed. … The whole of the Italian army of Austria was

ordered at once to march upon Naples; and a treaty was

concluded with Ferdinand, by which Austria engaged to use all

her endeavours to recover for him his Neapolitan dominions.

… The army which Murat led northward, instead of numbering

80,000 as he represented in his proclamation, certainly never

exceeded 34,000. … Nearly 60,000 Austrians defended the

banks of the Po. … On the 10th of April, the troops of

Murat, under the command of General Pepe, were driven back by

the Austrians, who now in their turn advanced. … A retreat

to the frontiers of Naples was unanimously resolved on. This

retreat was one that had all the disasters without any of the

redeeming glories of war. … At last, as they approached the

confines of the Neapolitan kingdom, an engagement which took

place between Macerata and Tolentino, on the 4th of May, ended

in a total and ignominious rout. … At Macerata most of the

troops broke up into a disorganised rabble, and with

difficulty Murat led to Capua a small remnant of an army, that

could hardly be said to be defeated, because they were worsted

without anything that deserves to be called a fight.

{1857}

From Capua, on the 12th of May, the king sent to Naples a

proclamation granting a free constitution. To conceal the fact

that this was wrung from him only in distress, he resorted to

the miserable subterfuge of ante-dating it from Rimini, on the

30th of March." On the evening of the 18th of May, Murat

entered Naples quietly on foot, and had his last interview

with his queen and children. A British squadron was already in

the harbor. The next night he slipped away to the island of

Ischia, and thence to Frejus, while Queen Caroline remained to

discharge the last duties of sovereignty. On the 20th Naples

was surrendered to the Austrians, and the ex-queen took refuge

on an English vessel to escape from a threatening mob of the

lazzaroni. She was conveyed to Trieste, where the Austrian

emperor had offered her an asylum. The restored Bourbon king,

Ferdinand, made his entry into the capital on the 17th of

June. Meantime, Murat, in France, had offered his services to

Napoleon and they had been declined. After Waterloo, he

escaped to Corsica, whence, in the following October, he made

a foolhardy attempt to recover his kingdom, landing with a few

followers at Pizzo, on the Neapolitan coast, expecting a

rising of the people to welcome his return. But the rising

that occurred was hostile instead of friendly. The party was

quickly overpowered, Murat taken prisoner and delivered to

Ferdinand's officers. He was summarily tried by court martial

and shot, October 13, 1815.

I. Butt,

History of Italy,

volume 2, chapters 10-11.

ALSO IN:

P. Colletta,

History of Naples,

book 7, chapter 5,

and book 8, chapter 1 (volume 2).

ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.

Revolutionary insurrections in Naples and Sicily.

Perjury and duplicity of the king.

The revolt crushed by Austrian troops.

Abortive insurrection in Piedmont.

Its end at Novara.

Abdication of Victor Emmanuel I.

Accession of Charles Felix.

"In the last days of February, 1820, a revolution broke out in

Spain. The object of its leaders was to restore the

Constitution of 1812, which had been suppressed on the return

of the Bourbons to the throne. … The Revolution proved

successful, and for a short time the Spaniards obtained

possession of a democratic Constitution. Their success stirred

up the ardour of the Liberal party in the kingdom of the two

Sicilies, and before many weeks were over a revolutionary

movement occurred at Naples. The insurrection originated with

the army under the command of General Pepé, and it is worthy

of note that the movement was not directed against the

reigning dynasty, and was not, even nominally, associated with

any demand for national unity. All the insurgents asked for

was the establishment of a Constitution similar to that then

existing in Spain. After a very brief and feeble resistance,

the King yielded to the demands of the military conspirators,

who were strongly supported by popular feeling. On the 1st of

October, a Parliament of the Neapolitan kingdom was opened by

His Majesty Francis the First, who then and there took a

solemn oath to observe the Constitution, and even went out of

his way to profess his profound attachment for the principles

on which the new Government was based. General Pepé thereupon

resigned the Dictatorship he had assumed, and constitutional

liberty was deemed to have been finally established in

Southern Italy by a bloodless revolution. The rising on the

mainland was followed after a brief interval by a popular

insurrection in Sicily. The main object, however, of the

Sicilian Constitutionalists was to bring about a legislative

separation between the island and the kingdom of Naples

proper. … The Sicilian insurrection afforded Francis I. the

pretext he had looked for, from the commencement, for

overthrowing the Constitution to which he had personally

plighted his faith. The Allied Sovereigns took alarm at the

outbreak of the revolutionary spirit in Sicily, and a Congress

of the Great Powers was convoked at Laibach [see VERONA, THE

CONGRESS OF] to consider what steps required to be taken for

the protection of social order in the kingdom of Naples. …

By the Neapolitan Constitution the Sovereign was not at

liberty to leave the kingdom without the consent of the

Parliament. This consent was only given, after much

hesitation, in reliance upon the reiterated assurances of the

King, both publicly and privately, that his one object in

attending the Congress was to avert, if possible, a foreign

intervention. His Majesty also pledged himself most solemnly

not to sanction any change in the Constitution to which he had

sworn allegiance, and … he promised further that he would

not be a party to any reprisals being inflicted upon his

subjects for the part they might have taken in the

establishment of Constitutional liberty. As soon, however, as

Francis the First had arrived at Laibach, he yielded without a

protest to the alleged necessity for a foreign occupation of

his kingdom, with the avowed object of putting down the

Constitution. Without any delay being given, the Austrian

regiments crossed the frontier, preceded by a manifesto from

the King, calling upon his faithful subjects to receive the

army of occupation not as enemies, but as friends. … The

national troops, under General Pepé, were defeated with ease

by the Austrians, who in the course of a few weeks effected,

almost without opposition, the military occupation of the

whole kingdom [February-March, 1821]. Forthwith reprisals

commenced in grim earnest. On the plea that the resistance

offered by the Constitutionalists to the invading army

constituted an act of high treason, the King declared himself

absolved from all promises he had given previously to his

departure. A reign of terror was set on foot. … Signor Botta

thus sums up the net result of the punishments inflicted after

the return of the King in the Neapolitan provinces alone.

'About a thousand persons were condemned to death, imprisoned,

or exiled. Infinitely greater was the number of officers and

officials who were deprived of their posts by the

Commissioners of Investigation.' … The establishment of

Constitutional Government in the kingdom of the Two Sicilies,

and the resolution adopted at the instigation of Austria, by

the Congress of Laibach, to suppress the Neapolitan

Constitution by armed force, produced a profound effect

throughout Italy, and especially in Sardinia. The fact that

internal reforms were incompatible with the ascendency of

Austria in the Peninsula was brought home to the popular mind,

and, for the first time in the history of Italy, the desire

for civil liberty became identified with the national aversion

to foreign rule.

{1858}

In Piedmont there was a powerful Constitutional party,

composed chiefly of professional men, and a strong military

caste, aristocratic by birth and conviction, but opposed on

national grounds to the domination of Austria over Italy.

These two parties coalesced for a time upon the common

platform of Constitutional Reform and war with Austria; and

the result was the abortive rising of 1821. The insurrection,

however, though directed against the established Government,

had about it nothing of an anti-dynastic, or even of a

revolutionary character. On the contrary, the leaders of the

revolt professed, and probably with sincerity, that they were

carrying out the true wishes of their Sovereign. Their theory

was, that Victor Emmanuel I. was only compelled to adhere to

the Holy Alliance by considerations of foreign policy, and

that, if his hands were forced, he would welcome any

opportunity of severing himself from all complicity with

Austria. Acting on this belief, they determined to proclaim

the Constitution by a sort of coup d' état, and then, after

having declared war on Austria, to invade Lombardy, and thus

create a diversion in favour of the Neapolitans. It is certain

that Victor Emmanuel I. gave no sanction to, and was not even

cognisant of, this mad enterprise. … The troubles and

calamities of his early life had exhausted his energy; and his

one desire was to live at peace at home and abroad. On the

other hand, it is certain that Charles Albert [prince of

Savoy-Carignan, heir presumptive to the throne of Sardinia]

was in communication with the leaders of the insurrection,

though how far he was privy to their actual designs has never

yet been clearly ascertained. The insurrection broke out just

about the time when the Austrian troops were approaching the

Neapolitan frontiers. … The insurrection gained head

rapidly, and the example of Alexandria was followed by the

garrison of Turin. Pressure was brought to bear upon Victor

Emmanuel I., and he was led to believe that the only means of

averting civil war was to grant the Constitution. The

pressure, however, overshot its mark. On the one hand, the

King felt that he could not possibly withstand the demand for

a Constitution at the cost of having to order the regiments

which had remained loyal to fire upon the insurgents. On the

other hand, he did not feel justified in granting the

Constitution without the sanction of his brother and

[immediate] heir. In order, therefore, to escape from this

dilemma, his Majesty abdicated suddenly in favour of Charles

Felix [his brother]. As, however, the new Sovereign happened

to be residing at Modena, at the Court of his brother-in-law,

the Prince of Savoy-Carignan was appointed Regent until such

time as Charles Felix could return to the capital. Immediately

upon his abdication, Victor Emmanuel quitted Turin, and

Charles Albert was left in supreme authority as Regent of the

State. Within twelve hours of his accession to power, the

Regent proclaimed the Spanish Constitution as the fundamental

law of Piedmont. … The probability is … that Charles

Albert, or rather his advisers, were anxious to tie the hands

of the new Sovereign. They calculated that Charles Felix, who

was no longer young, and who was known to be bitterly hostile

to all Liberal theories of Government, would abdicate sooner

than accept the Crown of a Constitutional kingdom. This

calculation proved erroneous. … As soon as his Majesty

learned the news of what had occurred in his absence, he

issued a manifesto [March, 1821], declaring all the reforms

granted under the Regency to be null and void, describing the

authors of the Constitution as rebels, and avowing his

intention, in the case of necessity, of calling upon the

Allied Powers to assist him in restoring the legitimate

authority of the Crown. Meanwhile, he refused to accept the

throne till the restoration of order had given Victor Emmanuel

full freedom to reconsider the propriety of abdication. This

manifesto was followed by the immediate advance of an Austrian

corps d'armée to the frontier stream of the Ticino, as well as

by the announcement that the Russian Government had ordered an

army of 100,000 men to set out on their march towards Italy,

with the avowed object of restoring order in the Peninsula.

The population of Piedmont recognised at once, with their

practical good sense, that any effective resistance was out of

the question. … The courage of the insurgents gave way in

view of the obstacles which they had to encounter, and the

last blow was dealt to their cause by the sudden defection of

the Prince Regent. … Unable either to face his coadjutors in

the Constitutional pronunciamento, or to assume the

responsibility of an open conflict with the legitimate

Sovereign, the Regent left Turin secretly [March 21, 1821],

without giving any notice of his intended departure, and, on

arriving at Novara, formally resigned his short-lived power.

The leaders, however, of the insurrection had committed

themselves too deeply to follow the example of the Regent. A

Provisional Government was established at Turin, and it was

determined to march upon Novara, in the hope that the troops

collected there would fraternise with the insurgents. As soon

as it was known that the insurgents were advancing in force

from Turin, the Austrians, under General Bübner, crossed the

Ticino, and effected a junction with the Royal troops. When

the insurgents reached Novara, they suddenly found themselves

confronted, not by their own fellow-countrymen, but by an

Austrian army. A panic ensued, and the insurrectionary force

suffered a disastrous, though, fortunately, a comparatively

bloodless, defeat. After this disaster the insurrection was

virtually at an end. … The Austrians, with the consent of

Charles Felix, occupied the principal fortresses of Piedmont.

The old order of things was restored, and, upon Victor

Emmanuel's formal refusal to withdraw his abdication, Charles

Felix assumed the title of King of Sardinia. As soon as

military resistance had ceased, the insurrection was put down

with a strong hand."

E. Dicey,

Victor Emmanuel,

chapters 3-4.

"Henceforth the issue could not be misunderstood. The conflict

was not simply between the Neapolitans and their Bourbon king,

or between the Piedmontese and Charles Felix, but between

Italian Liberalism and European Absolutism. Santarosa and Pepé

cried out in their disappointment that the just cause would

have won had their timid colleagues been more daring, had

promises but been kept; we, however, see clearly that though

the struggle might have been prolonged, the result would have

been unchanged. Piedmont and Naples, had each of their

citizens been a hero, could not have overcome the Holy

Alliance [see HOLY ALLIANCE], which was their real antagonist.

{1859}

The revolutionists had not directly attacked the Holy

Alliance; they had not thrown down the gauntlet to Austria;

they had simply insisted that they had a right to

constitutional government; and Austria, more keen-witted than

they, had seen that to suffer a constitution at Naples or

Turin would be to acknowledge the injustice of those

principles by which the Holy Alliance had decreed that Europe

should be repressed to the end of time. So when the Carbonari

aimed at Ferdinand they struck Austria, and Austria struck

back a deadly blow. … But Austria and the Reactionists were

not content with simple victory; treating the revolution as a

crime, they at once proceeded to take vengeance. …

Ferdinand, the perjured Neapolitan king, tarried behind in

Florence, whilst the Austrians went down into his kingdom. …

But as soon as Ferdinand was assured that the Austrian

regiments were masters of Naples, he sent for that Prince of

Canosa whom he had been forced unwillingly to dismiss on

account of his outrageous cruelty five years before, and

deputed to him the task of restoring genuine Bourbon tyranny

in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. A better agent of

vindictive wrath than Canosa could not have been found; he was

troubled by no humane compunctions, nor by doubts as to the

justice of his fierce measures; to him, as to Torquemada,

persecution was a compound of duty and pleasure. … The right

of assembling, no matter for what purpose, being denied, the

universities, schools, and lyceums had to close; proscription

lists were hurriedly drawn up, and they contained not only the

names of those who had been prominent in the recent rising,

but also of all who had incurred suspicion for any political

acts as far back as 1793. … Houses were searched without

warrant; seals were broken open; some of the revelations of

the confessional were not sacred. The church-bells tolled

incessantly for victims led to execution. To strike deeper

terror, Canosa revived the barbarous torture of scourging in

public. … How many victims actually suffered during this

reign of terror we cannot tell. Canosa's list of the

proscribed had, it is said, more than four thousand names. The

prisons were choked with persons begging for trial; the

galleys of Pantelleria, Procida, and the Ponza Islands swarmed

with victims condemned for life; the scaffolds, erected in the

public squares of the chief towns, were daily occupied. … At

length, when his deputies had terrorized the country into

apparent submission, and when the Austrian regiments made it

safe for him to travel, Ferdinand quitted Florence and

returned to Naples. … In Sicily the revolution smouldered

and spluttered for years, in spite of remorseless efforts to

stamp it out; on the mainland, robberies and brigandage, and

outbreaks now political and now criminal, proved how delusive

was a security based on oppression and lies. Amid these

conditions Ferdinand passed the later years of his infamous

reign. … In Piedmont the retaliation was as effectual as in

Naples, but less blood was shed there. Della Torre took

command of the kingdom in the name of Charles Felix. …

Seventy-three officers were condemned to death, one hundred

and five to the galleys; but as nearly all of them had

escaped, they were hanged in effigy; only two, Lieutenant

Lanari and Captain Garelli, were executed. The property of the

condemned was sequestrated, their families were tormented, and

the commission, not content with sentencing those who had

taken an active part in the revolution, cashiered two hundred

and twenty-one officers who, while holding aloof from

Santarosa, had refused to join Della Torre at Novara and fight

against their countrymen. … The King … had soon reason to

learn the truth of a former epigram of his, 'Austria is a

bird-lime which you cannot wash off your fingers when you have

once touched it'; for Austria soon showed that her motive in

bolstering falling monarchs on their shaky thrones was not

simply philanthropic nor disinterested. General Bubna, on

taking possession of Alessandria, sent the keys of that

fortress to Emperor Francis, in order, he said,—and we wonder

whether there was no sarcasm in his voice,—in order to give

Charles Felix 'the pleasure of receiving them back from the

Emperor's hand.' 'Although I found this a very poor joke,'

wrote Charles Felix to his brother, 'I dissembled.' How,

indeed, could he do otherwise? … Charles Felix had in truth

become but the vassal of the hereditary enemy of his line, and

that not by conquest, but by his own invitation."

W. R. Thayer,

The Dawn of Italian Independence,

book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

P. Colletta,

History of Naples,

books 9-10 (volume 2).

A. Gallenga,

History of Piedmont,

volume 3, chapter 6.

R. H. Wrightson,

History of Modern Italy,

chapters 2-3, and 6.

ITALY: A. D. 1820-1822.

The Congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona.

See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

Revolt in Modena, Parma, and the Papal States,

suppressed by Austrian troops.

"The Revolution of 1830 [in France] made a natural impression

in a country which had many evils to complain of and which had

so lately been connected with France. The duke of Modena,

Francis IV., sought to make use of the liberal movement to

extend his rule over northern Italy. But at the last moment he

was terrified by threats from Vienna, turned against his

fellow-conspirators, and imprisoned them (February 3, 1831).

The people, however, were so alienated by his treachery that

he fled with his prisoners to seek safety in Austrian

territory. A provisional government was formed, and Modena was

declared a free state. Meanwhile the election of a new pope,

Gregory XVI., gave occasion for a rising in the papal states.

Bologna took the lead in throwing off its allegiance to Rome,

and in a few weeks its example was followed by the whole of

Romagna, Umbria, and the Marches. The two sons of Louis

Bonaparte, the late king of Holland, hastened to join the

insurgents, but the elder died at Forli (17 March), and thus

an eventful career was opened to the younger brother, the

future Napoleon III. Parma revolted against Maria Louisa, who

followed the example of the duke of Modena and fled to

Austria. The success of the movement, however, was very

short-lived. Austrian troops marched to the assistance of the

papacy, the rebellion was put down by force, and the exiled

rulers were restored. Louis Philippe, on whom the insurgents

had relied, had no sympathy with a movement in which members

of the Bonaparte family were engaged. But a temporary revival

of the insurrection brought the Austrians back to Romagna, and

a great outcry was raised in France against the king.

{1860}

To satisfy public opinion, Louis Philippe sent a French force

to seize Ancona (February 22, 1832), but it was a very

harmless demonstration, and had been explained beforehand to

the papal government. In Naples and Sardinia no disturbances

took place. Ferdinand II. succeeded his father Francis I. on

the Neapolitan throne in 1830, and satisfied the people by

introducing a more moderate system of government. Charles

Albert became king of Sardinia on the death of Charles Felix

(27 April, 1831), and found himself in a difficult position

between Austria, which had good reason to mistrust him, and

the liberal party, which he had betrayed."

R. Lodge,

History of Modern Europe,

chapter 25.

ALSO IN:

L. G. Farini,

The Roman State, 1815-1850,

volume 1, chapters 3-5.

ITALY: A. D. 1831-1848.

The Mission of Mazzini, the Revolutionist.

Young Italy.

"The Revolution of 1830, ineffectual as it seemed to its

promoters, was yet most significant. It failed in Italy and

Poland, in Spain and Portugal; it created a mongrel monarchy,

neither Absolute nor Constitutional, in France; only in

Belgium did it attain its immediate purpose. Nevertheless, if

we look beneath the surface, we see that it was one of those

epoch-marking events of which we can say, 'Things cannot be

again what until just now they were.' … The late risings in

the Duchies and Legations had brought no comfort to the

conspirators, but had taught them, on the contrary, how

ineffectual, how hopeless was the method of the secret

societies. After more than fifteen years they had not gained

an inch; they had only learned that their rulers would concede

nothing, and that Austria, their great adversary, had staked

her existence on maintaining thraldom in Italy. Innumerable

small outbursts and three revolutions had ended in the death

of hundreds and in the imprisonment or proscription of

thousands of victims. … Just when conspiracy, through

repeated failures, was thus discredited, there arose a leader

so strong and unselfish, so magnetic and patient and zealous,

that by him, if by anyone, conspiracy might be guided to

victory. This leader, the Great Conspirator, was Joseph

Mazzini, one of the half dozen supreme influences in European

politics during the nineteenth century, whose career will

interest posterity as long as it is concerned at all in our

epoch of transition. For just as Metternich was the High

Priest of the Old Regime, so Mazzini was the Prophet of a

Social Order, more just, more free, more spiritual than any

the world has known. He was an Idealist who would hold no

parley with temporizers, an enthusiast whom half-concessions

could not beguile: and so he came to be decried as a fanatic

or a visionary. … Mazzini joined the Carbonari, not without

suspecting that, under their complex symbolism and

hierarchical mysteries they concealed a fatal lack of harmony,

decision, and faith. … As he became better acquainted with

Carbonarism, his conviction grew stronger that no permanent

good could be achieved by it. … The open propaganda of his

Republican and Unitarian doctrines was of course impossible;

it must be carried on by a secret organization. But he was

disgusted with the existing secret societies: they lacked

harmony, they lacked faith, they had no distinct purpose;

their Masonic mummeries were childish and farcical. …

Therefore, Mazzini would have none of them; he would organize

a new secret society, and call it 'Young Italy,' whose

principles should be plainly understood by every one of its

members. It was to be composed of men under forty, in order to

secure the most energetic and disinterested members, and to

avoid the influence of older men, who, trained by the past

generation, were not in touch with the aspirations and needs

of the new. It was to awaken the People, the bone and sinew of

the nation; whereas the earlier sects had relied too much on

the upper and middle classes, whose traditions and interests

were either too aristocratic or too commercial. Roman

Catholicism had ceased to be spiritual; it no longer purified

and uplifted the hearts of the Italians. … Young Italy

aimed, therefore, to substitute for the mediæval dogmas and

patent idolatries of Rome a religion based on Reason, and so

simple as to be within the comprehension of the humblest

peasant. … The doctrines of the new sect spread, but since

secret societies give the census-taker no account of their

membership, we cannot cite figures to illustrate the growth of

Young Italy. Contrary to Mazzini's expectations, it was

recruited, not so much from the People, as from the Middle

Class, the professional men, and the tradesmen." In 1831

Mazzini was forced into exile, at Marseilles, from which city

he planned an invasion of Savoy. The project was discovered,

and the Sardinian government revenged itself cruelly upon the

patriots within its reach. "In a few weeks, eleven alleged

conspirators had been executed, many more had been sentenced

to the galleys, and others, who had escaped; were condemned in

contumacy. Among the men who fled into exile at this time were

… Vincent Gioberti and Joseph Garibaldi. … To an

enthusiast less determined than Mazzini, this calamity would

have been a check; to him, however, it was a spur. Instead of

abandoning the expedition against Savoy, he worked with might

and main to hurry it on. … One column, in which were fifty

Italians and twice as many Poles, … was to enter Savoy by

way of Annemasse. A second column had orders to push on from

Nyon; a third, starting from Lyons, was to march towards

Chambéry. Mazzini, with a musket on his shoulder, accompanied

the first party. To his surprise, the peasants showed no

enthusiasm when the tricolor flag was unfurled and the

invaders shouted 'God and People! Liberty and the Republic!'

before them. At length some carabineers and a platoon of

troops appeared. A few shots were fired. Mazzini fainted; his

comrades dispersed across the Swiss border, taking him with

them. … His enemies attributed his fainting to cowardice; he

himself explained it as the result of many nights of

sleeplessness, of great fatigue, fever and cold. … To all

but the few concerned in it, this first venture of Young Italy

seemed a farce, the disproportion between its aim and its

achievement was so enormous, and Mazzini's personal collapse

was so ignominious. Nevertheless, Italian conspiracy had now

and henceforth that head for lack of which it had so long

floundered amid vague and contradictory purposes. The young

Idealist had been beaten in his first encounter with obdurate

Reality, but he was not discouraged. … Now began in earnest

that 'apostolate' of his, which he laid down only at his

death.

{1861}

Young Italy was established beyond the chance of being

destroyed by an abortive expedition; Young Poland, Young

Hungary, Young Europe itself, sprang up after the Mazzinian

pattern; the Liberals and revolutionists of the Continent felt

that their cause was international, and in their affliction

they fraternized. No one could draw so fair and reasonable a

Utopia for them as Mazzini drew; no one could so fire them

with a sense of duty, with hope, with energy. He became the

mainspring of the whole machine—truly an infernal machine to

the autocrats—of European conspiracy. The redemption of Italy

was always his nearest aim, but his generous principle reached

out over other nations, for in the world that he prophesied

every people must be free. Proscribed in Piedmont, expelled

from Switzerland, denied lodging in France, he took refuge in

London, there to direct, amid poverty and heartache, the whole

vast scheme of plots. His bread he earned by writing critical

and literary essays for the English reviews,—he quickly

mastered the English language so as to use it with remarkable

vigor,—and all his leisure he devoted to the preparation of

political tracts, and to correspondence with numberless

confederates. … He was the consulting physician for all the

revolutionary practitioners of Europe. Those who were not his

partisans disparaged his influence, asserting that he was only

a man of words; but the best proof of his power lies in the

anxiety he caused monarchs and cabinets, and in the

precautions they took to guard against him. … Mazzini and

Metternich! For nearly twenty years they were the antipodes of

European politics. One in his London garret, poor, despised,

yet indomitable and sleepless, sending his influence like an

electric current through all barriers to revivify the heart of

Italy and of Liberal Europe; the other in his Vienna palace,

haughty, famous, equally alert and cunning, … shedding over

Italy and over Europe his upas-doctrines of torpor and decay!"

W. R. Thayer,

The Dawn of Italian Independence,

book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

W. L. Garrison,

Joseph Mazzini,

chapters 2-5.

J. Mazzini,

Collected Works,

volume 1.

ITALY: A. D. 1848.

Expulsion of Jesuits.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.

ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

Insurrection and revolution throughout the peninsula.

French occupation of Rome.

Triumph of King "Bomba" in Naples and Sicily.

Disastrous war of Sardinia with Austria.

Lombardy and Venice enslaved anew.

"The revolution of 1831, which affected the States of the

Church, Modena, and Parma, had been suppressed, like the still

earlier rebellions in Naples and Piedmont, by Austrian

intervention. … Hence, all the hatred of the Italians was

directed against foreign rule, as the only obstacle to the

freedom and unity of the peninsula. … The secret societies,

and the exiles in communication with them—especially Joseph

Mazzini, who issued his commands from London—took care that

the national spirit should not be buried beneath material

interests, but should remain ever wakeful. Singularly, the

first encouragement came from" Rome. "Pope Gregory XVI., …

had died June 1st, 1846, and been succeeded by the

fifty-four-year-old Cardinal Count Mastai Ferretti, who took

the name of Pius IX. If the pious world which visited him was

charmed by the amiability and clemency of its new head, the

cardinals were dismayed at the reforms which this new head

would fain introduce in the States of the Church and in all

Italy. He published an amnesty for all political offences;

permitted the exiles to return with impunity; allowed the

Press freer scope; threw open the highest civil offices to

laymen; summoned from the notables of the provinces a council

of state, which was to propose reforms; bestowed a liberal

municipal constitution on the city of Rome; and endeavored to

bring about an Italian confederation. … After the French

revolution of 1848 he granted a constitution. There was a

first chamber, to be named by the Pope, and a second chamber,

to be elected by the people, while the irresponsible college

of cardinals formed a sort of privy council. A new era

appeared to be dawning. The old-world capital, Rome, once the

mistress of the nations, still the mistress of all Roman

Catholic hearts, was to become the central point of Italy. …

But when the flames of war broke out in the north [see below],

and the fate of Italy was about to be decided between Sardinia

and Austria on the old battle fields of Lombardy, the Romans

demanded from the Pope a declaration of war against Austria,

and the despatch of Roman troops to join Charles Albert's

army. Pius rejected their demands as unsuited to his papal

office, and so broke with the men of the extreme party. … In

this time of agitation Pius thought that in Count Pellegrino

Rossi, of Carrara, … he had found the right man to carry out

a policy of moderate liberalism, and on the 17th of September,

1848, he set him at the head of a new ministry. The anarchists

… could not forgive Rossi for grasping the reins with a firm

hand." On the 15th of November, as he alighted from his

carriage at the door of the Chambers, he was stabbed in the

neck by an assassin, and died on the spot. He was about, when

murdered, to open the Chambers with a speech, in which he

intended "to promise abolition of the rule of the cardinals

and introduction of a lay government, and to insist upon

Italy's independence and unity. … The next day an armed

crowd appeared before the Quirinal and attacked the guard,

which consisted of Swiss mercenaries, some of the bullets

flying into the Pope's antechamber. He had to accept a radical

ministry and dismiss the Swiss troops. … Pius fled in

disguise from Rome to Gaeta, November 24th, and sought shelter

with the King of Naples. Mazzini and his party had free scope.

A constitutional convention was summoned, which declared the

temporal power of the Pope abolished (February 5th, 1849), and

Rome a republic. To them attached itself Tuscany. Grand-duke

Leopold II. had granted a constitution, February 17th, 1848,

but nevertheless the republican-minded ministry of Guerrazzi

compelled him to join the Pope at Gaeta, February 21st, 1849.

The republic was then proclaimed in Tuscany and union with

Rome resolved upon." But Louis Napoleon, President of the

French republic, intervened. "Marshal Oudinot was despatched

with 8,000 men. He landed in Civita Vecchia, April 26th, 1849,

and appeared before the walls of Rome on the 30th, expecting

to take the city without any trouble. But … after a fight of

several hours, he had to retreat to Civita Vecchia with a loss

of 700 men.

{1862}

A few days later the Neapolitan army, which was to attack the

rebels from the south, was defeated at Velletri; and the

Spanish troops, the third in the league against the red

republic, prudently avoided a battle. But Oudinot received

considerable re-enforcements, and on June 3d he advanced

against Rome for the second time, with 35,000 men, while the

force in the city consisted of about 19,000, mostly volunteers

and national guards. In spite of the bravery of Garibaldi and

the volunteers, into whom he breathed his spirit, Rome had to

capitulate, after a long and bloody struggle, owing to the

superiority of the French artillery. On the 4th of July

Oudinot entered the silent capital. Garibaldi, Mazzini, and

their followers fled. … Pius, for whose nerves the Roman

atmosphere was still too strong, did not return until the 4th

of April, 1850. His ardor for reform was cooled. … In the

Legations they had to protect themselves by Austrian bayonets,

and in Rome and Civita Vecchia by French. This lasted in the

Legations until 1859, and in Rome and Civita Vecchia until

1866 and 1870. Simultaneously with Rome the south of Italy had

entered into the movement so characteristic of the year 1848.

The scenes of 1820 and 1821 were repeated." The Sicilians

again demanded independence; expelled the Neapolitan garrison

from Palermo; refused to accept a constitution proffered by

King Ferdinand II., which created a united parliament for

Naples and Sicily; voted in a Sicilian parliament the

perpetual exclusion of the Bourbon dynasty from the throne,

and offered the crown of Sicily to a son of the king of

Sardinia, who declined the gift. In Naples, Ferdinand yielded

at first to the storm, and sent, under compulsion, a force of

13,000 Neapolitan troops, commanded by the old revolutionist,

General Pepé, to join the Sardinians against Austria. This was

in April, 1848. A month later he crushed the revolution with

his Swiss mercenaries, recalled his army from northern Italy,

and was master, again, in his capital and his peninsular

kingdom. The following summer he landed 8,000 troops in

Sicily; his army bombarded and stormed Messina in September;

defeated the insurgents at the foot of Mount Etna; took

Catania by storm in April, 1849, and entered Palermo, after a

short bombardment, on the 17th of May, having gained for its

master the nickname of "King Bomba." "He ordered a general

disarmament, and established an oppressive military rule over

the whole island; and there was no more talk of parliament and

constitution. All these struggles in central and southern

Italy stood in close connection with the events of 1848 and

1849 in upper Italy. … In the north the struggle was to

shake off the Austrian yoke. … During the month of January,

1848, there was constant friction between the citizens and the

military in Milan and the university cities of Pavia and

Padua. … March 18th, Milan rose. All classes took part in

the fight; and the eighty-two-year-old field-marshal Count

Joseph Radetzky … was obliged, after a street fight of two

days, to draw his troops out of the city, call up as quickly

as possible the garrisons of the neighboring cities, and take

up his position in the famous Quadrilateral, between

Peschiera, Verona, Legnano, and Mantua. March 22d, Venice,

where Count Zichy commanded, was lost for the Austrians," who

yielded without resistance, releasing their political

prisoners, one of whom, the celebrated Daniel Manin, a

Venetian lawyer, took his place at the head of a provisional

government. "Other cities followed the lead of Venice. The

little duchies of Modena and Parma could hold out no longer;

Dukes Francis and Charles fled to Austria, and provisional

governments sprung up behind them. Like Naples, the duchies

and Tuscany also sent their troops across the Po to help the

Sardinians in the decisive struggle. The hopes of all Italy

were centred on Sardinia and its king. … Charles Albert,

called to the aid of Lombardy, entered Milan to win for

himself the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom and the hegemony of

Italy. He presented himself as the liberator of the peninsula,

but it was not a part for which he was qualified by his

antecedents. … He was a brave soldier, but a poor captain.

… His opponent, Radetzky, was old, but his spirit was still

young and fresh. … Radetzky received re-enforcements from

Austria, and on the 6th of May repelled the attack of the

Sardinian king south-west of Verona [at Santa Lucia]. May

29th, he carried the intrenchments at Cartatone; but as the

Sardinians were victorious at Goito and took Peschiera, while

Garibaldi with his Alpine rangers threatened the Austrian

rear, he had to desist from further advances, and limit his

operations to the recapture of Vicenza and the other cities of

the Venetian main-land. In the mean time the Austrian court,

chiefly at the instigation of the British embassy, had opened

negotiations with the Lombards, and offered them their

independence on condition of their assuming a considerable

share of the public debt, and concluding a favorable

commercial treaty with Austria. But, as the Lombards felt sure

of acquiring their freedom more cheaply, they did not accept

the proposition. Radetzky was now in a position to assume an

active offensive. He won a brilliant victory at Custozza, July

25th. The Sardinians attempted to make a stand at Goito and

again at Volta, but were driven back, and Radetzky advanced on

Milan. Charles Albert had to evacuate the city," and on the

9th of August he concluded an armistice, withdrawing his

troops from Lombardy and the duchies. But in the following

March (1849) he was persuaded to renew the war, and he placed

his army under the command of the Polish general Chrzanowski.

It was the intention of the Sardinians to advance again into

Lombardy, but they had no opportunity. "Radetzky crossed the

Ticino, and in a four days' campaign on Sardinian soil

defeated the foe so completely—March 21st at Mortara, and

March 23d at Novara—that there could be no more thought of a

renewal of the struggle. … Charles Albert, who had vainly

sought death upon the battle-field, was weary of his throne

and his life. In the night of March 23d, at Novara, he laid

down the crown and declared his eldest son king of Sardinia,

under the title of Victor Emmanuel II. He hoped that the

latter would obtain a more favorable peace from the Austrians.

… Then, saying farewell to his wife by letter, attended by

but two servants, he travelled through France and Spain to

Portugal. He died at Oporto, July 26th, 1849, of repeated

strokes of apoplexy." After long negotiations, the new king

concluded a treaty of peace with Austria on the 6th of August.

"Sardinia retained its boundaries intact, and paid 75,000,000

lire as indemnity. The false report of a Sardinian victory at

Novara had caused the population of Brescia to fall upon the

Austrian garrison and drive them into the citadel.

{1863}

General Haynau hastened thither with 4,000 men well provided

with artillery. The city was bombarded, and on the 1st of

April it was reoccupied, after a fearful street fight, in

which even women took part; but Haynau stained his name by

inhuman cruelties, especially toward the gentler sex. Venice

was not able to hold out much longer. It had at first attached

itself to Sardinia, but after the defeat of the Sardinians the

republic was proclaimed. Without the city, in Haynau's camp,

swamp fever raged; within, hunger and cholera. On the news of

the capitulation of Hungary, August 22d, it surrendered, and

the heads of the revolution, Manin and Pepe, went into exile.

All Italy was again brought under its old masters."

W. Müller,

Political History of Recent Times,

section 16.

The siege of Venice, "reckoning from April 2, when the

Assembly voted to resist at any cost, lasted 146 days; but the

blockade by land began on June 18, 1848, when the Austrians

first occupied Mestre. During the twenty-one weeks of actual

siege, 900 Venetian troops were killed, and probably 7,000 or

8,000 were at different times on the sick-list. Of the

Austrians, 1,200 were killed in engagements, 8,000 succumbed

to fevers and cholera, and as many more were in the hospitals:

80,000 projectiles were fired from the Venetian batteries;

from the Austrian, more than 120,000. During the seventeen

months of her independence, Venice raised sixty million

francs, exclusive of patriotic donations in plate and

chattels. When Gorzkowsky came to examine the accounts of the

defunct government he exclaimed, 'I did not believe that such

Republican dogs were such honest men.' With the fate of Venice

was quenched the last of the fires of liberty which the

Revolution had kindled throughout Europe in 1848. Her people,

whom the world had come to look down upon as degenerate,—mere

trinket-makers and gondoliers,—had proved themselves second

to none in heroism, superior to all in stability. At Venice,

from first to last, we have had to record no excesses, no

fickle changes, no slipping down of power from level to level

till it sank in the mire of anarchy. She had her demagogues

and her passions, but she would be the slave of neither; and

in nothing did she show her character more worthily than in

recognizing Manin and making him her leader. He repaid her

trust by absolute fidelity. I can discover no public act of

his to which you can impute any other motive than solicitude

for her welfare. The common people loved him as a father,

revered him as a patron saint; the upper classes, the

soldiers, the politicians, whatever may have been the

preferences of individuals or the ambition of cliques, felt

that he was indispensable, and gave him wider and wider

authority as danger increased. … The little lawyer, with the

large, careworn face and blue eyes, had redeemed Venice from

her long shame of decadence and servitude. But Europe would

not suffer his work to stand; Europe preferred that Austria

rather than freedom should rule at Venice. At daybreak on

August 28 a mournful throng of the common people collected

before Manin's house in Piazza San Paterniano. 'Here is our

good father, poor dear fellow,' they were heard to say. 'He

has endured so much for us. May God bless him!' They escorted

him and his family to the shore, whence he embarked on the

French ship Pluton, for he was among the forty prominent

Venetians whom the Austrians condemned to banishment. At six

o'clock the Pluton weighed anchor and passed through the

winding channel of the lagune, out into the Adriatic. Long

before the Austrian banners were hoisted that morning on the

flagstaffs of St. Mark's, Venice, with her fair towers and

glittering domes, had vanished forever from her Great

Defender's sight. Outwardly, the Revolutionary Movement had

failed; in France it had resulted in a spurious Republic, soon

to become a tinsel Empire; elsewhere, there was not even a

make-believe success to hide, if but for a while, the failure.

In Italy, except in Piedmont, Reaction had full play. Bomba

filled his Neapolitan and Sicilian prisons with political

victims, and demonstrated again that the Bourbon government

was a negation of God. Pius IX., having loitered at Naples

with his Paragon of Virtue until April, 1850, returned to

Rome, to be henceforth now the puppet and now the accomplice

of Cardinal Antonelli in every scheme for oppressing his

subjects, and for resisting Liberal tendencies. He held his

temporal sovereignty through the kindness of the Bonapartist

charlatan in France; it was fated that he should lose it

forever when that charlatan lost his Empire. In Tuscany,

Leopold thanked Austria for permitting him to rule over a

people the intelligent part of which despised him. In Modena,

the Duke was but an Austrian deputy sheriff. Lombardy and

Venetia were again the prey of the double-beaked eagle of

Hapsburg. Only in Piedmont did Constitutionalism and liberty

survive to become, under an honest king and a wise minister,

the ark of Italy's redemption."

W. R. Thayer,

The Dawn of Italian Independence,

book 5, chapter 6 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

W. E. Gladstone,

Gleanings of Past Years,

volume 4, chapters 1-4.

L. C. Farini,

The Roman State from 1815 to 1850,

books 2-7 (volumes 1-4).

H. Martin,

Daniel Manin and Venice in 1848-49.

G. Garibaldi,

Autobiography,

period 2 (volumes 1-2).

L. Mariotti,

Italy in 1848.

E. A. V.,

Joseph Mazzini,

chapters 4-5.

The Chevalier O'Clery,

History of the Italian Revolution,

chapters 6-7.

ITALY: A. D. 1855.

Sardinia in the alliance of the Crimean War against Russia.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.

Austro-Italy before Europe in the Congress of Paris.

Alliance of France with Sardinia.

War with Austria.

Emancipation of Lombardy.

Peace of Villa-franca.

"The year 1856 brought an armistice between the contending

powers [in the Crimea—see RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854 to

1854-1856], followed by the Congress of Paris, which settled

the terms of peace. At that Congress Count Cavour and the

Marquis Villamarina represented their country side by side

with the envoys of the great European States. The Prime

Minister of Piedmont, while taking his part in the

re-establishment of the general peace with a skill and tact

which won him the favour of his brother plenipotentiaries,

never lost sight of the further object he had in view, namely,

that of laying before the Congress the condition of Italy. …

His efforts were rewarded with success.

{1864}

On the 30th March, 1856, the treaty of peace was signed, and

on the 8th April Count Walewski called the attention of the

members of the Congress to the state of Italy. … Count Buol,

the Austrian plenipotentiary, would not admit that the

Congress had any right to deal with the Italian question at

all; he declined courteously, but firmly, to discuss the

matter. … But although Austria refused to entertain the

question, the fact remained that the condition of Italy now

stood condemned, not by revolutionary chiefs, nor by the

rulers of Piedmont alone, but by the envoys of some of the

leading powers of Europe speaking officially in the name of

their respective sovereigns. It was in truth a great

diplomatic victory for Italy. … No one in Europe was more

thoroughly convinced than Napoleon III. that the discontent of

Italy and the plots of a section of Italians had their origin

in the despotism which annihilated all national life in the

Peninsula with the single exception of Piedmont. He felt

keenly, also, how false, was his own position at Rome. …

France upheld the Pope as a temporal sovereign, but,

nevertheless, the latter ruled in a manner which pleased

Austria and which displeased France. … Count Cavour went

privately to meet the French Emperor at Plombières in July,

1858. During that interview it was arranged that France should

ally herself actively with Piedmont against Austria. … The

first public indication of the attitude taken up by France

with regard to Austria and Italy was given on the 1st January,

1859, when Napoleon III. received the diplomatic corps at the

Tuileries. Addressing Baron Hubner, the Austrian Ambassador,

the French Emperor said: 'I regret that the relations between

us are bad; tell your sovereign, however, that my sentiments

towards him are not changed.' … The ties which united France

to Piedmont were strengthened by the marriage, in the end of

January, 1859, of the Princess Clotilde, the eldest daughter

of Victor Emmanuel, with Prince Napoleon, the first cousin of

the French Emperor. … An agreement was made by which the

Emperor Napoleon promised to give armed assistance to Piedmont

if she were attacked by Austria. The result, in case the

allies were successful, was to be the formation of a northern

kingdom of Italy. … Both Austria and Piedmont increased

their armaments and raised loans in preparation for war. Men

of all ranks and conditions of life flocked to Turin from the

other States of Italy to join the Piedmontese army, or enrol

themselves among the volunteers of Garibaldi, who had hastened

to offer his services to the king against Austria. …

Meanwhile, diplomacy made continual efforts to avert war. …

The idea of a European Congress was started. … Then came the

proposition of a general disarmament by way of staying the

warlike preparations, which were taking ever enlarged

proportions. On the 18th April, 1859, the Cabinet of Turin

agreed to the principle of disarmament at the special request

of England and France, on the condition that Piedmont took her

seat at the Congress. The Cabinet of Vienna had made no reply

to this proposition. Then suddenly it addressed, on the 23rd

April, an ultimatum to the Cabinet of Turin demanding the

instant disarmament of Piedmont, to which a categorical reply

was asked for within three days. At the expiration of the

three days Count Cavour, who was delighted at this hasty step

of his opponent, remitted to Baron Kellerberg, the Austrian

envoy, a refusal to comply with the request made. War was now

inevitable. Victor Emmanuel addressed a stirring proclamation

to his army on the 27th April, and two days afterwards another

to the people of his own kingdom and to the people of Italy.

… On the 30th April some French troops arrived at Turin. On

the 13th May Napoleon III. disembarked at Genoa. … Although

the Austrian armies proceeded to cross the Ticino and invade

the Piedmontese territory, they failed to make a decisive

march on Turin. Had Count Giúlay, the Austrian commander, done

so without hesitation, he might well have reached the capital

of Piedmont before the French had arrived in sufficient force

to enable the little Piedmontese army to arrest the invasion.

As it was, the opportunity was lost never to occur again. In

the first engagements at Montebello and Palestro [May 20, 30

and 31] the advantage rested decidedly with the allies. … On

the 4th June the French fought the battle of Magenta, which

ended, though not without a hard struggle, in the defeat of

the Austrians. On the 8th the Emperor Napoleon and King Victor

Emmanuel entered Milan, where they were received with a

welcome as sincere as it was enthusiastic. The rich Lombard

capital hastened to recognise the king as its sovereign. While

there he met in person, Garibaldi, who was in command of the

volunteer corps, whose members had flocked from all parts of

Italy to carry on under his command the war in the mountainous

districts of the north against Austria. … The allied troops

pursued their march onwards towards the River Mincio, upon

whose banks two of the fortresses of the famous Quadrilateral

are situated. On the 24th June they encountered the Austrian

army at Solferino and San Martino. French, Piedmontese, and

Austrians, fought with courage and determination. Nor was it

until after ten or eleven hours of hard fighting that the

allies forced their enemy to retreat and took possession of

the positions he had occupied in the morning. While victory

thus crowned the efforts of France and Piedmont in battle,

events of no little importance were taking place in Italy.

Ferdinand II. of Naples died on the 22nd May, just after he

had received the news of the successes of the allies at

Montebello and Palestro. He was succeeded by his son, Francis

II. … Count Salmour was at once despatched by the

Piedmontese Government … with the offer of a full and fair

alliance between Turin and Naples. The offer was rejected.

Francis determined to follow his father's example of

absolutism at home while giving all his influence to Austria.

Thus it was that the young Neapolitan king sowed, and as he

sowed so he reaped. Leopold, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, had in

April refused the proffered alliance of Piedmont. … Finally

he left Florence and took refuge in the Austrian camp. A

provisional Government was formed, which placed the Tuscan

forces at the disposal of Victor Emmanuel. This change was

effected in a few hours without bloodshed or violence. The

Duchess of Parma went away to Switzerland with her young son,

Duke Robert. Francis Duke of Modena betook himself, with what

treasures he had time to lay his hands on, to the more

congenial atmosphere of the head-quarters of the Austrian

army. … 'The deputations which hastened from Tuscany, Parma,

and Modena, to offer their allegiance to Victor Emmanuel, were

received without difficulty. It was agreed that their complete

annexation should be deferred until after the conclusion of

peace.

{1865}

In the meanwhile the Piedmontese Government was to assume the

responsibility of maintaining order and providing for military

action. … The French and Piedmontese armies had won the

battle of Solferino, and driven the enemy across the Mincio;

their fleets were off the lagoons of Venice, and were even

visible from the lofty Campanile of St. Mark. Italy was

throbbing with a movement of national life daily gathering

volume and force. Europe was impatiently expecting the next

move. It took the unexpected form of an armistice, which the

Emperor of the French proposed, on his sole responsibility, to

the Emperor Francis Joseph on the 8th July. On the 12th the

preliminaries of peace were signed at Villafranca. Victor

Emmanuel was opposed to this act of his ally, but was unable

to prevent it. The Italians were bitterly disappointed, and

their anger was only too faithfully represented by Cavour

himself. He hastened to the headquarters of the king,

denounced in vehement language the whole proceeding, advised

his majesty not to sign the armistice, not to accept Lombardy

[see below], and to withdraw his troops from the Mincio to the

Ticino. But Victor Emmanuel, though sympathising with the

feelings of Italy and of his Minister, took a wiser and more

judicious course than the one thus recommended. He accepted

Cavour's resignation and signed the armistice, appending to

his signature these words:—'J'accepte pour ce qui me

concerne.' He reserved his liberty of action for the future

and refused to pledge himself to anything more than a

cessation of hostilities."

J. W. Probyn,

Italy from 1815 to 1890,

chapters 9-10.

ALSO IN:

C. Bossoli,

The War in Italy.

C. de Mazade,

Life of Count Cavour,

chapters 2-5.

C. Arrivabene,

Italy under Victor Emmanuel,

chapters 1-13 (volume 1).

C. Adams,

Great Campaigns, 1796-1870,

pages 271-340.

L. Kossuth,

Memories of My Exile.

Countess E. M. Cesaresco,

Italian Characters in the Epoch of Unification.

ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

The Treaty of Zurich and its practical negation.

Annexation of Central Italy to Sardinia by Plebiscite.

Revolution in Sicily and Naples.

Garibaldi's great campaign of liberation.

The Sardinian army in the Papal States.

The new Kingdom of Italy proclaimed.

"The treaty concluded at Zurich in November [1859] between the

ambassadors of France, Austria, and Sardinia substantially

ratified the preliminaries arranged at Villafranca. Lombardy

passed to the king of Sardinia; Venetia was retained by

Austria. The rulers of Modena and Parma were to be restored,

the papal power again established in the Legations, while the

various states of the peninsula, excepting Sardinia and the

Two Sicilies, were to form a confederation under the

leadership of the Pope. According to the terms of the treaty

Lombardy was the only state directly benefited by the war. …

The people of central Italy showed no inclination to resume

the old régime. They maintained their position firmly and

consistently, despite the decisions of the Zurich Congress,

the advice of the French emperor, and the threatening attitude

of Naples and Rome. … The year closed without definite

action, leaving the provisional governments in control. In

fact, matters were simply drifting, and it seemed imperative

to take some vigorous measures to terminate so abnormal a

condition of affairs. Finally the project of a European

congress was suggested. There was but one opinion as to who

should represent Italy in such an event. … Cavour …

returned to the head of affairs in January. This event was

simultaneous with the removal of M. Walewski at Paris and a

change in the policy of the French government. The emperor no

longer advised the central Italians to accept the return of

their rulers. His influence at Rome was exercised to induce

the Pope to allow his subjects in the Legations to have their

will. … The scheme of a European congress was abandoned.

With France at his back to neutralize Austria, Cavour had

nothing to fear. … He suggested to the emperor that the

central Italians be allowed to settle their fate by

plebiscite. This method was to a certain extent a craze with

the emperor, … and Cavour was not surprised at the

affirmative reply he received to his proposal. The elections

took place in March, and by an overwhelming majority the

people of Parma, Modena, Tuscany, and the Legations declared

for annexation to Sardinia. Austria protested, but could do no

more in the face of England and France. Naples followed the

Austrian example, while almost simultaneously with the news of

the elections there arrived at Turin the papal excommunication

for Victor Emmanuel and his subjects. On the 2d of April the

king opened the new parliament and addressed himself to the

representatives of 12,000,000 Italians. The natural enthusiasm

attending the session was seriously dampened by the royal

announcement that, subject to the approval of their citizens

and the ratification of parliament, Nice and Savoy were to be

returned to France. It was, in fact, the concluding

installment of the price arranged at Plombières to be paid for

the French troops in the campaign of the previous year. …

General Garibaldi, who sat in the parliament for Nice, was

especially prominent in the angry debates that followed. …

When the transfer had been ratified he withdrew to a humble

retreat in the island of Caprera. … But the excitement over

the loss of Nice and Savoy was soon diminished by the

startling intelligence which arrived of rebellion in the

Neapolitan dominions. Naples was mutinous, while in Sicily,

Palermo and Messina were in open revolt. Garibaldi's time had

come. Leaving Caprera, he made for Piedmont, and hastily

organized a band of volunteers to assist in the popular

movement. On the night of May 6, with about a thousand

enthusiastic spirits, he embarked from the coast near Genoa in

two steamers and sailed for Sicily. Cavour in the mean time

winked at this extraordinary performance. He dispatched

Admiral Persano with a squadron ostensibly to intercept the

expedition, but in reality 'to navigate between it and the

hostile Neapolitan fleet.' On the 11th Garibaldi landed safely

at Marsala under the sleepy guns of a Neapolitan man-of-war.

On the 14th he was at Salemi, where he issued the following

proclamation: 'Garibaldi, commander-in-chief of the national

forces in Sicily, on the invitation of the principal citizens,

and on the deliberation of the free communes of the island,

considering that in times of war it is necessary that the

civil and military powers should be united in one person,

assumes in the name of Victor Emmanuel, King of Italy, the

Dictatorship in Sicily.'" On the 26th Garibaldi attacked

Palermo; on the 6th of June he was in possession of the city

and citadel; on the 25th of July Messina was surrendered to him.

{1866}

"Perhaps the excitement at Turin during these days was second

only to that which animated the great Sicilian cities. The

guns of Bomba's fleet at Palermo were no more active than the

diplomatic artillery which the courts of Central Europe

trained upon the government at Turin. … Cavour's position at

this time was a trying, delicate, and from some points of view

a questionable one. He had publicly expressed regret for

Garibaldi's expedition, while privately he encouraged it. …

Cavour's desire to see Garibaldi in Calabria was changed, a

little later. La Farina was at Palermo in behalf of the

Sardinian government, to induce Garibaldi to consent to the

immediate annexation of Sicily to the new Italian kingdom.

This Garibaldi declined to do, preferring to wait until he

could lay the entire Neapolitan realm and Rome as well at the

feet of Victor Emmanuel. This altered the aspect of affairs.

It was evident that Garibaldi was getting headstrong. It was

Cavour's constant solicitude to keep the Italian question in

such a shape as to allow no foreign power a pretext for

interference. Garibaldi's design against Rome garrisoned by

French troops would be almost certain to bring on foreign

complications and ruin the cause of Italian unity." On the

19th of August, Garibaldi crossed his army from Sicily to the

mainland and advanced on Naples. "On the evening of September

6 the king embarked on a Spanish ship, and leaving his

mutinous navy at anchor in the bay, quit forever those

beautiful shores which his race had too long defiled. On the

morning of September 7 Garibaldi was at Salerno; before night

he had reached Naples, and its teeming thousands had run mad.

… The Neapolitan fleet went over en masse to Garibaldi, and

by him was placed under the orders of the Sardinian admiral.

The Garibaldian troops came swarming into the city, some by

land and others by sea. … Francis II. had shut himself up in

the fortress of Gaeta with the remnants of his army, holding

the line of the Volturno. … At Turin the state of unrest

continued. Garibaldi's presence at Naples was attended with

grave perils. Of course his designs upon Rome formed the

principal danger, but his conspicuous inability as an

organizer was one of scarcely less gravity. … Sardinian

troops had become a necessity of the situation. … There was

no time to lose. There could be no difficulty in finding an

excuse to enter papal territory. The inhabitants of Umbria and

the Marches, who had never ceased to appeal for annexation to

the new kingdom, were suppressed by an army of foreign

mercenaries that the Pope had mustered beneath his banner. …

Cavour had interceded in vain with the Vatican to alter its

course toward its disaffected subjects. At last, on September

7, the day Garibaldi entered Naples, he sent the royal

ultimatum to Cardinal Antonelli at Rome. … On the 11th the

unfavorable reply of Antonelli was received, and the same day

the Sardinian troops crossed the papal frontier. … Every

European power except England, which expressed open

satisfaction, protested against this action. There was an

imposing flight of ambassadors from Turin, and an ominous

commotion all along the diplomatic horizon. Cavour had not

moved, however, without a secret understanding with Napoleon.

… The Sardinian army advanced rapidly in two columns.

General Fanti seized Perugia and Spoleto, while Cialdini on

the east of the Apennines utterly destroyed the main papal

army under the French general Lamoricière at Castelfidardo

[September 17]. Lamoricière with a few followers gained

Ancona, but finding that town covered by the guns of the

Sardinian fleet, he was compelled to surrender. 'The

pontifical mercenary corps' became a thing of the past, Cavour

could turn his whole attention to Naples. He had obtained from

parliament an enthusiastic permission to receive, if tendered,

the allegiance of the Two Sicilies. The army was ordered

across the Neapolitan frontier, and the king left for Ancona

to take command. In the mean time on October 1 Garibaldi had

inflicted another severe defeat to the royal Neapolitan army

on the Volturno. The Sardinian advance was wholly unimpeded.

… On November 7 the king entered Naples, and on the

following day was waited upon by a deputation to announce the

result of the election that Garibaldi had previously decreed.

'Sire,' said their spokesman, 'The Neapolitan people,

assembled in Comitia, by an immense majority have proclaimed

you their king.' … Then followed an event so sublime as to

be without parallel in these times of selfish ambition.

Garibaldi bade farewell to his faithful followers, and,

refusing all rewards, passed again to his quiet home in

Caprera. … The people of Umbria and the Marches followed the

lead of Naples in declaring themselves subjects of Victor

Emmanuel. Except for the patrimony of St. Peter surrounding

the city of Rome and the Austrian province of Venetia, Italy

was united under the tricolor. While Garibaldi returned to his

humble life, Cavour went to Turin to resume his labors. … On

the 18th of February, 1861, the first national parliament

representing the north and south met at Turin. Five days

before, the last stronghold of Francis II. had capitulated,

and the enthusiasm ran high. The kingdom of Italy was

proclaimed, and the king confirmed as 'Victor Emmanuel II., by

the grace of God and the will of the nation King of Italy.'

… The work was almost done. The scheme that a few years

before would have provoked a smile in any diplomatic circle in

Europe had been perfected almost to the capstone. But the man

who had conceived the plan and carried it through its darkest

days was, not destined to witness its final consummation.

Cavour was giving way. On May 29 he was stricken down with a

violent illness." On June 6 he died. "To Mazzini belongs the

credit of keeping alive the spirit of patriotism; Garibaldi is

entitled to the admiration of the world as the pure patriot

who fired men's souls; but Cavour was greater than either, and

Mazzini and Garibaldi were but humble instruments in his

magnificent plan of Italian regeneration."

H. Murdock,

The Reconstruction of Europe,

chapter 13.

ALSO IN:

C. de Mazade,

Life of Count Cavour,

chapters 5-7.

G. Garibaldi,

Autobiography,

3d period (volume 2).

E. Dicey,

Victor Emmanuel,

chapters 27-34.

E. About,

The Roman Question.

The Chevalier O'Clery,

The Making of Italy,

chapters 7-12.

{1867}

ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

The Roman question and the Venetian question.

Impatience of the nation.

Collision of Garibaldi with the government.

Alliance with Prussia.

War with Austria.

Liberation and annexation of Venetia.

"The new ministry was formed by Baron Ricasoli. … In the

month of July, Russia and Prussia followed the example of

England and France, and acknowledged Italian unity. … Baron

Ricasoli only held office about nine months; not feeling equal

to the difficulties he had to encounter, he resigned in March,

1862, and Signor Ratazzi was empowered to form a new ministry.

… The volunteer troops had become a source of serious

embarrassment to the government. … It was found disagreeable

and dangerous to have two standing armies under separate heads

and a separate discipline, and it was proposed to amalgamate

the Garibaldians with the royal troops. Endless disagreements

arose out of this question. … As soon as this question was

in a manner accommodated, a more serious one arose. The

central provinces lost all patience in waiting so long for a

peaceful solution of the Roman question. The leaders of the

Young Italy party became more warlike in their language, and

excited the peasantry to riotous proceedings, which the

government had to put down forcibly, and this disagreeable

fact helped to make the Ratazzi ministry unpopular.

Garibaldi's name had been used as an incentive to those

disturbances, and now the hot-headed general embarked for

Sicily, to take the command of a troop who were bound for the

Eternal City, resolved to cut with the sword the Gordian knot

of the Roman question. The government used energetic measures

to maintain its dignity, and not allow an irregular warfare to

be carried on without its sanction. The times were difficult,

no doubt, and the ministry had a hard road to tread. … The

Garibaldians were already in the field, and having crossed

from Sicily, were marching through Calabria with

ever-increasing forces and the cry of 'Rome or death' on their

lips. Victor Emmanuel had now no choice left him but to put

down rebellion by force of arms. General Cialdini's painful

duty it was to lead the royal troops on this occasion. He

encountered the Garibaldians at Aspromonte, in Calabria, and

on their refusing to surrender to the king, a fight ensued in

which the volunteers were of course defeated, and their

officers arrested. Garibaldi, with a ball in his foot, from

the effects of which he has never recovered, was carried a

state prisoner to Piedmont. … This unhappy episode was a

bitter grief to Victor Emmanuel. … Aspromonte gave a final

blow to the Ratazzi ministry. Never very popular, it was

utterly shaken by the reaction in favour of Garibaldi. …

After a good deal of worry and consultation, the king decided

to call Luigi Carlo Farini to office. … Unhappily his health

obliged him to retire very soon from public life, and he was

succeeded by Minghetti. On the whole this first year without

Cavour had been a very trying one to Victor Emmanuel. …

Meantime the Roman question remained in abeyance—to the great

detriment of the nation, for it kept Central and Southern

Italy in a state of fermentation which the government could

not long hold in check. The Bourbon intrigues at Rome,

encouraging brigandage in the Two Sicilies, destroyed all

security of life and property, and impeded foreigners from

visiting the country. The Emperor of the French, occupying the

false position of champion of Italian independence and

protector of the temporal power of the Pope, would not do

anything, nor let the Italian Government do anything, towards

settling the momentous question. … Victor Emmanuel, who had

his eye on Venice all the time, having a fixed impression that

if it could be recovered he would find less difficulty in

getting rid of the foreign occupation in Rome, now adopted

energetic measures to bring about a settlement of this

Venetian question, urging the English Government to use its

influence with Austria to induce her to accept some compromise

and surrender the Italian province peaceably. … Meantime the

Italian Government continued to invite the French to withdraw

their forces from the Roman States, and leave the Pope face to

face with his own subjects without the aid of foreign

bayonets. This the emperor, fearing to offend the papal party,

could not make up his mind to do. But to make the road to Rome

easier for the Italians, he proposed a transfer of the capital

from Turin to some more southern town, Florence or Naples—he

did not care which. The French minister, M. Drouyn de Lhuys,

said:—'Of course in the end you will go to Rome. But it is

important that between our evacuation and your going there,

such an interval of time and such a series of events should

elapse as to prevent people establishing any connection

between the two facts. France must not have any

responsibility.' … The king accepted the conditions, which

provided that the French were to evacuate Rome in two years,

and fixed on Florence as the residence of the court. … On

November 18, 1860, the first Parliament was opened in

Florence. … The quarrel between Austria and Prussia [see

GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866] was growing all this time, and Italy

proposed an alliance defensive and offensive with the latter

power. … The treaty was concluded April 8, 1866. When this

fact became known, Austria, on the brink of war with Prussia,

began to think that she must rid herself in some way of the

worry of the Italians on her southern frontier, in order to be

free to combat her powerful northern enemy. The cabinet of

Vienna did not apply directly to the cabinet of Florence, but

to that arbiter of the destinies of nations, Napoleon III.,

proposing to cede Venetia on condition that the Italian

government should detach itself from the Prussian alliance.

… After an ineffectual attempt to accommodate matters by a

congress, war was declared against Austria, on June 20, 1866,

and La Marmora, having appointed Ricasoli as his deputy at the

head of the council, led the army northwards. … Victor

Emmanuel appointed his cousin regent, and carried his sons

along with him to the seat of war. … The forces of Austria

were led by the able and experienced commander, the Archduke

Albert, who had distinguished himself at Novara. On the

ill-omened field of Custozza, where the Italians had been

defeated in 1849, the opposing armies met [June 24]; and both

being in good condition, well disciplined and brave, there was

fought a prolonged and bloody battle, in which the Italians

were worsted, but not routed. … On July 20 the Italian navy

suffered an overwhelming defeat at Lissa in the Adriatic, and

these two great misfortunes plunged Victor Emmanuel into the

deepest grief. He felt disabled from continuing the war: all

the sacrifice of life had been in vain: national unity was as

far off as ever. … Meantime the Prussian arms were

everywhere victorious over Austria, and about ten days after

the battle of Custozza it was announced in the Moniteur that

Austria had asked the Emperor Napoleon's mediation, offering

to cede him Venice, and that he was making over that province

to the King of Italy.

{1868}

Italy could not accept it without the consent of her ally

Prussia; and while negotiations were going forward on the

subject, the brief seven weeks' campaign was brought to a

conclusion by the great victory of Sadowa, and on July 26 the

preliminaries of peace were signed by the Austrian and

Prussian plenipotentiaries. … Venice was restored to Italy

by the Emperor of France, with the approval of Prussia. There

was a sting in the thought that it was not wrung from the

talons of the Austrian eagle by the valour of Italian arms,

but by the force of diplomacy; still it was a delightful fact

that Venice was free, with the tricolour waving on St. Mark's.

The Italian soil was delivered from foreign occupation. … As

soon as the treaty was signed at Vienna, October 2, the

Venetian Assemblies unanimously elected Victor Emmanuel with

acclamations, and begged for immediate annexation to the

Kingdom of Italy. On November 4, in the city of Turin, Victor

Emmanuel received the deputation which came to proffer him the

homage of the inhabitants of Venetia. … On November 7 Victor

Emmanuel made a solemn entry into the most beautiful, and,

after Rome, the most interesting city of the Italian

peninsula. … Hot upon the settlement of the Venetian

question, came the discussion of that of Rome, which after the

evacuation of the French troops [November, 1866] seemed more

complicated than ever. The Catholic powers were now anxious to

accommodate the quarrel between Italy and the Pope, and they

offered to guarantee him his income and his independence if he

would reconcile himself to the national will. But Pius IX. was

immovable in his determination to oppose it to the last."

G. S. Godkin,

Life of Victor Emmanuel II.,

chapters 23-25 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

J. W. Probyn,

Italy from 1815 to 1890,

chapter 11.

G. Garibaldi,

Autobiography,

4th period, chapter 1 (volume 2),

and volume 3, chapter 8.

ITALY: A. D. 1867-1870.

Settlement of the Roman question.

Defeat of Garibaldi at Mentana.

Rome in the possession of the king of Italy.

Progress made by diplomacy in the settlement of the Roman

question "was too slow for Garibaldi. He had once more fallen

under the influence of the extreme republicans, and in 1867 he

declared that he would delay no longer in planting the

republican banner on the Vatican. Between these hot-headed and

fanatical republicans on the one side, the Italian

Ultramontanes on another, and the French Emperor on the third,

the position of Victor Emmanuel was anything but enviable. In

the autumn of 1867 Garibaldi was suddenly arrested by the

Government, but released on condition that he would remain

quietly at Caprera. But meanwhile the volunteers under Menotti

Garibaldi (the great chief's son) had advanced into the Papal

States. The old warrior was burning to be with them. On the

14th of October he effected his escape from Caprera, and

managed eventually to join his son in the Romagna. Together

they advanced on Rome, and won, after tremendous fighting, the

great victory at Monte Rotundo. Meanwhile an army of

occupation sent by the Government from Florence had crossed

the Roman frontier, and a French force had landed on the

coast. Garibaldi's position was already critical, but his

resolution was unbroken. 'The Government of Florence,' he

said, in a proclamation to the volunteers, 'has invaded the

Roman territory, already won by us with precious blood from

the enemies of Italy; we ought to receive our brothers in arms

with love, and aid them in driving out of Rome the mercenary

sustainers of tyranny; but if base deeds, the continuation of

the vile convention of September, in mean consort with

Jesuitism, shall urge us to lay down our arms in obedience to

the order of the 2d December, then will I let the world know

that I alone, a Roman general, with full power, elected by the

universal suffrage of the only legal Government in Rome, that

of the republic, have the right to maintain myself in arms in

this the territory subject to my jurisdiction; and then, if

any of these my volunteers, champions of liberty and Italian

unity, wish to have Rome as the capital of Italy, fulfilling

the vote of parliament and the nation, they must not put down

their arms until Italy shall have acquired liberty of

conscience and worship, built upon the ruin of Jesuitism, and

until the soldiers of tyrants shall be banished from our

land.' The position taken up by Garibaldi is perfectly

intelligible. Rome we must have, if possible, by legal

process, in conjunction with the royal arms'; but if they will

stand aside, even if they will oppose, none the less Rome must

be annexed to Italy. Unfortunately Garibaldi had left out of

account the French force despatched by Napoleon III. to defend

the Temporal dominions of the Pope, a force which even at this

moment was advancing to the attack. The two armies met near

the little village of Mentana, ill matched in every respect.

The volunteers, numerous indeed but ill disciplined and badly

armed, brought together, held together simply by the magic of

a name, the French, admirably disciplined, armed with the

fatal chassepots, fighting the battle of their ancient Church.

The Garibaldians were terribly defeated. Victor Emmanuel

grieved bitterly, like a true, warm-hearted father for the

fate of his misguided but generous-hearted sons. … To the

Emperor of the French he wrote an ardent appeal begging him to

break with the Clericals and put himself at the head of the

Liberal party in Europe, at the same time warning him that the

old feeling of gratitude towards the French in Italy had quite

disappeared. 'The late events have suffocated every

remembrance of gratitude in the heart of Italy. It is no

longer in the power of the Government to maintain the alliance

with France. The chassepot gun at Mentana has given it a

mortal blow.' At the same time the rebels were visited with

condign punishment. Garibaldi himself was arrested, but after

a brief imprisonment at Varignano was permitted to retire once

more to Caprera. A prisoner so big as Garibaldi is always an

embarrassment to gaolers. But the last act in the great drama

… was near at hand. In 1870 the Franco-German War broke out.

The contest, involving as it did the most momentous

consequences, was as brief as it was decisive. The French, of

course, could no longer maintain their position as champions

of the Temporal power. Once more, therefore, the King of Italy

attempted, with all the earnestness and with all the

tenderness at his command, to induce the Pope to come to terms

and accept the position, at once dignified and independent,

which the Italian Government was anxious to secure to him. …

{1869}

But the Pope still unflinchingly adhered to the position he

had taken up. … A feint of resistance was made, but on the

20th of September (1870) the royal troops entered Rome, and

the Tricolour was mounted on the palace of the Capitol. So

soon as might be a plebiscite was taken. The numbers are

significant—for the King, 40,788, for the Pope, 46. But

though the work was thus accomplished in the autumn of 1870,

it was not until 2d June 1871 that the King made his triumphal

entry into the capital of Italy."

J. A. R. Marriott,

The Makers of Modern Italy,

pages 72-76.

ALSO IN:

G. Garibaldi,

Autobiography,

volume 3, chapters 8-9.

G. S. Godkin,

Life of Victor Emmanuel,

chapter 32 (volume 2).

ITALY: A. D. 1870-1894.

The tasks and burdens of the United Nation.

Military and colonial ambitions.

The Triple Alliance.

"Italy now [In 1870] stood before the world as a nation of

twenty-five million inhabitants, her frontiers well defined,

her needs very evident. Nevertheless, if her national

existence was to be more than a name, she must have discipline

in self-government, and she must as quickly as possible

acquire the tools and methods of the civilization prevailing

among those nations into whose company her victories had

raised her. Two thirds of her people lagged behind the Western

world not only in material inventions, but in education and

civic training. Railroads and telegraphs, the wider

application of steam to industries, schools, courts, the

police, had all to be provided, and provided quickly.

Improvements which England and France had added gradually and

paid for gradually, Italy had to organize and pay for in a few

years. Hence a levying of heavy taxes, and exorbitant

borrowing from the future in the public debt. Not only this,

but ancient traditions, the memories of feuds between town and

town, had to be obliterated; the people had to be made truly

one people, so that Venetians, or Neapolitans, or Sicilians

should each feel that they were first of all Italians.

National uniformity must supplant provincial peculiarity;

there must be one language, one code of laws, one common

interest; in a word, the new nation must be Italianized. The

ease and rapidity with which the Italians have progressed in

all these respects have no parallel in modern times. Though

immense the undertaking, they have, in performing it, revealed

an adaptability to new conditions, a power of transformation

which are among the most remarkable characteristics of their

race, and the strongest proofs that ruin will not now engulf

them. Only a race incapable of readjusting itself need

despair. Happy had Italy been if, undistracted by temptation,

she had pursued the plain course before her; still happy, had

she resisted such temptation. But nations, like individuals,

are not made all of one piece: they, too, acknowledge the

better reason, but follow the worse; they, too, through pride

or vanity or passion, often forfeit the winnings from years of

toil. … Italy was recognized as a great power by her

neighbors, and she willingly persuaded herself that it was her

duty to do what they did. In this civilized age, the first

requisite of a great power is a large standing army. … A

large standing army being the first condition of ranking among

the great powers, Italy set about preparing one. … Perhaps

more than any other European nation she was excusable in

desiring to show that her citizens could become soldiers, for

she had been taunted time out of mind with her effeminacy, her

cowardice. It might be argued, too, that she received a larger

dividend in indirect compensation for her capital invested in

the army than her neighbors received from theirs. Uniform

military service helped to blot out provincial lines and to

Italianize all sections; it also furnished rudimentary

education to the vast body of illiterate conscripts. These

ends might have been reached at far less cost by direct and

natural means; but this fact should not lessen the credit due

to the Italian military system for furthering them. Tradition,

example, national sensitiveness, all conspired in this way to

persuade Italy to saddle an immense army on her back. … One

evidence of being a 'great power,' according to the political

standard of the time, consists in ability to establish

colonies, or at least a protectorate, in distant lands;

therefore Italian Jingoes goaded their government on to plant

the Italian flag in Africa. France was already mistress of

Algiers; Spain held a lien on Morocco; Italy could accordingly

do no less than spread her influence over Tunis. For a few

years Italy complacently imagined that she was as good as her

rivals in the possession of a foreign dependency. Then a

sudden recrudescence of Jingoism in France caused the French

to occupy Tunis. The Italians were very angry; but when they

sounded the situation, they realized that it would be folly to

go to war over it. … Not warned by this experience, Italy, a

few years later, plunged yet more deeply into the uncertain

policy of colonization. England and France having fallen out

over the control of Egypt, then England, having virtually made

the Khedive her vassal, suggested that it would be a very fine

thing for Italy to establish a colony far down on the coast of

the Red Sea, whence she could command the trade of Abyssinia.

Italian Jingoes jumped at the suggestion, and for ten years

the red-white-and-green flag has waved over Massaua. But the

good that Italy has derived from this acquisition has yet to

appear. … Equally slow have they been to learn that their

partnership in the Triple Alliance [see TRIPLE ALLIANCE] has

entailed upon them sacrifices out of all proportion to the

benefits. To associate on apparently even terms with Germany

and Austria was doubtless gratifying to national vanity, …

but who can show that Italy has been more secure from attack

since she entered that league than she was before? … For the

sake … of a delusive honor,—the honor of posing as the

partner of the arbiters of Europe,—Italy has, since 1882,

seen her army and her debt increase, and her resources

proportionately diminish. None of her ministers has had the

courage to suggest quitting a ruinous policy; on the contrary,

they have sought hither and thither to find means to

perpetuate it without actually breaking the country's back.

… Yet not on this account shall we despair of a country

which, in spite of folly, has achieved much against great

odds, and which has shown a wonderful capacity for sloughing

off her past. Hardship itself, though it be the penalty of

error, may, by restricting her ability to go astray, lead her

back to the path of reason."

W. R. Thayer,

Some Causes of the Italian Crisis

(Atlantic, April, 1894).

See, also, IRREDENTISTS.

{1670}

ITHACA.

One of the seven Ionian islands, small and unimportant, but

interesting as being the Homeric island-kingdom of

Ulysses—the principal scene of the story of the Odyssey. The

island has been more or less explored, with a view to

identifying the localities mentioned in the epic, by Sir

William Gell, by Colonel Leake, and by Dr. Schliemann. Some

account of the latter's work and its results is given in the

introduction to his "Ilios."

E. H. Bunbury,

History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 3, note I (volume 1).

ITHOME.

See SPARTA: B. C. 743-510;

also, MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD.

ITOCOS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIBCHAS.

ITONOMOS, The.

See BOLIVIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;

also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

ITURBIDE, Empire of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.

ITUZAINGO, Battle of (1827).

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

IUKA, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: MISSISSIPPI).

IVAN I.,

Grand Prince of Moscow, A. D. 1328-1340.

Ivan II., Grand Prince of Moscow, 1352-1359.

Ivan III. (called The Great), the first Czar of Muscovy, of

Russia, 1462-1505.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

Ivan IV. (called The Terrible), Czar of Russia, 1533-1584.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.

Ivan V., Czar of Russia, 1682-1689.

Ivan VI., Czar of Russia, 1740-1741.

IVERNI, The.

See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

IVRY, Battle of (1590).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1589-1590.

IVY LANE CLUB, The.

See CLUBS, DR. JOHNSON'S.

J.

JACK CADE'S REBELLION.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1450.

JACK'S LAND.

See NO MAN'S LAND (ENGLAND).

JACKSON, ANDREW.

Campaign against the Creek Indians.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

JACKSON, ANDREW.

Victory at New Orleans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1815 (JANUARY).

JACKSON, ANDREW.

Campaign in Florida.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

JACKSON, ANDREW.

Presidential election and administration.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828, to 1837.

JACKSON, STONEWALL (General Thomas J.)

At the first Battle of Bull Run.

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

JACKSON, STONEWALL

First campaign in the Shenandoah.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

JACKSON, STONEWALL

Second campaign in the Shenandoah.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

JACKSON, STONEWALL

Peninsular campaign.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

JACKSON, STONEWALL

Last flank movement.

Death.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (APRIL-MAY: VIRGINIA).

JACKSON, Mississippi: A. D. 1863.

Capture and recapture by the Union forces.

Sack and ruin.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI);

and (JULY: MISSISSIPPI).

JACOBIN CLUBS.

JACOBINS, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1790, to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

JACOBITE CHURCH, The.

The great religious dispute of the 5th century, concerning the

single or the double nature of Christ, as God and as man,

left, in the end, two extreme parties, the Monophysites and

the Nestorians, exposed alike to the persecutions of the

orthodox church, as established in its faith by the Council of

Chalcedon, by the Roman Pope and by the emperors Justin and

Justinian. The Monophysite party, strongest in Syria, was

threatened with extinction; but a monk named James, or

Jacobus, Baradæus—"Al Baradai," "the man in rags,"—imparted

new life to it by his zeal and activity, and its members

acquired from him the name of Jacobites. Amida (now Diarbekir)

on the Tigris became the seat of the Jacobite patriarchs and

remains so to this day. Abulpharagius, the oriental historian

of the 13th century, was their most distinguished scholar, and

held the office of Mafrian or vice-patriarch, so to speak, of

the East. Their communities are mostly confined at present to

the region of the Euphrates and the Tigris, and number less

than 200,000 souls.

H. F. Tozer,

The Church and the Eastern Empire,

chapter 5.

See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

JACOBITES.

After the revolution of 1688 in England, which expelled James

II. from the throne, his partisans, who wished to restore him,

were called Jacobites, an appellation derived from the Latin

form of his name—Jacobus. The name adhered after James' death

to the party which maintained the rights of his son and

grandson, James Stuart and Charles Edward, the "Old

Pretender" and the "Young Pretender," as they were

respectively called.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707-1708.

The Jacobites rose twice in rebellion.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715;

and 1745-1746.

JACQUERIE, The Insurrection of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1358.

----------JAFFA: Start--------

JAFFA (ANCIENT JOPPA): A. D. 1196-1197.

Taken and retaken by the German Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1196-1197.

JAFFA: A. D. 1799.

Capture by Bonaparte.

Massacre of prisoners.

Reported poisoning of the sick.

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

----------JAFFA: End--------

JAGELLONS, The dynasty of the.

See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.

JAGIR.

"A jagir [in India] is, literally, land given by a government

as a reward for services rendered."

G. B. Malleson,

Lord Clive,

page 123, foot-note.

JAHANGIR (Salim),

Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1605-1627.

JAINISM.

JAINS.

See INDIA: B. C. 312

JAITCHE, DEFENSE OF (1527).

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:

9TH-16TH CENTURIES (BOSNIA, ETC.).

JALALÆAN ERA.

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

{1871}

JALULA, Battle of.

One of the battles in which the Arabs, under the first

successors of Mahomet, conquered the Persian empire. Fought A.

D. 637.

G. Rawlinson,

Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 26.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

----------JAMAICA: Start--------

JAMAICA: A. D. 1494.

Discovery by Columbus.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1493-1496.

JAMAICA: A. D. 1509.

Granted to Ojeda and Nicuesa.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1509-1511.

JAMAICA: A. D. 1655

The English conquest and colonization.

In the spring of 1655, having determined upon an alliance with

France and war with Spain, Cromwell fitted out an expedition

under admirals Venables and Pen, secretly commissioned to

attack Cuba and St. Domingo. Frustrated in an attempt against

the latter island, the expedition made a descent on the island

of Jamaica with better success. "This great gain was yet held

insufficient to balance the first defeat; and on the return of

Pen and Venables they were both committed to the Tower. I may

pause for an instant here to notice a sound example of

Cromwell's far-seeing sagacity. Though men scouted in that day

the acquisition of Jamaica, he saw its value in itself, and

its importance in relation to future attempts on the continent

of America. Exerting the inhuman power of a

despot—occasionally, as hurricanes and other horrors,

necessary for the purification of the world—he ordered his

son Henry to seize on 1,000 young girls in Ireland and send

them over to Jamaica, for the purpose of increasing population

there. A year later, and while the Italian Sagredo was in

London, he issued an order that all females of disorderly

lives should be arrested and shipped for Barbadoes for the

like purpose. Twelve hundred were accordingly sent in three

ships."

J. Forster,

Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Cromwell.

ALSO IN:

G. Penn,

Memorials of Sir Wm. Penn, Admiral,

volume 2, page 124, and appendix H.

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1655-1658.

JAMAICA: A. D. 1655-1796.

Development of the British colony.

The Buccaneers.

The Maroon wars.

"Cromwell set himself to maintain and develop his new

conquest. He issued a proclamation encouraging trade and

settlement in the island by exemption from taxes. In order to

'people and plant' it, he ordered an equal number of young men

and women to be sent over from Ireland, he instructed the

Scotch government to apprehend and transport the idle and

vagrant, and he sent agents to the New England colonies and

the other West Indian islands in order to attract settlers.

After the first three or four years this policy of encouraging

emigration, continued in spite of the Protector's death, bore

due fruit, and Jamaica became to a singular extent a

receptacle for the most varied types of settlers, for freemen

as well as for political offenders or criminals from Newgate,

and for immigrants from the colonies as well as from the

mother country. … The death of Cromwell brought over

adherents of the Parliamentary party, ill content with the

restoration of the Stuarts; the evacuation of Surinam in

favour of the Dutch brought in a contingent of planters in

1675; the survivors of the ill-fated Scotch colony at Darien

came over in 1699; and the Rye House Plot, Sedgmoor, and the

risings of 1715 and 1745 all contributed to the population of

the island. Most of all, however, the buccaneers made Jamaica

great and prosperous. … Situated as the island was, well

inside the ring of the Spanish possessions, the English

occupation of Jamaica was a godsend to the buccaneers, while

their privateering trade was exactly suited to the restless

soldiers who formed the large bulk of the early colonists. So

Port Royal became in a few years a great emporium of

ill-gotten wealth, and the man who sacked Panama became Sir

Henry Morgan, Lieutenant-Governor of Jamaica. … In 1661

Charles II. sanctioned the beginnings of civil government. …

Municipal institutions were introduced, judges and magistrates

were appointed, land grants were issued, and the island began

to take the form and substance of an English colony. The

constitution thenceforward consisted of a Governor, a

nominated Council, and an elected Assembly; and the first

Assembly, consisting of 30 persons, met in January, 1664. …

It was not long before the representative body began to assert

its independence by opposition to the Crown, and in 1678 the

Home government invited conflict by trying to apply to Jamaica

the system which had been introduced into Ireland by the

notorious Poynings' law. Under this system no Assembly could

be summoned for legislative purposes except under special

directions from home, and its functions would have been

limited to registering consent to laws which had already been

put into approved shape in England." Conflict over this,

attempt to deal with Jamaica as "a conquered and tributary

dependency" did not end until 1728, when the colonists bought

relief from it by settling on the Crown an "irrevocable

revenue" of £8,000 per annum. "About the time when the

constitutional difficulty was settled, the Maroon question was

pressing itself more and more upon the attention of the

colonial government. The penalty which Jamaica paid for being

a large and mountainous island was, that it harboured in its

forests and ravines a body of men who, throughout its history

down to the present century, were a source of anxiety and

danger. The original Maroons, or mountaineers, for that is the

real meaning of the term, were … the slaves of Spaniards who

retreated into the interior when the English took the island,

and sallied out from time to time to harass the invaders and

cut off stragglers and detached parties. … Maroon or Maron

is an abbreviation of Cimaron, and is derived from the Spanish

or Portuguese 'Cima,' or mountain top. Skeat points out that

the word is probably of Portuguese origin, the 'C' having been

pronounced as 'S.' Benzoni (edited by the Hakluyt Society),

who wrote about 1565, speaks of 'Cimaroui' as being the

Spanish name for outlawed slaves in Hispaniola. … It is

probable that the danger would have been greater if the

outlaws had been a united band, but there were divisions of

race and origin among them. The Maroons proper, the slaves of

the Spaniards and their descendants, were mainly in the east

of the island among the Blue Mountains, while the mountains of

the central district were the refuge of runaways from English

masters, including Africans of different races, as well as

Madagascars or Malays. Towards the end of the seventeenth

century the newer fugitives had found in a negro named Cudjoe

an able and determined leader, and thenceforward the

resistance to the government became more organised and

systematic. …

{1872}

Finally, in 1738, Governor Trelawny made overtures of peace to

the rebels, which were accepted. … By this treaty the

freedom of the negroes was guaranteed, special reserves were

assigned to them, they were left under the rule of their own

captains assisted by white superintendents, but were bound

over to help the government against foreign invasion from

without and slave rebellions from within. A similar treaty was

made with the eastern Maroons, and the whole of these blacks,

some 600 in number, were established in five settlements. …

Under these conditions the Maroons gave little trouble till

the end of the 18th century. … The last Maroon war occurred

in 1795." When the insurgent Maroons surrendered, the next

year, they were, in violation of the terms made with them,

transported to Nova Scotia, and afterwards to the warmer

climate of Sierra Leone. "Thus ended the last Maroon

rebellion; but … it affected only one section of these negro

freemen, and even their descendants returned in many cases to

Jamaica at a later date."

C. P. Lucas,

Historical Geography of the British Colonies,

volume 2, section 2, chapter 3, with foot-note.

ALSO IN:

G. W. Bridges,

Annals of Jamaica,

volume 1, and volume 2, chapters 1-16.

R. C. Dallas,

History of the Maroons.

JAMAICA: A. D. 1689-1762.

The English slave trade.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1698-1776.

JAMAICA: A. D. 1692.

Destructive Earthquake.

"An earthquake of terrible violence laid waste in less than

three minutes the flourishing colony of Jamaica. Whole

plantations changed their place. Whole villages were swallowed

up. Port Royal, the fairest and wealthiest city which the

English had yet built in the New World, renowned for its

quays, for its warehouses, and for its stately streets, which

were said to rival Cheapside, was turned into a mass of ruins.

Fifteen hundred of the inhabitants were buried under their own

dwellings."

Lord Macaulay,

History of England,

chapter 19 (volume 4).

JAMAICA: A. D. 1834-1838.

Emancipation of Slaves.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1834-1838.

JAMAICA: A. D. 1865.

Governor Eyre's suppression of Insurrection.

In October, 1865, there occurred an insurrection among the

colored people of one district of Jamaica, the suppression of

which throws "a not altogether pleasant light upon English

methods, when applied to the government of a subject race. …

The disturbances were confined to the district and parish of

St. Thomas in the East. There were local grievances arising

from a dispute between Mr. Gordon, a native [colored]

proprietor, and Baron Ketelholdt, the custos of the parish.

Mr. Gordon, a dissenter, and apparently a reformer of abuses

and unpopular among his fellows, had been deprived of his

place among the magistrates, and prevented from filling the

office of churchwarden to which he was elected. The expenses

of the suits against him had been defrayed from the public

purse. The native Baptists, the sect to which he belonged,

were angry with what they regarded as at once an act of

persecution and a misappropriation of the public money.

Indignation meetings had been held. … Behind this quarrel,

which would not of itself have produced much result, there lay

more general grievances. … There was a real grievance in the

difficulty of obtaining redress through law administered

entirely by landlords; and as a natural consequence there had

grown up a strong mistrust of the law itself, and a complete

alienation between the employer and the employed. To this was

added a feeling on the part of the class above the ordinary

labourer, known as the free settlers, that they were unduly

rented, and obliged to pay rent for land which they should

have held free; and there was a very general though vague

expectation that in some way or other the occupiers would be

freed from the payment of rent. The insurrection broke out in

October;" a small riot, at first, at Morant Bay, in which a

policeman was beaten; then an attempt to arrest one of the

alleged rioters, a colored preacher, Paul Bogle by name, and a

formidable resistance to the attempt by 400 of his friends.

"On the next day, when the Magistrates and Vestry were

assembled in the Court-House at Morant Bay, a crowd of

insurgents made their appearance, the volunteers were called

out, and the Riot Act read; and after a skirmish the

Court-House was taken and burnt, 18 of the defenders killed

and 30 wounded. The jail was broken open and several stores

sacked. There was some evidence that the rising was

premeditated, and that a good deal of drilling had been going

on among the blacks under the command of Bogle. From Morant

Bay armed parties of the insurgents passed inland through the

country attacking the plantations, driving the inhabitants to

take refuge in the bush, and putting some of the whites to

death. The Governor of the Island at the time was Mr. Eyre

[former explorer of Australia]. He at once summoned his Privy

Council, and with their advice declared martial law over the

county of Surrey, With the exception of the town of Kingston.

Bodies of troops were also at once despatched to surround the

insurgent district. … 439 persons fell victims to summary

punishment, and not less than 1,000 dwellings were burnt;

besides which, it would appear that at least 600 men and women

were subjected to flogging, in some instances with

circumstances of unusual cruelty. But the event which chiefly

fixed the attention of the public in England was the summary

conviction and execution of Mr. Gordon. He was undoubtedly a

troublesome person, and there were circumstances raising a

suspicion that he possessed a guilty knowledge of the intended

insurrection. They were however far too slight to have secured

his conviction before a Court of Law. But Governor Eyre caused

him to be arrested in Kingston, where martial law did not

exist, hurried on board ship and carried to Morant Bay, within

the proclaimed district. He was there tried by a

court-martial, consisting of three young officers," was

sentenced to death, and immediately hanged.

J. F. Bright,

History of England: period 4,

pages 413-415.

"When the story reached England, in clear and trustworthy

form, two antagonistic parties were instantly formed. The

extreme on the one side glorified Governor Eyre, and held that

by his prompt action he had saved the white population of

Jamaica from all the horrors of triumphant negro insurrection.

The extreme on the other side denounced him as a mere fiend.

The majority on both sides were more reasonable; but the

difference between them was only less wide. An association

called the Jamaica Committee was formed for the avowed purpose

of seeing that justice was done. It comprised some of the most

illustrious Englishmen. …

{1873}

Another association was founded, on the opposite side, for the

purpose of sustaining Governor Eyre; and it must be owned that

it too had great names. Mr. Mill may be said to have led the

one side, and Mr. Carlyle the other. The natural bent of each

man's genius and temper turned him to the side of the Jamaica

negroes, or of the Jamaica Governor. Mr. Tennyson, Mr.

Kingsley, Mr. Ruskin, followed Mr. Carlyle; we know now that

Mr. Dickens was of the same way of thinking. Mr. Herbert

Spencer, Professor Huxley, Mr. Goldwin Smith, were in

agreement with Mr. Mill. … No one needs to be told that Mr.

Bright took the side of the oppressed, and Mr. Disraeli that

of authority." A Commission of Inquiry sent out to investigate

the whole matter, reported in April, 1866, commending the

vigorous promptitude with which Governor Eyre had dealt with

the disturbances at the beginning, but condemning the

brutalities which followed, under cover of martial law, and

especially the infamous execution of Gordon. The Jamaica

Committee made repeated efforts to bring Governor Eyre's

conduct to judicial trial; but without success. "The bills of

indictment never got beyond the grand jury stage. The grand

jury always threw them out. On one memorable occasion the

attempt gave the Lord Chief Justice [Cockburn] of England an

opportunity of delivering … to the grand jury … a charge

entitled to the rank of a historical declaration of the law of

England, and the limits of the military power even in cases of

insurrection."

J. McCarthy,

History of Our Own Times,

chapter 49 (volume 4).

ALSO IN:

G. B. Smith,

Life and Speeches of John Bright,

volume 2, chapter 5.

W. F. Finlason,

History of the Jamaica Case.

----------JAMAICA: End----------

JAMES I.,

King of Aragon, A. D. 1213-1276.

James I., King of England, A. D. 1603-1625

(he being, also, James VI., King of Scotland, 1567-1625).

James I., King of Scotland, 1406-1437.

James II., King of Aragon, 1291-1327;

King of Sicily, 1285-1295.

James II:, King of England, 1685-1689.

James II., King of Scotland, 1437-1460.

James III., King of Scotland, 1460-1488.

James IV., King of Scotland, 1488-1513.

James V., King of Scotland, 1513-1542.

JAMES ISLAND, Battle on.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

JAMESTOWN, Virginia: A. D. 1607-1610.

The founding of the colony.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607; and 1607-1610.

JAMNIA, Battle of.

A defeat by Gorgias, the Syrian general, of part of the army

of Judas Maccabæus which he left under his generals Joseph and

Azarius, B. C. 164.

Josephus,

Antiquity of the Jews,

book 12, chapter 8.

JAMNIA, The School of.

A famous school of Jewish theology, established by Jochanan,

who escaped from Jerusalem during the siege by Titus.

H. Graetz,

History of the Jews,

volume 2, page 327.

JANICULUM, The.

See LATIUM, and VATICAN.

JANISSARIES, Creation and destruction of the.

See TURKS: A. D. 1326-1359; and 1826.

JANKOWITZ, Battle of (1645).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

JANSENISTS, The.

See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS.

JANUS, The Temple of.

See TEMPLE OF JANUS.

----------JAPAN: Start----------

JAPAN:

Sketch of history to 1869.

"To the eye of the critical investigator, Japanese history,

properly so-called, opens only in the latter part of the 5th

or the beginning of the 6th century after Christ, when the

gradual spread of Chinese culture, filtering in through Korea,

had sufficiently dispelled the gloom of original barbarism to

allow of the keeping of records. The whole question of the

credibility of the early history of Japan has been carefully

gone into during the last ten years by Aston and others, with

the result that the first date pronounced trustworthy is A. D.

461, and it is discovered that even the annals of the 6th

century are to be received with caution. We have ourselves no

doubt of the justice of this negative criticism, and can only

stand in amazement at the simplicity of most European writers,

who have accepted without sifting them the uncritical

statements of the Japanese annalists. … Japanese art and

literature contain frequent allusions to the early history

(so-called) of the country … as preserved in the works

entitled Kojiki and Nihongi, both dating from the 8th century

after Christ. … We include the mythology under the same

heading, for the reason that it is absolutely impossible to

separate the two. Why, indeed, attempt to do so, where both

are equally fabulous? … Arrived at A. D. 600, we stand on

terra firma. … About that time occurred the greatest event

of Japanese history, the conversion of the nation to Buddhism

(approximately A. D. 552-621). So far as can be gathered from

the accounts of the early Chinese travellers, Chinese

civilisation had slowly—very slowly—been gaining ground in

the archipelago ever since the 3rd century after Christ. But

when the Buddhist missionaries crossed the water, all Chinese

institutions followed them and came in with a rush.

Mathematical instruments and calendars were introduced; books

began to be written (the earliest that has survived, and

indeed nearly the earliest of all, is the already mentioned

Kojiki, dating from A. D. 712); the custom of abdicating the

throne in order to spend old age in prayer was adopted—a

custom which, more than anything else, led to the effacement

of the Mikado's authority during the Middle Ages. Sweeping

changes in political arrangements began to be made in the year

645, and before the end of the 8th century, the government had

been entirely remodelled on the Chinese centralised

bureaucratic plan, with a regular system of ministers

responsible to the sovereign, who, as 'Son of Heaven,' was

theoretically absolute. In practice this absolutism lasted but

a short time, because the entourage and mode of life of the

Mikados were not such as to make of them able rulers. They

passed their time surrounded only by women and priests,

oscillating between indolence and debauchery, between

poetastering and gorgeous temple services. This was the

brilliant age of Japanese classical literature, which lived

and moved and had its being in the atmosphere of an effeminate

court. The Fujiwara family engrossed the power of the state

during this early epoch (A. D. 670-1050). While their sons

held all the great posts of government, the daughters were

married to puppet emperors. The next change resulted from the

impatience of the always manly and warlike Japanese gentry at

the sight of this sort of petticoat government.

{1874}

The great clans of Taira and Minamoto arose, and struggled for

and alternately held the reins of power during the second half

of the 11th and the whole of the 12th century. … By the

final overthrow of the Taira family at the sea fight of

Dan-no-Ura in A. D. 1185, Yoritomo, the chief of the

Minamotos, rose to supreme power, and obtained from the Court

at Kyoto the title of Shogun [converted by western tongues

into Tycoon], literally 'Generalissimo,' which had till then

been applied in its proper meaning to those generals who were

sent from time to time to subdue the Ainos or rebellious

provincials, but which thenceforth took to itself a special

sense, somewhat as the word Imperator (also meaning originally

'general') did in Rome. The coincidence is striking. So is the

contrast. For, as Imperial Rome never ceased to be

theoretically a republic, Japan contrariwise, though

practically and indeed avowedly ruled by the Shoguns from A.

D. 1190 to 1867, always retained the Mikado as theoretical

head of the state, descendant of the Sun-Goddess, fountain of

all honour. There never were two emperors, acknowledged as

such, one spiritual and one secular, as has been so often

asserted by European writers. There never was but one

emperor—an emperor powerless it is true, seen only by the

women who attended him, often a mere infant in arms, who was

discarded on reaching adolescence for another infant in arms.

Still, he was the theoretical head of the state, whose

authority was merely delegated to the Shogun as, so to say,

Mayor of the Palace. By a curious parallelism of destiny, the

Shogunate itself more than once showed signs of fading away

from substance into shadow. Yoritomo's descendants did not

prove worthy of him, and for more than a century (A. D.

1205-1333) the real authority was wielded by the so-called

'Regents' of the Hojo family. … Their rule was made

memorable by the repulse of the Mongol fleet sent by Kublai

Khan with the purpose of adding Japan to his gigantic

dominions. This was at the end of the 13th century, since

which time Japan has never been attacked from without. During

the 14th century, even the dowager-like calm of the Court of

Kyoto was broken by internecine strife. Two branches of the

Imperial house, supported each by different feudal chiefs,

disputed the crown. One was called the Hokucho, or 'Northern

Court,' the other the Nancho, or 'Southern Court.' After

lasting some sixty years, this contest terminated in A. D.

1392 by the triumph of the Northern dynasty, whose cause the

powerful Ashikaga family had espoused. From 1338 to 1565, the

Ashikagas ruled Japan as Shoguns. … Meanwhile Japan had been

discovered by the Portuguese (A. D. 1542); and the imprudent

conduct of the Portuguese and Spanish friars (bateren, as they

were called—a corruption of the word padre) made of the

Christian religion an additional source of discord. Japan fell

into utter anarchy. Each baron in his fastness was a law unto

himself. Then, in the latter half of the 16th century, there

arose successively three great men—Ota Nobunaga, the Taiko

Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa Ieyasu. The first of these conceived

the idea of centralising all the authority of the state in a

single person; the second, Hideyoshi, who has been called the

Napoleon of Japan, actually put the idea into practice, and

joined the conquest of Korea (A. D. 1592-1598) to his domestic

triumphs. Death overtook him in 1598, while he was revolving

no less a scheme than the conquest of China. Ieyasu, setting

Hideyoshi's youthful son aside, stepped into the vacant place.

An able general, unsurpassed as a diplomat and administrator,

he first quelled all the turbulent barons, then bestowed a

considerable portion of their lands on his own kinsmen and

dependents, and either broke or balanced, by a judicious

distribution of other fiefs over different provinces of the

Empire, the might of those greater feudal lords, such as

Satsuma and Choshu, whom it was impossible to put altogether

out of the way. The Court of Kyoto was treated by him

respectfully, and investiture as Shogun for himself and his

heirs duly obtained from the Mikado. In order further to break

the might of the daimyos, Ieyasu compelled them to live at

Yedo, which he had chosen for his capital in 1590, during six

months of the year, and to leave their wives and families

there as hostages during the other half. What Ieyasu sketched

out, the third Shogun of his line, Iemitsu, perfected. From

that time forward, 'Old Japan,' as we know it from the Dutch

accounts, from art, from the stage, was crystallised for two

hundred and fifty years. … Unchangeable to the outward eye

of contemporaries, Japan had not passed a hundred years under

the Tokugawa régime before the seeds of the disease which

finally killed that regime were sown. Strangely enough, the

instrument of destruction was historical research. Ieyasu

himself had been a great patron of literature. His grandson,

the second Prince of Mito, inherited his taste. Under the

auspices of this Japanese Maecenas, a school of literati arose

to whom the antiquities of their country were all in

all—Japanese poetry and romance as against the Chinese

Classics; the native religion, Shinto, as against the foreign

religion, Buddhism; hence, by an inevitable extension, the

ancient legitimate dynasty of the Mikados, as against the

upstart Shoguns. … When Commodore Perry came with his big

guns (A. D. 1853-4), he found a government already tottering

to its fall, many who cared little for the Mikado's abstract

rights, caring a great deal for the chance of aggrandising

their own families at the Shogun's expense. The Shogun yielded

to the demands of Perry and of the representatives of the

other foreign powers—England, France, Russia—who followed in

Perry's train, and consented to open Yokohama, Hakodate, and

certain other ports to foreign trade and residence (1857-9).

He even sent embassies to the United States and to Europe in

1860 and 1861. The knowledge of the outer world possessed by

the Court of Yedo, though not extensive, was sufficient to

assure the Shogun and his advisers that it was vain to refuse

what the Western powers claimed. The Court of Kyoto had had no

means of acquiring even this modicum of worldly wisdom.

According to its view, Japan, 'the land of the gods,' should

never be polluted by outsiders, the ports should be closed

again, and the 'barbarians' expelled at any hazard. What

specially tended to complicate matters at this crisis was the

independent action of certain daimyos. One of them, the Prince

of Choshu, acting, as is believed, under secret instructions

from the Court of Kyoto, fired on ships belonging to Great

Britain, France, Holland, and the United States—this, too, at

the very moment (1863) when the Shogun's government … was

doing its utmost to effect by diplomacy the departure of the

foreigners whom it had been driven to admit a few years before.

{1875}

The consequence of this act was what is called 'the

Shimonoseki Affair,' namely, the bombardment of Shimonoseki,

Choshu's chief sea-port, by the combined fleets of the powers

that had been insulted, and the exaction of an indemnity of

$3,000,000. Though doubtless no feather, this broke the

Shogunate's back. The Shogun Iemochi attempted to punish

Choshu for the humiliation which he had brought on Japan, but

failed, was himself defeated by the latter's troops, and died.

Hitotsubashi, the last of his line, succeeded him. But the

Court of Kyoto, prompted by the great daimyos of Choshu and

Satsuma, suddenly decided on the abolition of the Shogunate.

The Shogun submitted to the decree, and those of his followers

who did not were routed—first at Fushimi near Kyoto (17th

January, 1868), then at Ueno in Yedo (4th July, 1868), then in

Aizu (6th November, 1868), and lastly at Hakodate (27th June,

1869), where some of them had endeavoured to set up an

independent republic. The government of the country was

reorganised during 1867-8, nominally on the basis of a pure

absolutism, with the Mikado as sole wielder of all authority

both legislative and executive. Thus the literary party had

triumphed. All their dreams were realised. They were

henceforth to have Japan for the Japanese. … From this dream

they were soon roughly wakened. The shrewd clansmen of Satsuma

find Choshu, who had humoured the ignorance of the Court and

the fads of the scholars only as long as their common enemy,

the Shogunate, remained in existence, now turned round, and

declared in favour, not merely of foreign intercourse, but of

the Europeanisation of their own country. History has never

witnessed a more sudden 'volte-face.' History has never

witnessed a wiser one."

B. H. Chamberlain,

Things Japanese,

pages 143-160.

ALSO IN:

F. O. Adams,

History of Japan.

Sir E. J. Reed,

Japan,

volume 1, chapters 2-16.

W. E. Griffis,

The Mikado's Empire,

book 1.

R. Hildreth,

Japan, as it was and is.

JAPAN: A. D. 1549-1686.

Jesuit Missions.

The Century of Christianity.

Its introduction and extirpation

Francis Xavier, "the Apostle of the Indies, was both the

leader and director of a widely spread missionary movement,

conducted by a rapidly increasing staff, not only of Jesuits,

but also of priests and missionaries of other orders, as well

as of native preachers and catechists. Xavier reserved for

himself the arduous task of travelling to regions as yet

unvisited by any preachers of Christianity; and his bold and

impatient imagination was carried away by the idea of bearing

the Cross to the countries of the farthest East. The islands

of Japan, already known to Europe through the travels of Marco

Polo, had been reached by the Portuguese only eight years

before, namely, in 1541, and Xavier, while at Malacca, had

conversed with navigators and traders who had visited that

remote coast. A Japanese, named Angero (Hansiro), pursued for

homicide, had fled to Malacca in a Portuguese ship. He

professed a real or feigned desire to be baptized, and was

presented to Xavier at Malacca, who sent him to Goa. There he

learned Portuguese quickly, and was baptized under the name of

Paul of the Holy Faith. … Having carefully arranged the

affairs of the Seminary of the Holy Faith at Goa and the

entire machinery of the mission, Francis Xavier took ship for

Malacca on the 14th April, 1549. On the 24th of June he sailed

for Japan, along with Angero and his two companions, in a

Chinese junk belonging to a famous pirate, an ally of the

Portuguese, who left in their hands hostages for the safety of

the apostle on the voyage. After a dangerous voyage they

reached Kagosima, the native town of Angero, under whose

auspices Xavier was well received by the governor,

magistrates, and other distinguished people. The apostle was

unable to commence his mission at once, though, according to

his biographers, he possessed the gift of tongues. 'We are

here,' he writes, 'like so many statues. They speak to us, and

make signs to us, and we remain mute. We have again become

children, and all our present occupation is to learn the

elements of the Japanese grammar.' His first impressions of

Japan were very favourable. … Xavier left Japan on the 20th

November, 1551, after a stay of two years and four months. In

his controversies with the Japanese, Xavier had been

continually met with the objection—how could the Scripture

history be true when it had escaped the notice of the learned

men of China? It was Chinese sages who had taught philosophy

and history to the Japanese, and Chinese missionaries who had

converted them to Buddhism. To China, then, would he go to

strike a blow at the root of that mighty superstition.

Accordingly he sailed from Goa about the middle of April,

1552. … Being a prey to continual anxiety to reach the new

scene of his labours, Xavier fell ill, apparently of remittent

fever, and died on the 2nd of December, 1552. … The result

of Xavier's labours was the formation of a mission which, from

Goa as a centre, radiated over much of the coast of Asia from

Ormuz to Japan. … The two missionaries, whom Xavier had left

at Japan, were soon after joined by three others: and in 1556

they were visited by the Provincial of the Order in the

Indies, Melchior Nunez, who paid much attention to the

Japanese mission and selected for it the best missionaries, as

Xavier had recommended. … The Jesuits attached themselves to

the fortunes of the King of Bungo, a restless and ambitious

prince, who in the end added four little kingdoms to his own,

and thus became master of a large part of the island of

Kiusiu. In his dominions Christianity made such progress that

the number of converts began to be counted by thousands. …

The missionaries perseveringly sought to spread their religion

by preaching, public discussion, the circulation of

controversial writings, the instruction of the youth, the

casting out of devils, the performance of those mystery plays

so common in that age, by the institution of 'confréries' like

those of Avignon, and, above all, by the well-timed

administration of alms. Nor need we be surprised to learn that

their first converts were principally the blind, the infirm,

and old men one foot in the grave. There are, however, many

proofs in their letters that they were able both to attract

proselytes of a better class and to inspire them with an

enthusiasm which promised well for the growth of the mission.

In those early days the example of Xavier was still fresh; and

his immediate successors seem to have inherited his energetic

and self-denying disposition, though none of them could equal

the great mental and moral qualities of the Apostle of the

Indies. They kept at the same time a watchful eye upon the

political events that were going on around them, and soon

began to bear a part in them. The hostility between them and

the Bonzes became more and more bitter."

The Hundred Years of Christianity in Japan

(Quarterly Review, April, 1871).

{1876}

"In several of the provinces of Kyushu the princes had become

converts and had freely used their influence, and sometimes

their authority, to extend Christianity among their subjects.

In Kyoto and Yamaguchi, in Osaka and Sakai, as well as in

Kyusbu, the Jesuit fathers had founded flourishing churches

and exerted a wide influence. They had established colleges

where the candidates for the church could be educated and

trained. They had organized hospitals and asylums at Nagasaki

and elsewhere, where those needing aid could be received and

treated. It is true hat the progress of the work had met with

a severe setback in A. D. 1587, when Taiko Sam a issued an

edict expelling all foreign religious teachers from Japan. In

pursuance of this edict nine foreigners who had evaded

expulsion were burnt at Nagasaki. The reason for this decisive

action on the part of Taiko Sama is usually attributed to the

suspicion which had been awakened in him by the loose and

unguarded talk of a Portuguese sea captain. But other causes

undoubtedly contributed to produce in him this intolerant

frame of mind. … In several of the provinces of Japan where

the Jesuits had attained the ascendancy, the most forcible

measures had been taken by the Christian princes to compel all

their subjects to follow their own example and adopt the

Christian faith. Takeyama, whom the Jesuit fathers designate

as Justo Ucondono, carried out in his territory at Akashi a

system of bitter persecution. He gave his subjects the option

of becoming Christians or leaving his territory. Konishi

Yukinaga, who received part of the province of Higo as his

fief after the Korean war, enforced with great persistency the

acceptance of the Christian faith, and robbed the Buddhist

priests of their temples and their lands. The princes of Omura

and Arima, and to a certain extent the princes of Bungo,

followed the advice of the Jesuit fathers in using their

authority to advance the cause of Christianity. The fathers

could scarcely complain of having the system of intolerance

practised upon them, which, when circumstances were favorable,

they had advised to be applied to their opponents. … During

the first years of Ieyasu's supremacy the Christians were not

disturbed. … He issued in 1606 what may be called a warning

proclamation, announcing that he had learned with pain that,

contrary to Taiko Sama's edict, many had embraced the

Christian religion. He warned all officers of his court to see

that the edict was strictly enforced, He declared that it was

for the good of the state that none should embrace the new

doctrine; and that such as had already done so must change

immediately. … In the meantime both the English and Dutch

had appeared on the scene. … Their object was solely trade,

and as the Portuguese monopoly hitherto had been mainly

secured by the Jesuit fathers, it was natural for the

new-comers to represent the motive of these fathers in an

unfavorable and suspicious light. 'Indeed,' as Hildreth says,

'they had only to confirm the truth of what the Portuguese and

Spanish said of each other to excite in the minds of the

Japanese rulers the gravest distrust as to the designs of the

priests of both nations.' Whether it is true as charged that

the minds of the Japanese rulers had been poisoned against the

Jesuit fathers by misrepresentation and falsehood, it may be

impossible to determine definitely; but it is fair to infer

that the cruel and intolerant policy of the Spanish and

Portuguese would be fully set forth and the danger to the

Japanese empire from the machinations of the foreign religious

teachers held up in the worst light. … Ieyasu, evidently

having made up his mind that for the safety of the empire

Christianity must be extirpated, in 1614 issued an edict that

the members of all religious orders, whether European or

Japanese, should be sent out of the country: that the churches

which had been erected in various localities should be pulled

down, and that the native adherents of the faith should be

compelled to renounce it. In part execution of this edict all

the members of the Society of Jesus, native and foreign, were

ordered to be sent to Nagasaki. Native Christians were sent to

Tsugaru, the northern extremity of the Main island. … In

accordance with this edict, as many as 300 persons are said to

have been shipped from Japan October 25, 1614. All the

resident Jesuits were included in this number, excepting

eighteen fathers and nine brothers, who concealed themselves

and thus escaped the search. Following his deportation of

converts the most persistent efforts continued to be made to

force the native Christians to renounce their faith. The

accounts given, both by the foreign and by the Japanese

writers, of the persecutions which now broke upon the heads of

the Christians are beyond description horrible. … Rewards

were offered for information involving Christians of every

position and rank, even of parents against their children and

of children against their parents. … The persecution began

in its worst form about 1616. This was the year in which

Ieyasu died, but his son and successor carried out the

terrible programme with heartless thoroughness. It has never

been surpassed for cruelty and brutality on the part of the

persecutors, or for courage and constancy on the part of those

who suffered. … Mr. Gubbins … says: 'We read of Christians

being executed in a barbarous manner in sight of each other,

of their being hurled from the tops of precipices, of their

being buried alive, of their being torn asunder by oxen, of

their being tied up in rice-bags, which were heaped up

together, and of the pile thus formed being set on fire.

Others were tortured before death by the insertion of sharp

spikes under the nails of their hands and feet, while some

poor wretches by a refinement of horrid cruelty were shut up

in cages and there left to starve with food before their eyes.

Let it not be supposed that we have drawn on the Jesuit

accounts solely for this information. An examination of the

Japanese records will show that the case is not overstated.'"

D. Murray,

Story of Japan,

chapter 11.

"The persecutions went on, the discovery of Christians

occasionally occurring for several years, but in 1686 'the few

remaining had learnt how to conceal their belief and the

practice of their religion so well, that the Council issued a

circular to the chief Daimios of the south and west, stating

that none of the Kirishitan sect had been discovered of late

years, owing perhaps to laziness on the part of those whose

duty it was to search for them, and enjoining vigilance'

(Satow). Traces of the Christian religion and people lingered

in the country down to our own time."

Sir E. J. Reed,

Japan,

page 301.

{1877}

JAPAN: A. D. 1852-1888.

Opening the ports to foreigners.

The treaty with the United States and the other treaties which

followed.

"It is estimated that about the middle of the present century,

American capital to the amount of seventeen million dollars

was invested in the whaling industry in the seas of Japan and

China. We thus see that it was not a mere outburst of French

enthusiasm when M. Michelet paid this high tribute to the

service of the whale to civilization: 'Who opened to men the

great distant navigation? Who revealed the ocean and marked

out its zones and its liquid highways? Who discovered the

secrets of the globe? The Whale and the Whaler.' … There

were causes other than the mere safety of whalers which led to

the inception of the American expedition to Japan. On the one

hand, the rise of industrial and commercial commonwealths on

the Pacific, the discovery of gold in California, the

increasing trade with China, the development of steam

navigation—necessitating coal depots and ports for shelter,

the opening of highways across the Isthmus of Central America,

the missionary enterprises on the Asiatic continent, the rise

of the Hawaiian Islands,—on the other hand, the knowledge of

foreign nations among the ruling class in Japan, the news of

the British victory in China, the progress of European

settlements in the Pacific, the dissemination of western

science among a progressive class of scholars, the advice from

the Dutch government to discontinue the antiquated policy of

exclusion—all these testified that the fulness of time for

Japan to turn a new page in her history was at hand. … About

this time, a newspaper article concerning some Japanese waifs

who had been picked up at sea by the barque Auckland—Captain

Jennings—and brought to San Francisco, attracted the

attention of Commodore Aulick. He submitted a proposal to the

government that it should take advantage of this incident to

open commercial relations with the Empire, or at least to

manifest the friendly feelings of the country. This proposal

was made on the 9th of May, 1851. Daniel Webster was then

Secretary of State, and in him Aulick found a ready friend.

… Clothed with full power to negotiate and sign treaties,

and furnished with a letter from President Fillmore to the

Emperor, Commodore Aulick was on the eve of departure when for

some reason he was prevented. Thus the project which began at

his suggestion was obstructed when it was about to be

accomplished, and another man, perhaps better fitted for the

undertaking, entered into his labors. … Commodore [Matthew

Calbraith] Perry shared the belief in the expediency of

sending a special mission for the purpose. When Commodore

Aulick was recalled, Perry proposed to the U. S. Government an

immediate expedition. The proposal was accepted, and an

expedition on the most liberal scale was resolved upon. He was

invested with extraordinary powers, naval and diplomatic. The

East India and China Seas and Japan were the official

designation of the field of service, but the real object in

view was the establishment of a coal depot in Japan. The

public announcement of the resolution was followed by

applications from all quarters of Christendom for permission

to accompany the expedition; all these were, however, refused

on prudential grounds. … Impatient of the delay caused by

the tardy preparations of his vessels, Perry sailed from

Norfolk on the 24th of November, 1852, with one ship, the

Mississippi, leaving the rest to follow as soon as ready. …

The Mississippi … touching at, several ports on her way,

reached Loo Choo in May, where the squadron united. … In the

afternoon of the 8th of July, 1853, the squadron entered the

Bay of Yedo in martial order, and about 5 o'clock in the

evening was anchored off the town of Uraga. No sooner had 'the

black ships of the evil mien' made their entry into the Bay,

than the signal guns were fired, followed by the discharge of

rockets; then were seen on the shore companies of soldiers

moving from garrison to garrison. The popular commotion in

Yedo at the news of 'a foreign invasion' was beyond

description. The whole city was in an uproar. In all

directions were seen mothers flying with children in their

arms, and men with mothers on their backs. Rumors of an

immediate action, exaggerated each time they were communicated

from mouth to mouth, added horror to the horror-stricken. …

As the squadron dropped anchor, it was surrounded by junks and

boats of all sorts, but there was no hostile sign shown. A

document in French was handed on board, which proved to be a

warning to any foreign vessel not to come nearer. The next day

was spent in informal conference between the local officials

of Uraga and the subordinate officers of the squadron. It was

Commodore Perry's policy to behave with as much reserve and

exclusiveness as the Japanese diplomats had done and would do.

He would neither see, nor talk with, any except the highest

dignitary of the realm. Meanwhile, the governor of Uraga came

on board and was received by captains and lieutenants. He

declared that the laws forbade any foreign communication to be

held elsewhere than Nagasaki; but to Nagasaki the squadron

would never go. The vexed governor would send to Yedo for

further instructions, and the 12th was fixed as a day for

another conference. Any exchange of thought was either in the

Dutch language, for which interpreters were provided on both

sides, or in Chinese, through Dr. S. Wells Williams, and

afterward in Japanese, through Manjiro Nakahama. … On the

12th, the Governor of Uraga again appeared on board and

insisted on the squadron's leaving the Yedo Bay for Nagasaki,

where the President's letter would be duly received through

the Dutch or the Chinese. This the Commodore firmly refused to

do. It was therefore decided at the court of Yedo that the

letter be received at Kurihama, a few miles from the town of

Uraga. This procedure was, in the language of the

commissioners, 'in opposition to the Japanese law;' but, on

the ground that 'the Admiral, in his quality as Ambassador of

the President, would be insulted by any other course,' the

original of Mr. Fillmore's letter to the Japanese Emperor,

enclosed in a golden box of one thousand dollars in value, was

delivered on the 14th of July to the commissioners appointed

by the Shogun. …

{1878}

Fortunately for Japan, the disturbed state of affairs in

China made it prudent for Perry to repair to the ports of that

country, which he did as though he had consulted solely the

diplomatic convenience of our country. He left word that he

would come the ensuing spring for our answer. … It was the

Taiping Rebellion which called for Perry's presence in China.

The American merchants had large interests at stake

there—their property in Shanghai alone amounting, it is said,

to $1,200,000. … While in China, Commodore Perry found that

the Russian and French admirals, who were staying in Shanghai,

contemplated a near visit to Japan. That he might not give any

advantage to them, he left Macao earlier than he had intended,

and, on the 13th of February, found himself again in the Bay

of Yedo, with a stately fleet of eight ships. As the place

where the conference had been held at the previous visit was

out of the reach of gun-shot from the anchorage, Perry

expressed a desire of holding negotiations in Yedo, a request

impossible for the Japanese to comply with. After some

hesitation, the suburb Kanagawa was mutually agreed upon as a

suitable site, and there a temporary building was accordingly

erected for the transaction of the business. On the 8th of

May, Commodore Perry, arrayed in the paraphernalia befitting

his rank, was ushered into the house. The reply of the Shogun

to the President's letter was now given—the purport of which

was, decidedly in word but reluctantly in spirit, in favor of

friendly intercourse. Conferences were repeated in the middle

and latter part of the month, and after many evasions and

equivocations, deliberations and delays, invitations to

banquets and exchanges of presents, at last, on Friday, the

31st of May, the formal treaty was signed; a synopsis of which

is here presented:

1. Peace and friendship.

2. Ports of Shimoda and Hakodate open to American ships,

and necessary provisions to be supplied them.

3. Relief to shipwrecked people; expenses thereof not to be

refunded.

4. Americans to be free as in other countries, but amenable to

just laws.

5. Americans at Shimoda and Hakodate not to be subject to

restrictions; free to go about within defined limits.

6. Careful deliberation in transacting business which affects

the welfare of either party.

7. Trade in open ports subject to local regulations.

8. Wood, water, provisions, coal, etc., to be procured through

Japanese officers only.

9. Most-favored nation clause.

10. U. S. ships restricted to ports of Shimoda and Hakodate,

except when forced by stress of weather.

11. U. S. Consuls or agents to reside at Shimoda.

12. Ratifications to be exchanged within eighteen months. …

His labors at an end, Perry bade the last farewell to Japan

and started on his home-bound voyage. This was in June, 1854.

… No sooner had Perry left, carrying off the trophy of

peaceful victory—the treaty (though the Yedo government was

in no enjoyment of peaceful rest), than the Russian Admiral

Pontiatine appeared in Nagasaki. He urged that the same

privileges be granted his country as were allowed the

Americans. … Soon, the English Rear Admiral, Sir James

Stirling, arrives at the same harbor, very kindly to notify

the government that there may be some fighting in Japanese

waters between Russians and his countrymen. … The British

convention was signed October 14, 1854, and followed, in 1858,

by the Elgin treaty. The treaty with Russia was signed January

26, 1855; Netherlands, 9th of November the same year; France,

October 9, 1858; Portugal, 3rd of August, 1860; German Customs

Union, 25th of January, 1861. The other nations which followed

the United States were Italy, Spain, Denmark, Belgium,

Switzerland, Austria-Hungary, Sweden and Norway, Peru, Hawaii,

China, Corea and Siam; lastly Mexico, with whom we concluded a

treaty on terms of perfect equality (November 30, 1888)."

Inazo (Ota) Nitobe,

The Intercourse between the U. S. and Japan,

chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

F. L. Hawks,

Narrative of the Expedition under Commander Perry.

W. E. Griffis,

Matthew Calbraith Perry,

chapters 27-33.

JAPAN: A. D. 1869-1890.

Constitutional development.

"In 1869 was convened the Kogisho or 'Parliament,' as Sir

Harry Parkes translates it in his despatch to the Earl of

Clarendon. … The Kogisho was composed mostly of the

retainers of the Daimios, for the latter, having no experience

of the earnest business of life, 'were not eager to devote

themselves to the labors of an onerous and voluntary office.'

… The object of the Kogisho was to enable the government to

sound public opinion on the various topics of the day, and to

obtain the assistance of the country in the work of

legislation by ascertaining whether the projects of the

government were likely to be favorably received. The Kogisho,

like the Councils of Kuges and Daimios, was nothing but an

experiment, a mere germ of a deliberative assembly, which only

time and experience could bring to maturity. … It was a

quiet, peaceful, obedient debating society. It has left the

record of its abortive undertakings in the 'Kogisho Nishi' or

journal of 'Parliament.' The Kogisho was dissolved in the year

of its birth. And the indifference of the public about its

dissolution proves how small an influence it really had. But a

greater event than the dissolution of the Kogisho was pending

before the public gaze. This was the abolition of feudalism.

… The measure to abolish feudalism was much discussed in the

Kogisho before its dissolution. … In the following noted

memorial, after reviewing the political history of Japan

during the past few hundred years, these Daimios said: 'Now

the great Government has been newly restored and the Emperor

himself undertakes the direction of affairs. This is, indeed,

a rare and mighty event. We have the name (of an Imperial

Government), we must also have the fact. Our first duty is to

illustrate our faithfulness and to prove our loyalty. … The

place where we live is the Emperor's land and the food which

we eat is grown by the Emperor's men. How can we make it our

own? We now reverently offer up the list of our possessions

and men, with the prayer that the Emperor will take good

measures for rewarding those to whom reward is due and for

taking from those to whom punishment is due. Let the imperial

orders be issued for altering and remodelling the territories

of the various clans. Let the civil and penal codes, the

military laws down to the rules for uniform and the

construction of engines of war, all proceed from the Emperor;

let all the affairs of the empire, great and small, be

referred to him.' This memorial was signed by the Daimios of

Kago, Hizen, Satsuma, Choshiu, Tosa, and some other Daimios of

the west.

{1879}

But the real author of the memorial is believed to have been

Kido, the brain of the Restoration. Thus were the fiefs of the

most powerful and most wealthy Daimios voluntarily offered to

the Emperor. The other Daimios soon followed the example of

their colleagues. And the feudalism which had existed in Japan

for over eight centuries was abolished by the following

laconic imperial decree of August, 1871: 'The clans are

abolished, and prefectures are established in their places.'

… While the government at home was thus tearing down the old

framework of state, the Iwakura Embassy in foreign lands was

gathering materials for the new. This was significant,

inasmuch as five of the best statesmen of the time, with their

staff of forty-four able men, came into association for over a

year with western peoples, and beheld in operation their

social, political and religious institutions. … In 1873,

Count Itagaki with his friends had sent in a memorial to the

government praying for the establishment of a representative

assembly, but they had not been heeded by the government. In

July, 1877, Count Itagaki with his Ri-shi-sha again addressed

a memorial to the Emperor, 'praying for a change in the form

of government, and setting forth the reasons which, in the

opinion of the members of the society, rendered such a change

necessary.' These reasons were nine in number and were

developed at great length. … The civil war being ended, in

1878, the year which marks a decade from the establishment of

the new regime, the government, persuaded that the time for

popular institutions was fast approaching, not alone through

representations of the Tosa memorialists, but through many

other signs of the times, decided to take a step in the

direction of establishing a national assembly. But the

government acted cautiously. Thinking that to bring together

hundreds of members unaccustomed to parliamentary debate and

its excitement, and to allow them a hand in the administration

of affairs of the state, might be attended with serious

dangers, as a preparation for the national assembly the

government established first local assemblies. Certainly this

was a wise course. These local assemblies have not only been

good training schools for popular government, but also proved

reasonably successful. … The qualifications for electors

(males only) are: an age of twenty years, registration, and

payment of a land tax of $5. Voting is by ballot, but the

names of the voters are to be written by themselves on the

voting papers. There are now 2,172 members who sit in these

local assemblies. … The gulf between absolute government and

popular government was thus widened more and more by the

institution of local government. The popular tide raised by

these local assemblies was swelling in volume year by year.

New waves were set in motion by the younger generation of

thinkers. Toward the close of the year 1881 the flood rose so

high that the government thought it wise not to resist longer.

His Imperial Majesty, hearing the petitions of the people,

graciously confirmed and expanded his promise of 1868 by the

famous proclamation of October 12, 1881: 'We have long had it

in view to gradually establish a constitutional form of

government. … It was with this object in view that in the

eighth year of Meiji (1875) we established the Senate, and in

the eleventh year of Meiji (1878) authorized the formation of

local assemblies. … We therefore hereby declare that we

shall, in the twenty-third year of Meiji (1890) establish a

parliament, in order to carry into full effect the

determination we have announced; and we charge our faithful

subjects bearing our commissions to make, in the meantime, all

necessary preparations to that end.'"

T. Iyenaga,

The Constitutional Development of Japan, 1853-1881

(Johns Hopkins University Studies, 9th Series, number 9).

See CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN.

JAPAN: A. D. 1871-1872.

Organization of National Education.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: ASIA.

----------JAPAN: End----------

JAQUELINE OF HOLLAND AND HAINAULT,

The Despoiling of.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1417-1430.

JAQUES-GILMORE PEACE MISSION.

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

JARL.

See EARL; and ETHEL.

JARNAC, Battle of (1569).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

JASPER, Sergeant, The exploit of.

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

JASSY, Treaty of (1792).

See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

JATTS OR JAUTS.

See GYPSIES.

JAVA: A. D. 1811-1813.

Taken from the Dutch by the English.

Restored to Holland.

See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

JAVAN.

The Hebrew form of the Greek race-name Ionian; "but in the Old

Testament it is generally applied to the island of Cyprus,

which is called the Island of Yavnan, or the Ionians, on the

Assyrian monuments."

A. H. Sayce,

Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,

chapter 2.

JAXARTES, The.

The ancient name of the river now called the Sir, or Sihun,

which empties into the Sea of Aral.

JAY, John,

In the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1774 (SEPTEMBER); and NEW YORK: A. D. 1777.

In diplomatic service.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

And the adoption of the Federal Constitution.

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

Chief justice of the Supreme Court.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

And the second Treaty with Great Britain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1794-1795.

JAYHAWKERS AND RED LEGS.

During the conflict of 1854-1859 in Kansas, certain

"Free-state men in the Southeast, comparatively isolated,

having little communication with [the town of] Lawrence, and

consequently almost wholly without check, developed a

successful if not very praiseworthy system of retaliation.

Confederated at first for defense against pro-slavery

outrages, but ultimately falling more or less completely into

the vocation of robbers and assassins, they have received the

name—whatever its origin may be—of jayhawkers."

L. W. Spring,

Kansas, page 240.

"The complaints in former years of Border Ruffian forays from

Missouri into Kansas [see KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859], were, as

soon as the civil war began, paid with interest by a continual

accusation of incursions of Kansas 'Jayhawkers' and 'Red Legs'

into Missouri."

J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,

Abraham Lincoln,

volume 6, page 370.

JAYME.

See JAMES.

{1880}

JAZYGES, OR IAZYGES.

See LIMIGANTES.

JEAN.

See JOHN.

JEANNE I., Queen of Navarre, A. D. 1274-1305.

Jeanne II., Queen of Navarre, 1328-1349.

Jeanne D'Albret, Queen of Navarre, and the Reformation in

France.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.

JEBUSITES, The.

The Canaanite inhabitants of the city of Jebus, or ancient

Jerusalem, which they held against the Israelites until David

took the place by storm and made it the capital of his

kingdom.

H. Ewald,

History of Israel,

book 3, section 1 (volume 3).

See JERUSALEM.

JECKER CLAIMS, The.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.

JEFFERSON, Thomas:

Authorship of the Declaration of Independence.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).

In the Cabinet of President Washington.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792; 1793.

Leadership of the Anti-Federalist or Republican Party.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792; and 1798.

Presidential administration.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800, to 1806-1807.

JEFFERSON, Provisional Territory of.

See COLORADO: A. D.1806-1876.

JEFFREYS, and the "Bloody Assizes."

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685.

JEHAD.

See DAR-UL-ISLAM.

JELLALABAD, Defense of (1842).

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1838-1842.

JEM, OR DJEM, Prince, The story of.

See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

JEMAPPES, Battle of.

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

JEMMINGEN, Battle of (1568).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572.

JENA, Battle of.

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

JENGIS KHAN, Conquests of.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

JENKINS' EAR, The War of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.

JENKINS' FERRY, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS—MISSOURI).

JENNY GEDDES' STOOL.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1637.

JERBA, OR GELVES, The disaster at.

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

JERSEY AND GUERNSEY, The Isles of.

"Jersey, Guernsey, and their fellows are simply that part of

the Norman duchy which clave to its dukes when the rest fell

away. Their people are those Normans who remained Normans

while the rest stooped to become Frenchmen. The Queen of Great

Britain has a perfect right, if she will, to call herself

Duchess of the Normans, a title which, in my ears at least,

sounds better than that of Empress of India."

E. A. Freeman,

Practical Bearings of General European History

(Lectures to American Audiences), lecture 4.

ALSO IN:

D. T. Ansted and R. G. Latham,

The Channel Islands.

JERSEY PRISON SHIP, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777.

PRISONERS AND EXCHANGES.

JERSEYS, The.

East and West New Jersey.

See NEW JERSEY.

----------JERUSALEM: Start----------

JERUSALEM:

Early history.

"The first site of Jerusalem was the hill now erroneously

called Sion, and which we shall designate … as Pseudo-Sion,

the plateau of rock at the southwest, surrounded on all sides

by ravines, viz., by the Valley of Hinnom on the west and

south, and by the Tyropœon, or Cheesemakers' Valley, on the

north and east. Parallel to this lay the real Sion, the less

elevated eastern hill, shut in on the west by the Tyropœon

Valley, which divided it from Pseudo-Sion, and on the east by

the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and ending southward in a

wedge-like point opposite to the south-east corner of

Pseudo-Sion. The town on the western-most of these two ridges

was known first as Jebus, and afterwards as the High Town, or

Upper Market; and the accretion to it on the eastern hill was

anciently called Salem, and subsequently the Low Town and

Acra. In the days of lawless violence, the first object was

safety; and, as the eastern hill was by nature exposed on the

north, it was there protected artificially by a citadel and

fosse. The High Town and Low Town were originally two distinct

cities, occupied by the Amorites and Hittites, whence the

taunt of the prophet to Jerusalem: 'Thy birth and thy nativity

is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite and thy

mother a Hittite.' Hence, also, the dualistic form of the name

Jerusalem in Hebrew, signifying 'Twin-Jerusalem.' Indeed the

opinion has been broached that Jerusalem is the compound of

the two names, Jebus and Salem, softened 'euphoniæ gratiâ'

into Jerusalem. It is remarkable that to the very last the

quarter lying between the High Town and Low Town, though in

the very heart of the city when the different parts were

united into one compact body, was called the Suburb. The first

notice of Jerusalem is in the time of Abraham. The king of

Shinar and his confederates captured Sodom and Gomorrah, and

carried away Lot, Abraham's brother's son; when Abraham,

collecting his trainbands, followed after the enemy and

rescued Lot; and on his return 'at the valley of Shaveh, which

is the king's vale, Melchizedek, king of Salem—the priest of

the Most High God—blessed Abram.' The king's vale was the

Valley of Jehoshaphat: and Salem was identical with the

eastern hill, the real Zion as we learn from the Psalms, 'In

Salem is his tabernacle, and his dwelling-place in Zion;'

where Salem and Zion are evidently used as synonymous. Whether

Moriah, on which Abram offered his sacrifice, was the very

mount on which the Temple was afterwards built, must be left

to conjecture. But when the Second Book of Chronicles was

written, the Jews had at least a tradition to that effect, for

we read that 'Solomon began to build the house of the Lord at

Jerusalem in Mount Moriah.' On the exodus of the Israelites

from Egypt, we find distinct mention made of Jerusalem by that

very name; for after Joshua's death, 'the children of Judah

fought against Jerusalem, and took it … and set the city on

fire.' But Josephus is probably right in understanding this to

apply to the Low Town only, i. e., the eastern hill, or Sion,

as opposed to the western hill, the High Town, or Pseudo-Sion.

The men of Judah had only a temporary occupation even of the

Low Town, for it was not until the time of David that

Jerusalem was brought permanently under the dominion of the

Israelites."

T. Lewin,

Jerusalem,

chapter 1.

{1881}

JERUSALEM:

Conquest and occupation by David.

"David had reigned seven years and a half in Hebron over the

tribe of Judah alone.

See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH.

He was now solemnly installed as king by the elders of all

Israel, and 'made a league with them before Jehovah in

Hebron.' This was equivalent to what we now call a 'coronation

oath,' and denoted that he was a constitutional, not an

arbitrary monarch. The Israelites had no intention to resign

their liberties, but in the sequel it will appear, that, with

paid foreign troops at his side, even a most religious king

could be nothing but a despot. Concerning David's military

proceedings during his reign at Hebron, we know nothing in

detail, though we read of Joab bringing in a large spoil,

probably from his old enemies the Amalekites. David had an

army to feed, to exercise, and to keep out of mischief; but it

is probable that the war against Abner generally occupied it

sufficiently. Now however he determined to signalize his new

power by a great exploit. The strength of Jerusalem had been

sufficiently proved by the long secure dwelling of Jebusites

in it, surrounded by a Hebraized population. Hebron was no

longer a suitable place for the centre of David's

administration; but Jerusalem, on the frontier of Benjamin and

Judah, without separating him from his own tribe, gave him a

ready access to the plains of Jericho below, and thereby to

the eastern districts; and although by no means a central

position, it was less remote from Ephraim than Hebron. Of this

Jebusite town he therefore determined to possess himself. …

The Jebusites were so confident of their safety, as to send to

David an enigmatical message of defiance; which may be

explained,—that a lame and blind garrison was sufficient to

defend the place. David saw in this an opportunity of

displacing Joab from his office of chief captain,—if indeed

Joab formally held that office as yet, and had not merely

assumed authority as David's eldest nephew and old comrade in

arms. The king however now declared, that whoever should first

scale the wall and drive off its defenders, should be made

chief captain; but his hopes were signally disappointed. His

impetuous nephew resolved not to be outdone, and triumphantly

mounting the wall, was the immediate means of the capture of

the town. … Jerusalem is henceforth its name in … history;

in poetry only, and not before the times of king Hezekiah, is

it entitled Salem, or peace; identifying it with the city of

the legendary Melchisedek. David's first care was to provide

for the security of his intended capital, by suitable

fortifications. Immediately to the north of Mount Zion, and

separated from it by a slighter depression which we have

named, was another hill, called Millo in the Hebrew. … In

ancient times this seems to have been much loftier than now;

for it has been artificially lowered. David made no attempt to

include Millo (or Acra) in his city, but fortified Mount Zion

separately; whence it was afterwards called, The city of

David."

F. W. Newman,

A History of the Hebrew Monarchy,

chapter 3.

"The Jebusite city was composed of the fortress of Sion, which

must have been situated where the mosque of El Akasa now

stands, and of a lower town (Ophel) which runs down from there

to the well which they called Gihon. David took the fortress

of Sion, and gave the greater portion of the neighbouring

lands to Joab, and probably left the lower town to the

Jebusites. That population, reduced to an inferior situation,

lost all energy, thanks to the new Israelitish influx, and

played no important part in the history of Jerusalem. David

rebuilt the upper town of Sion, the citadel or millo, and all

the neighbouring quarters. This is what they called the city

of David. … David in reality created Jerusalem."

E. Renan,

History of the People of Israel,

book 2, chapter 18 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

H. Ewald,

History of Israel,

book 2, section 1, B.

JERUSALEM:

Early sieges.

Jerusalem, the ancient stronghold of the Jebusites, which

remained in the hands of that Canaanite people until David

reduced it and made it the capital of his kingdom, was the

object of many sieges in its subsequent history and suffered

at the hands of many ruthless conquerors. It was taken, with

no apparent resistance, by Shishak, of Egypt, in the reign of

Rehoboam, and Solomon's temple plundered. Again, in the reign

of Amaziah, it was entered by the armies of the rival kingdom

of Israel and a great part of its walls thrown down. It was

besieged without success by the tartan or general of

Sennacherib, and captured a little later by Pharaoh Necho. In

B. C. 586 the great calamity of its conquest and destruction

by Nebuchadnezzar befell, when the survivors of its chief

inhabitants were taken captive to Babylon. Rebuilt at the

return from captivity, it enjoyed peace under the Persians;

but in the troubled times which followed the dissolution of

Alexander's Empire, Jerusalem was repeatedly pillaged and

abused by the Greeks of Egypt and the Greeks of Syria. Its

walls were demolished by Ptolemy I. (B. C. 320) and again by

Autiochus Epiphanes (B. C. 168), when a great part of the city

was likewise burned.

Josephus,

Antiquity of the Jews.

ALSO IN:

H. H. Milman,

History of the Jews.

See, also, JEWS.

JERUSALEM: B. C. 171-169.

Sack and massacre by Antiochus Epiphanes.

See JEWS: B. C. 332-167.

JERUSALEM: B. C. 63.

Siege and capture by Pompeius.

See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

JERUSALEM: B. C. 40.

Surrendered to the Parthians.

See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

JERUSALEM: B. C. 37.

Siege by Herod and the Romans.

See Jews: B. C. 40—A. D. 44.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 33-100.

Rise of the Christian Church.

See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 70.-Siege and destruction by Titus.

See JEWS: A. D. 66-70.

THE GREAT REVOLT.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 130-134.

Rebuilt by Hadrian.

Change of name.

The revolt of Bar-Kokheba.

See JEWS: A. D. 130-134.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 615.

Siege, sack and massacre by the Persians.

In the last of the wars of the Persians with the Romans, while

Heraclius occupied the throne of the Empire, at

Constantinople, and Chosroës II. filled that of the

Sassanides, the latter (A. D. 614) "sent his general,

Shahr-Barz, into the region east of the Antilibanus and took

the ancient and famous city of Damascus. From Damascus, in the

ensuing year, Shahr-Barz advanced against Palestine, and,

summoning the Jews to his aid, proclaimed a Holy War against

the Christian misbelievers, whom he threatened to enslave or

exterminate. Twenty-six thousand of these fanatics flocked to

his standard; and having occupied the Jordan region and

Galilee, Shahr-Barz in A. D. 615 invested Jerusalem, and after

a siege of eighteen days forced his way into the town and gave

it over to plunder and rapine.

{1882}

The cruel hostility of the Jews had free vent. The churches of

Helena, of Constantine, of the Holy Sepulchre, of the

Resurrection, and many others, were burnt or ruined; the

greater part of the city was destroyed; the sacred treasuries

were plundered; the relics scattered or carried off; and a

massacre of the inhabitants, in which the Jews took the chief

part, raged throughout the whole city for some days. As many

as 17,000, or, according to another account, 90,000, were

slain. Thirty-five thousand were made prisoners. Among them

was the aged patriarch, Zacharias, who was carried captive

into Persia, where he remained till his death. The Cross found

by Helena, and believed to be 'the True Cross,' was at the

same time transported to Ctesiphon; where it was preserved

with care and duly venerated by the Christian wife of

Chosroës."

G. Rawlinson,

The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 24.

See, also, ROME: A. D. 565-628.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 637.

Surrender to the Moslems.

In the winter of 637, the Arabs, then masters of the greater

part of Syria, laid siege to Jerusalem. After four months of

vigorous attack and defense, the Christian Patriarch of

Jerusalem held a parley from the walls with the Arab general,

Abu Obeidah. "'Do you not know,' said he, 'that this city is

holy, and that whoever offers violence to it draws upon his

head the vengeance of heaven?' 'We know it,' replied Abu

Obeidah, 'to be the house of the prophets, where their bodies

lie interred; we know it to be the place whence our prophet

Mahomet made his nocturnal ascent to heaven; and we know that

we are more worthy of possessing it than you are, nor will we

raise the siege until Allah has delivered it into our hands,

as he has done many other places.' Seeing there was no further

hope, the patriarch consented to give up the city, on

condition that the Caliph would come in person to take

possession and sign the articles of surrender." This proposal

being communicated to Omar, the Caliph, he consented to make

the long journey from Medina to Jerusalem, and, in due time,

he entered the Holy City, not like a conqueror, but on foot,

with his staff in his hand and wearing his simple,

much-patched Arab garb. "The articles of surrender were drawn

up in writing by Omar, and served afterwards as a model for

the Moslem leaders in other conquests. The Christians were to

build no new churches in the surrendered territory. The church

doors were to be set open to travellers, and free ingress

permitted to Mahometans by day and night. The bells should

only toll, and not ring, and no crosses should be erected on

the churches, nor shown publicly in the streets. The

Christians should not teach the Koran to their children; nor

speak openly of their religion; nor attempt to make

proselytes; nor hinder their kinsfolk from embracing Islam.

They should not assume the Moslem dress, either caps,

slippers, or turbans, nor part their hair like Moslems, but

should always be distinguished by girdles. They should not use

the Arabian language in inscriptions on their signets, nor

salute after the Moslem manner, nor be called by Moslem

surnames. They should rise on the entrance of a Moslem, and

remain standing until he should be seated. They should

entertain every Moslem traveller three days gratis. They

should sell no wine, bear no arms, and use no saddle in

riding; neither should they have any domestic who had been in

Moslem service. … The Christians having agreed to surrender

on these terms, the Caliph gave them, under his own hand, an

assurance of protection in their lives and fortunes, the use

of their churches, and the exercise of their religion."

W. Irving,

Mahomet and His Successors,

volume 2, chapter 18.

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

JERUSALEM: A. D. 908-1171.

In the Moslem civil wars.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST and EMPIRE: A. D. 908-1171.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1064-1076.

Great revival of pilgrimages from western Europe.

See CRUSADES: CAUSES, &c.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1076.

Taken by the Seljuk Turks.

See CRUSADES: CAUSES, &c.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1094.

Visit of Peter the Hermit.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1094-1095.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099.

The Blood "Deliverance" of the Holy City by the Crusaders.

The armies of the First Crusade (see CRUSADES: A. D.

1096-1099)—the surviving remnant of them—reached Jerusalem

in June, A. D. 1099. They numbered, it is believed, but 20,000

fighting men, and an equal number of camp followers,—women,

children, non-militant priests, and the like. "Immediately

before the arrival of the Crusaders, the Mohammedans

deliberated whether they should slaughter all the Christians

in cold blood, or only fine them and expel them from the city.

It was decided to adopt the latter plan; and the Crusaders

were greeted on their arrival not only by the flying squadrons

of the enemy's cavalry, but also by exiled Christians telling

their piteous tales. Their houses had been pillaged, their

wives kept as hostages; immense sums were required for their

ransom; the churches were desecrated; and, even worse still,

the Infidels were contemplating the entire destruction of the

Church of the Holy Sepulchre. This last charge, at least, was

not true. But it added fuel to a fire which was already beyond

any control, and the chiefs gave a ready permission to their

men to carry the town, if they could, by assault." They were

repulsed with heavy loss, and driven to the operations of a

regular siege, for which their resources were limited in the

extreme. But overcoming all difficulties, and enduring much

suffering from lack of water, at the end of little more than a

month they drove the Moslems from the walls and entered the

city—on Friday, the 15th of July, A. D. 1099. "The city was

taken, and the massacre of its defenders began. The Christians

ran through the streets slaughtering as they went. At first

they spared none, neither man, woman, nor child, putting all

alike to the sword; but when resistance had ceased, and rage

was partly appeased, they began to bethink them of pillage,

and tortured those who remained alive to make them discover

their gold. As for the Jews within the city, they had fled to

their synagogue, which the Christians set on fire, and so

burned them all. The chroniclers relate, with savage joy, how

the streets were encumbered with heads and mangled bodies, and

how in the Haram Area, the sacred enclosure of the Temple, the

knights rode in blood up to the knees of their horses. Here

upwards of ten thousand were slaughtered, while the whole

number of killed amounted, according to various estimates, to

forty, seventy, and even a hundred thousand. …

{1883}

Evening fell, and the clamour ceased, for there were no more

enemies to kill, save a few whose lives had been promised by

Tancred. Then from their hiding-places in the city came out

the Christians who still remained in it. They had but one

thought, to seek out and welcome Peter the Hermit, whom they

proclaimed as their liberator. At the sight of these

Christians, a sudden revulsion of feeling seized the soldiers.

They remembered that the city they had taken was the city of

the Lord, and this impulsive soldiery, sheathing swords

reeking with blood, followed Godfrey to the Church of the Holy

Sepulchre, where they passed the night in tears and prayers

and services. In the morning the carnage began again. Those

who had escaped the first fury were the women and children. It

was now resolved to spare none. Even the three hundred to whom

Tancred had promised life were slaughtered in spite of him.

Raymond alone managed to save the lives of those who

capitulated to him from the tower of David. It took a week to

kill the Saracens, and to take away their dead bodies. Every

Crusader had a right to the first house he took possession of,

and the city found itself absolutely cleared of its old

inhabitants, and in the hands of a new population. The true

Cross, which had been hidden by the Christians during the

siege, was brought forth again, and carried in joyful

procession round the city, and for ten days the soldiers gave

themselves up to murder, plunder—and prayers! And the first

Crusade was finished."

W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,

Jerusalem,

chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

C. Mills,

History of the Crusades,

volume 1, chapter 6.

J. F. Michaud,

History of the Crusades,

book 4.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.

The Founding of the Latin kingdom.

Eight days after their bloody conquest of the Holy City had

been achieved, "the Latin chiefs proceeded to the election of

a king, to guard and govern their conquests in Palestine. Hugh

the Great [count of Vermandois] and Stephen of Chartres had

retired with some loss of reputation, which they strove to

regain by a second crusade and an honourable death. Baldwin

was established at Edessa, and Bohemond at Antioch; and two

Roberts—the Duke of Normandy and the Count of Flanders—

preferred their fair inheritance in the West to a doubtful

competition or a barren sceptre. The jealousy and ambition of

Raymond [of Toulouse] were condemned by his own followers; and

the free, the just, the unanimous voice of the army proclaimed

Godfrey of Bouillon the first and most worthy of the champions

of Christendom. His magnanimity accepted a trust as full of

danger as of glory; but in the city where his Saviour had been

crowned with thorns the devout pilgrim rejected the name and

ensigns of royalty, and the founder of the kingdom of

Jerusalem contented himself with the modest title of Defender

and Baron of the Holy Sepulchre. His government of a single

year, too short for the public happiness, was interrupted in

the first fortnight by a summons to the field by the approach

of the vizir or sultan of Egypt, who had been too slow to

prevent, but who was impatient to avenge, the loss of

Jerusalem. His total overthrow in the battle of Ascalon sealed

the establishment of the Latins in Syria, and signalized the

valour of the French princes, who in this action bade a long

farewell to the holy wars. … After suspending before the

Holy sepulchre the sword and standard of the sultan, the new

king (he deserves the title) embraced his departing

companions, and could retain only, with the gallant Tancred,

300 knights and 2,000 foot soldiers, for the defence of

Palestine."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 58.

Godfrey lived not quite a year after his election, and was

succeeded on the throne of Jerusalem by his brother Baldwin,

the prince of Edessa, who resigned that Mesopotamian lordship

to his cousin, Baldwin du Bourg, and made haste to secure the

more tempting sovereignty. Godfrey, during his short reign,

had permitted himself to be made almost a vassal and

subordinate of the patriarch of Jerusalem—one Daimbert, a

domineering prelate from Italy. But Baldwin matched the priest

in his own grasping qualities and soon established the

kingship on a more substantial footing. He reigned eighteen

years, and when he died, in 1118, the fortunate cousin,

Baldwin du Bourg, received his crown, surrendering the

principality of Edessa to another. This Baldwin II. died in

1131, and was succeeded by Fulk or Foulque, count of Anjou,

who had lately arrived in Palestine and married Baldwin's

daughter. "The Latin dominions in the East attained their

greatest extent in the reign of King Baldwin II. … The

entire sea-coast from Tarsus in Cilicia to El-Arish on the

confines of Egypt was, with the exception of Ascalon and Gaza,

in the possession of the Franks. In the north their dominions

extended inland to Edessa beyond the Euphrates; the mountains

of Lebanon and their kindred ranges bounded them on the east

as they ran southwards; and then the Jordan and the desert

formed their eastern limits. They were divided into four

states, namely, the kingdom of Jerusalem, the county of

Tripolis, the principality of Antioch, and the county of

Edessa; the rulers of the three last held as vassals under the

king." King Fulk died in 1143 or 1144, and was succeeded by

his son, Baldwin III. Edessa was lost in the following year.

T. Keightley,

The Crusaders

chapter 2.

See, also,

CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1291.

The constitution of the kingdom.

"Godfrey was an elected king; and we have seen that his two

immediate successors owed their crowns rather to personal

merit and intrigue than to principles of hereditary

succession. But after the death of Baldwin du Bourg, the

foundation of the constitution appears to have been settled;

and the Latin state of Jerusalem may be regarded as a feudal

hereditary monarchy. There were two chief lords of the

kingdom, namely, the patriarch and the king, whose cognizance

extended over spiritual and temporal affairs. … The great

officers of the crown were the seneschal, the constable, the

marshal, and the chamberlain. … There were four chief

baronies of the kingdom, and many other lordships which had

the privileges of administering justice, coining money, and,

in short, most of those powers and prerogatives which the

great and independent nobility of Europe possessed. The first

great barony comprised the counties of Jaffa and Ascalon, and

the lordships of Ramula, Mirabel, and Ibelin. The second was

the principality of Galilee. The third included the lordships

of Sajetta, Cesarea, and Nazareth; and the fourth was the

county of Tripoli. …

{1884}

But the dignity of these four great barons is shewn by the

number of knights which they were obliged to furnish, compared

with the contributions of other nobles. Each of the three

first barons was compelled to aid the king with five hundred

knights. The service of Tripoli was performed by two hundred

knights; that of the other baronies by one hundred and

eighty-three Knights. Six hundred and sixty-six knights was

the total number furnished by the cities of Jerusalem,

Naplousa, Acre, and Tyre. The churches and the commercial

communities of every part of the kingdom provided five

thousand and seventy-five serjeants or serving men."

C. Mills,

History of the Crusades,

volume 1, chapter 8.

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 58.

See, also, ASSIZE OF JERUSALEM.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1147-1149.

The note of alarm and the Second Crusade.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.

Decline and fall of the kingdom.

The Rise of Saladin and his conquest of the Holy City.

King Fulk was succeeded in 1144 by his son, a boy of thirteen,

who took the title of Baldwin III. and with whom his mother

associated herself on the throne. It was early in this reign

of the boy-king that Edessa was taken by Zenghi, sultan of

Aleppo, and an appeal made to Europe which called out the

miserably abortive Second Crusade. The crusade "did nothing

towards the maintenance of the waning ascendency of the

Latins. Even victories brought with them no solid result, and

in not a few instances victory was misused with a folly

closely allied to madness. … The interminable series of

wars, or rather of forays and reprisals, went on; and amidst

such contests the life of Baldwin closed [A. D. 1162] in early

manhood. … He died childless, and although some opposition

was made to his choice, his brother Almeric [or Amaury] was

elected to fill his place. Almost at the beginning of his

reign the affairs of the Latin kingdom became complicated with

those of Egypt; and the Christians are seen fighting by the

side of one Mahomedan race, tribe, or faction against

another." The Fatimite caliphs of Egypt had become mere

puppets in the hands of their viziers, and when one grand

vizier, Shawer, deposed by a rival, Dargham, appealed to the

sultan of Aleppo (Noureddin, son of Zenghi), the latter

embraced eagerly the opportunity to stretch his strong hand

towards the Fatimite throne. Among his generals was Shiracouh,

a valiant Koord, and he sent Shiracouh to Egypt to restore

Shawer to power. With Shiracouh went a young nephew of the

Koordish soldier, named Salah-ud-deen—better known in history

as Saladin. Shawer, restored to authority, quickly quarrelled

with his protectors, and endeavored to get rid of them—which

proved not easy. He sought and obtained help from the Latin

king of Jerusalem, in whose mind, too, there was the ambition

to pluck this rotten-ripe plum on the Nile. After a war of

five years duration, in which king Almeric was encouraged and

but slightly helped by the Byzantine emperor, while Noureddin

was approved and supported by the caliph of Bagdad,

Noureddin's Koord general, Shiracouh, secured the prize. Grand

vizier Shawer was put to death, and the wretched Fatimite

caliph made young Saladin his vizier, fancying he had chosen a

young man too fond of pleasure to be dangerously ambitious. He

was speedily undeceived. Saladin needed only three years to

make himself master of Egypt, and the caliph, then dying, was

stripped of his title and his sovereignty. The bold Koord took

the throne in the name of the Abbasside Caliph, at Bagdad,

summarily ending the Fatimite schism. He was still nominally

the servant of the sultan of Aleppo; but when Noureddin died,

A. D. 1178, leaving his dominions to a young son, Saladin was

able, with little resistance, to displace the latter and to

become undisputed sovereign of Mahometan Syria, Egypt, and a

large part of Mesopotamia. He now resolved to expel the Latins

from Palestine and to restore the authority of the prophet

once more in the holy places of Jerusalem. King Almeric had

died in 1173, leaving his crown to a son, Baldwin IV., who was

an unfortunate leper. The leper prince died in 1185, and the

only makeshift for a king that Jerusalem found in this time of

serious peril was one Guy of Lusignan, a vile and despised

creature, who had married the last Baldwin's sister. The Holy

Land, the Holy City and the Holy Sepulchre had this pitiful

kinglet for their defender when the potent Saladin led his

Moslems against them. The decisive battle was fought in July,

A. D. 1187, near the city of Tiberias, and is known generally

in Christian history as the Battle of Tiberias, but was called

by Mahometan annalists the Battle of Hittin. The Christians

were defeated with great slaughter; the miserable King Guy was

taken prisoner—but soon released, to make trouble; the "true

cross," most precious of all Christian relics, fell into

Saladin's irreverent hands. Tiberias, Acre, Cæsarea, Jaffa,

Berytos, Ascalon, submitted to the victor. Jerusalem was at

his mercy; but he offered its defenders and inhabitants

permission to depart peacefully from the place, having no

wish, he said, to defile its hallowed soil with blood. When

his offer was rejected, he made a vow to enter the city with

his sword and to do as the Christians had done when they waded

to their knees in blood through its streets. But when, after a

short siege of fourteen days, Jerusalem was surrendered to

him, he forgot his angry oath, and forgot the vengeance which

might not have seemed strange in that age and that place. The

sword of the victor was sheathed. The inhabitants were

ransomed at a stipulated rate, and those for whom no ransom

was paid were held as slaves. The sick and the helpless were

permitted to remain in the city for a year, with the Knights

of the Hospital—conspicuous among the enemies of Saladin and

his faith—to attend upon them. The Crescent shone

Christian-like as it rose over Jerusalem again. The Cross—the

Crusaders' Cross—was shamed. The Latin kingdom of Jerusalem

was now nearly extinct; Tyre alone held out against Saladin

and constituted the most of the kingdom of King Guy of

Lusignan.

G. W. Cox,

The Crusades,

chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,

Jerusalem,

chapters 12-16.

J. F. Michaud,

History of the Crusades,

book 7.

Mrs. W. Busk,

Mediæval Popes, Emperors, Kings and Crusaders,

book 2, chapters 10-11 (volume 2).

See, also,

SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1188-1192.

Attempted recovery.

The Third Crusade.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192.

{1885}

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1192-1229.

The succession of nominal kings.

Guy de Lusignan, the poor creature whom Sybille, daughter of

King Amaury, married and made king of Jerusalem, lost his

kingdom fairly enough on the battle-field of Tiberias. To win

his freedom from Saladin, moreover, he renounced his claims by

a solemn oath and pledged himself to quit the soil of

Palestine forever. But oaths were of small account with the

Christian Crusaders, and with the priests who kept their

consciences. Guy got easy absolution for the trifling perjury,

and was a king once more,—waiting for the Crusaders to

recover his kingdom. But when, in 1190, his queen Sybille and

her two children died, King Guy's royal title wore a faded

look to most people and was wholly denied by many. Presently,

Conrad of Montferrat, who held possession of Tyre—the best

part of what remained in the actual kingdom of

Jerusalem—married Sybille's sister, Isabella, and claimed the

kingship in her name. King Richard of England supported Guy,

and King Philip Augustus of France, in sheer contrariness,

took his side with Conrad. After long quarreling it was

decided that Guy should wear the crown while he lived, and

that it should pass when he died to Conrad and Conrad's

children. It was Richard's wilfulness that forced this

settlement; but, after all, on quitting Palestine, in 1192,

the English king did not dare to leave affairs behind him in

such worthless hands. He bought, therefore, the abdication of

Guy de Lusignan, by making him king of Cyprus, and he gave the

crown of Jerusalem to the strong and capable Conrad. But

Conrad was murdered in a little time by emissaries of the Old

Man of the Mountain (see ASSASSINS), who accused Richard of

the instigation of the deed, and Count Henry of Champagne,

Richard's nephew, accepted his widow and his crown. Henry

enjoyed his titular royalty and his little hand-breadth of

dominion on the Syrian coast for four years, only. Then he was

killed, while defending Jaffa, and his oft-widowed widow,

Isabella, brought the Lusignans back into Palestinian history

again by marrying, for her fourth husband, Amaury de Lusignan,

who had succeeded his brother Guy, now deceased, as king of

Cyprus. Amaury possessed the two crowns, of Cyprus and

Jerusalem, until his death, when the latter devolved on the

daughter of Isabella, by her second husband, Conrad. The young

queen accepted a husband recommended by the king of France,

and approved by her barons, thus bringing a worthy king to the

worthless throne. This was John de Brienne, a good French

knight, who came to Palestine (A. D. 1210) with a little

following of three hundred knights and strove valiantly to

reconquer a kingdom for his royally entitled bride. But he

strove in vain, and fragment after fragment of his crumbling

remnant of dominion fell away until he held almost nothing

except Acre. In 1217 the king of Hungary, the duke of Austria

and a large army of crusaders came, professedly, to his help,

but gave him none. The king of Hungary got possession of the

head of St. Peter, the right hand of St. Thomas and one of the

wine vessels of the marriage feast at Cana, and hastened home

with his precious relics. The other crusaders went away to

attack Egypt and brought their enterprise to a miserable end.

Then King John de Brienne married his daughter Yolante, or

Iolanta, to the German emperor, or King of the Romans,

Frederick II., and surrendered to that prince his rights and

claims to the kingship of Jerusalem. Frederick, at war with

the Pope, and under the ban of the Church, went to Palestine,

with 600 knights, and contrived by clever diplomacy and

skilful pressure to secure a treaty with the sultan of Egypt

(A. D. 1229), which placed Jerusalem, under some conditions,

in his hands, and added other territory to the kingdom which

he claimed by right of his wife. He entered Jerusalem and

there set the crown on his own head; for the patriarch, the

priests, and the monk-knights, of the Hospital and the Temple,

shunned him and refused recognition to his work. But Frederick

was the only "King of Jerusalem" after Guy de Lusignan, who

wore a crown in the Holy City, and exercised in reality the

sovereignty to which he pretended. Frederick returned to Italy

in 1229 and his kingdom in the East was soon as shadowy and

unreal as that of his predecessors had been.

W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,

Jerusalem,

chapters 15 and 18.

ALSO IN:

J. F. Michaud,

History of the Crusades,

books 8-12.

See, also,

CRUSADES: 1188-1192, and 1216-1229;

and CYPRUS: A. D. 1192-1489.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1242.

Sack and massacre by the Carismians.

After the overthrow of the Khuarezmian (Korasmian or

Carismian) empire by the Mongols, its last prince, Gelaleddin,

or Jalalu-d-Din, implacably pursued by those savage

conquerors, fought them valiantly until he perished, at last,

in Kurdistan. His army, made up of many mercenary bands,

Turkish and other, then scattered, and two, at least, among

its wandering divisions played important parts in subsequent

history. Out of one of those Khuarezmian squadrons rose the

powerful nation of the Ottoman Turks. The other invaded Syria.

"The Mussulman powers of Syria several times united in a

league against the Carismians, and drove them back to the

other side of the Euphrates. But the spirit of rivalry which

at all times divided the princes of the family of Saladin,

soon recalled an enemy always redoubtable notwithstanding

defeats. At the period of which we are speaking, the princes

of Damascus, Carac, and Emessa had just formed an alliance

with the Christians of Palestine; they not only restored

Jerusalem, Tiberias, and the principality of Galilee to them,

but they promised to join them in the conquest of Egypt, a

conquest for which the whole of Syria was making preparations.

The sultan of Cairo, to avenge himself upon the Christians who

had broken the treaties concluded with him, to punish their

new allies, and protect himself from their invasion,

determined to apply for succour to the hordes of Carismia; and

sent deputies to the leaders of these barbarians, promising to

abandon Palestine to them, if they subdued it. This

proposition was accepted with joy, and 20,000 horsemen,

animated by a thirst for booty and slaughter, hastened from

the further parts of Mesopotamia, disposed to be subservient

to the vengeance or anger of the Egyptian monarch. On their

march they ravaged the territory of Tripoli and the

principality of Galilee, and the flames which everywhere

accompanied their steps announced their arrival to the

inhabitants of Jerusalem. Fortifications scarcely commenced,

and the small number of warriors in the holy city, left not

the least hope of being able to repel the unexpected attacks

of such a formidable enemy.

{1886}

The whole population of Jerusalem resolved to fly, under the

guidance of the knights of the Hospital and the Temple. There

only remained in the city the sick and a few inhabitants who

could not make their minds up to abandon their homes and their

infirm kindred. The Carismians soon arrived, and having

destroyed a few intrenchments that had been made in their

route, they entered Jerusalem sword in hand, massacred all

they met, and … had recourse to a most odious stratagem to

lure back the inhabitants who had taken flight. They raised

the standards of the cross upon every tower, and set all the

bells ringing." The retreating Christians were deceived. They

persuaded themselves that a miracle had been wrought; "that

God had taken pity on his people, and would not permit the

city of Christ to be defiled by the presence of a sacrilegious

horde. Seven thousand fugitives, deceived by this hope,

returned to Jerusalem and gave themselves up to the fury of

the Carismians, who put them all to the sword. Torrents of

blood flowed through the streets and along the roads. A troop

of nuns, children, and aged people, who had sought refuge in

the church of the Holy Sepulchre, were massacred at the foot

of the altars. The Carismians finding nothing among the living

to satisfy their fury, burst open the sepulchres, and gave the

coffins and remains of the dead up to the flames; the tomb of

Christ, that of Godfrey of Bouillon, the sacred relics of the

martyrs and heroes of the faith,—nothing was respected, and

Jerusalem then witnessed within its walls such cruelties and

profanations as had never taken place in the most barbarous

wars, or in days marked by the anger of God." Subsequently the

Christians of Palestine rallied, united their forces with

those of the Moslem princes of Damascus and Emessa, and gave

battle to the Carismians on the plains of Gaza; but they

suffered a terrible defeat, leaving 30,000 dead on the field.

Nearly all Palestine was then at the mercy of the savages, and

Damascus was speedily subjugated. But the sultan of Cairo,

beginning to fear the allies he had employed, turned his arms

sharply against them, defeated them in two successive battles,

and history tells nothing more of the career of these last

adventurers of the Carismian or Khuarezmian name.

J. F. Michaud,

History of the Crusades,

book 13.

ALSO IN:

C. G. Addison,

The Knights Templars,

chapter 6.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291.

The end of the Christian kingdom.

The surviving title of "King of Jerusalem."

"Since the death of the Emperor Frederic II. [A. D. 1250], the

baseless throne of Jerusalem had found a claimant in Hugh de

Lusignan, King of Cyprus, who, as lineally descended from

Alice, daughter of Queen Isabella, was, in fact, the next

heir, after failure of issue by the marriage of Frederic and

Iolanta de Brienne. His claims were opposed by the partisans

of Charles of Anjou, King of the Sicilies,—that wholesale

speculator in diadems. … He rested his claim upon the double

pretensions of a papal title to all the forfeited dignities of

the imperial house of Hohenstauffen, and of a bargain with

Mary of Antioch; whose rights, although she was descended only

from a younger sister of Alice, he had eagerly purchased. But

the prior title of the house of Cyprus was more generally

recognised in Palestine; the coronation of Hugh had been

celebrated at Tyre; and the last idle pageant of regal state

in Palestine was exhibited by the race of Lusignan. At length

the final storm of Mussulman war broke upon the phantom king

and his subjects. It was twice provoked by the aggressions of

the Latins themselves, in plundering the peaceable Moslem

traders, who resorted, on the faith of treaties, to the

Christian marts on the Syrian coast. After a vain attempt to

obtain redress for the first of these violations of

international law, Keladun, the reigning sultan of Egypt and

Syria, revenged the infraction of the existing ten years'

truce by a renewal of hostilities with overwhelming force;

yearly repeated his ravages of the Christian territory; and at

length, tearing the city and county of Tripoli—the last

surviving great fief of the Latin kingdom—from its

dilapidated crown, dictated the terms of peace to its

powerless sovereign (A. D. 1289)." Two years later, a

repetition of lawless outrages on Moslem merchants at Acre

provoked a last wrathful and implacable invasion. "At the head

of an immense army of 200,000 men, the Mameluke prince entered

Palestine, swept the weaker Christian garrisons before him,

and encamped under the towers of Acre (A. D. 1291). That city,

which, since the fall of Jerusalem, had been for a century the

capital of the Latin kingdom, was now become the last refuge

of the Christian population of Palestine. Its defences were

strong, its inhabitants numerous; but any state of society

more vicious, disorderly, and helpless than its condition, can

scarcely be imagined. Within its walls were crowded a

promiscuous multitude, of every European nation, all equally

disclaiming obedience to a general government, and enjoying

impunity for every crime under the nominal jurisdiction of

independent tribunals. Of these there were no less than

seventeen; in which the papal legate, the king of Jerusalem,

the despoiled great feudatories of his realm, the three

military orders, the colonies of the maritime Italian

republics, and the representatives of the princes of the West,

all arrogated sovereign rights, and all abused them by the

venal protection of offenders. … All the wretched

inhabitants who could find such opportunities of escape,

thronged on board the numerous vessels in the harbour, which

set sail for Europe; and the last defence of Acre was

abandoned to about 12,000 men, for the most part the soldiery

of the three military orders. From that gallant chivalry, the

Moslems encountered a resistance worthy of its ancient renown

and of the extremity of the cause for which its triple

fraternity had sworn to die. But the whole force of the

Mameluke empire, in its yet youthful vigour, had been

collected for their destruction." After a fierce siege of

thirty-three days, one of the principal defensive works,

described in contemporary accounts as "the Cursed Tower," was

shattered, and the besiegers entered the city. The cowardly

Lusignan had escaped by a stolen flight the night before. The

Teutonic Knights, the Templars and the Hospitallers stood

their ground with hopeless valor. Of the latter only seven

escaped. "Bursting through the city, the savage victors

pursued to the strand the unarmed and fleeing population, who

had wildly sought a means of escape, which was denied not less

by the fury of the elements than by the want of sufficient

shipping.

{1887}

By the relentless cruelty of their pursuers, the sands and the

waves were dyed with the blood of the fugitives; all who

survived the first horrid massacre were doomed to a hopeless

slavery; and the last catastrophe of the Crusades cost life or

liberty to 60,000 Christians. … The Christian population of

the few maritime towns which had yet been retained fled to

Cyprus, or submitted their necks, without a struggle, to the

Moslem yoke; and, after a bloody contest of two hundred years,

the possession of the Holy Land was finally abandoned to the

enemies of the Cross. The fall of Acre closes the annals of

the Crusades."

Colonel G. Procter,

History of the Crusades,

chapter 5, section 5.

J. F. Michaud,

History of the Crusades,

book 15 (volume 3).

Actual royalty in the legitimate line of the Lusignan family

ends with a queen Charlotte, who was driven from Cyprus in

1464 by her bastard brother James. She made over to the house

of Savoy (one of the members of which she had married) her

rights and the three crowns she wore,—the crown of Armenia

having been added to those of Jerusalem and Cyprus in the

family. "The Dukes of Savoy called themselves Kings of Cyprus

and Jerusalem from the date of Queen Charlotte's settlement;

the Kings of Naples had called themselves Kings of Jerusalem

since the transfer of the rights of Mary of Antioch [see

above], in 1277, to Charles of Anjou; and the title has run on

to the present day in the houses of Spain and Austria, the

Dukes of Lorraine, and the successive dynasties of Naples. …

The Kings of Sardinia continued to strike money as Kings of

Cyprus and Jerusalem, until they became Kings of Italy. There

is no recognized King of Cyprus now; but there are two or

three Kings of Jerusalem; and the Cypriot title is claimed, I

believe, by some obscure branch of the house of Lusignan,

under the will of King James II."

W. Stubbs,

Seventeen Lectures on the

Study of Medieval and Modern History,

lecture 8.

ALSO IN:

C. G. Addison,

The Knights Templars,

chapter 6.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1299.

The Templars once more in the city.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1299.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1516.

Embraced in the Ottoman conquests of Sultan Selim.

See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1831.

Taken by Mehemed Ali, Pasha of Egypt.

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

----------JERUSALEM: End----------

JERUSALEM TALMUD, The.

See TALMUD.

JESUATES, The.

"The Jesuates, so called from their custom of incessantly

crying through the streets, 'Praised be Jesus Christ,' were

founded by John Colombino, … a native of Siena. … The

congregation was suppressed … by Clement IX., because some

of the houses of the wealthy 'Padri dell' acqua vite,' as they

were called, engaged in the business of distilling liquors and

practising pharmacy (1668)."

J. Alzog,

Manual of Universal Church History,

volume 3, page 149.

----------JESUITS: Start--------

JESUITS: A. D. 1540-1556.

Founding of the Society of Jesus.

System of its organization.

Its principles and aims.

"Experience had shown that the old monastic orders were no

longer sufficient. … About 1540, therefore, an idea began to

be entertained at Rome that a new order was needed; the plan

was not to abolish the old ones, but to found new ones which

should better answer the required ends. The most important of

them was the Society of Jesus. But in this case the moving

cause did not proceed from Rome. Among the wars of Charles V.

we must recur to the first contest at Navarra, in 1521. It was

on this occasion, in defending Pamplona against the French,

that Loyola received the wound which was to cause the monkish

tendency to prevail over the chivalrous element in his nature.

A kind of Catholicism still prevailed in Spain which no longer

existed anywhere else. Its vigour may be traced to the fact

that during the whole of the Middle Ages it was always in

hostile contact with Islam, with the Mohammedan infidels. The

crusades here had never come to an end. … As yet untainted

by heresy, and suffering from no decline, in Spain,

Catholicism was as eager for conquest as it had been in all

the West in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. It was from

the nation possessing this temperament that the founder of the

order of the Jesuits sprang. Ignatius Loyola (born 1491) was a

Spanish knight, possessing the two-fold tendencies which

distinguish the knighthood of the Middle Ages. He was a

gallant swordsman, delighting in martial feats and romantic

love adventures; but he was at the same time animated by a

glowing enthusiasm for the Church and her supremacy, even

during the early period of his life. These two tendencies were

striving together in his character, until the event took place

which threw him upon a bed of suffering. No sooner was he

compelled to renounce his worldly knighthood, than he was sure

that he was called upon to found a new order of spiritual

knighthood, like that of which he had read in the chivalrous

romance, 'Amadis.' Entirely unaffected by the Reformation,

what he understood by this was a spiritual brotherhood in the

true mediæval sense, which should convert the heathen in the

newly-discovered countries of the world. With all the zeal of

a Spaniard he decided to live to the Catholic Church alone; he

chastised his body with penances and all kinds of privations,

made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and, in order to complete his

defective education, he visited the university of Paris; it

was among his comrades there that he formed the first

associations out of which the order was afterwards formed.

Among these was Jacob Lainez; he was Loyola's

fellow-countryman, the organizing head who was to stamp his

impress upon the order. … Then came the spread of the new

doctrines, the mighty progress of Protestantism. No one who

was heartily attached to the old Church could doubt that there

was work for such an association, for the object now in hand

was not to make Christians of the aboriginal inhabitants of

Central America, but to reconquer the apostate members of the

Romish Church. About 1539 Loyola came with his fraternity to

Rome. He did not find favour in all circles; the old orders

regarded the new one with jealousy and mistrust; but Pope Paul

III. (1534-49) did not allow himself to be misled, and in 1540

gave the fraternity his confirmation, thus constituting

Loyola's followers an order, which, on its part, engaged 'to

obey in all things the reigning Pope—to go into any country,

to Turks, heathen, or heretics, or to whomsoever he might send

them, at once, unconditionally, without question or reward.'

It is from this time that the special history of the order

begins.

{1888}

During the next year Loyola was chosen the first general of

the order, an office which he held until his death (1541-56).

He was succeeded by Lainez. He was less enthusiastic than his

predecessor, had a cooler head, and was more reasonable; he

was the man for diplomatic projects and complete and

systematic organization. The new order differed in several

respects from any previously existing one, but it entirely

corresponded to the new era which had begun for the Romish

Church. … The construction of the new order was based and

carried out on a monarchical-military system. The territories

of the Church were divided into provinces; at the head of each

of these was a provincial; over the provincials, and chosen by

them, the general, who commanded the soldiers of Christ, and

was entrusted with dictatorial power, limited only by the

opinions of three judges, assistants or admonitors. The

general has no superior but the Pope, with whom he

communicates directly; he appoints and dismisses all

officials, issues orders as to the administration of the

order, and rules with undisputed sway. The absolute monarchy

which was assigned to the Pope by the Council of Trent, was

conferred by him on the general of the Jesuits. Among the four

vows of poverty, chastity, obedience, and subjection to the

Pope, obedience was the soul of all. To learn and practise

this physically and mentally, up to the point where, according

to the Jesuit expression, a man becomes 'tanquam lignum et

cadaver,' was the ruling principle of the institution. …

Entire renunciation of the will and judgment in relation to

everything commanded by the superior, blind obedience,

unconditional subjection, constitute their ideal. There was

but one exception, but even in this there was a reservation.

It was expressly stated that there can be no obligation 'ad

peccatum mortale vel veniale,' to sinful acts of greater or

less importance, 'except when enjoined by the superior, in the

name of Jesus Christ,' 'vel in virtute obedientiæ,'—an

elastic doctrine which may well be summed up in the dictum

that 'the end justifies the means.' Of course, all the members

of this order had to renounce all ties of family, home, and

country, and it was expressly enjoined. … Of the vow of

poverty it is said, in the 'Summarium' of the constitution of

the order, that it must be maintained as a 'murus religionis.

No one shall have any property; everyone must be content with

the meanest furniture and fare, and, if necessity or command

require it, he must be ready to beg his bread from door to

door ('ostiatim mendicare'). The external aspect of members of

the order, their speech and silence, gestures, gait, garb, and

bearing shall indicate the prescribed purity of soul. … On

all these and many other points, the new order only laid

greater stress on the precepts which were to be found among

the rules of other orders, though in the universal

demoralisation of the monastic life they had fallen into

disuse. But it decidedly differed from all the others in the

manner in which it aimed at obtaining sway in every sphere and

every aspect of life. Himself without home or country, and not

holding the doctrines of any political party, the disciple of

Jesus renounced everything which might alienate him among

varying nationalities, pursuing various political aims. Then

he did not confine his labours to the pulpit and the

confessional; he gained an influence over the rising

generation by a systematic attention to education, which had

been shamefully neglected by the other orders. He devoted

himself to education from the national schools up to the

academic chair, and by no means confined himself to the sphere

of theology. This was a principle of immense importance. …

It is a true saying, that 'he who gains the youth possesses

the future'; and by devoting themselves to the education of

youth, the Jesuits secured a future to the Church more surely

than by any other scheme that could have been devised. What

the schoolmasters were for the youth, the confessors were for

those of riper years; what the clerical teachers were for the

common people, the spiritual directors and confidants were for

great lords and rulers—for the Jesuits aspired to a place at

the side of the great, and at gaining the confidence of kings.

It was not long before they could boast of astonishing

success."

L. Häusser,

The Period of the Reformation,

chapter 20.

"The Society, in 1556, only 16 years after its commencement,

counted as many as twelve provinces, 100 houses, and upwards

of 1,000 members, dispersed over the whole known world. Their

two most conspicuous and important establishments were the

Collegio Romano and the German College. They already were in

possession of many chairs, and soon monopolised the right of

teaching, which gave them a most overwhelming influence."

G. B. Nicolini,

History of the Jesuits,

page 90.

ALSO IN:

I. Taylor,

Loyola and Jesuitism in its Rudiments.

S. Rose,

Ignatius Loyola and the Early Jesuits.

T. Hughes,

Loyola and the Educational System of the Jesuits.

See, also, EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE.

JESUITS: A. D. 1542-1649.

The early Jesuit Missionaries and their labors.

"In 1542, Xavier landed at Goa, the capital of the Portuguese

colony, on the western coast of Hindostan. He took lodgings at

the hospital, and mingled with the poor. He associated also

with the rich, and even played with them at cards, acting

piously upon the motto of the order, 'Ad majorem Dei gloriam.'

Having thus won good-will to himself, he went into the

streets, with his hand-bell and crucifix, and, having rung the

one, he held up the other, exhorting the multitudes to accept

that religion of which it was the emblem. His great facility

in acquiring foreign languages helped him much. He visited

several times the pearl-fisheries on the Malabar coast,

remaining at one time thirteen months, and planting forty-five

churches. Cape Comorin, Travancore, Meliapore, the Moluccas,

Malacca, and other ports of India, and finally the distant

island of Japan—where Christianity was [accepted—see JAPAN:

A. D. 1540-1686] … —received his successive visits. Leaving

two Jesuits on the island, he returned to settle some matters

at Goa, which done, he sailed for China, but died at the

island of Sancian, a few leagues from the city of Canton, in

1552—ten years only after his arrival in India. He had in

this time established an inquisition and a college at Goa.

Numbers of the society, whom he had wisely distributed, had

been sent to his aid; and the Christians in India were

numbered by hundreds of thousands before the death of this

'Apostle of the Indies.' It has even been said, that he was

the means of converting more persons in Asia than the church

had lost by the Reformation in Europe.

{1889}

The empire of China, which Xavier was not allowed to enter,

was visited, half a century later, by the Jesuit Matthew

Ricci, who introduced his religion by means of his great skill

in science and art, especially mathematics and drawing [see

CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882]. He assumed the garb of a mandarin

—associated with the higher classes—dined with the

Emperor—allowed those who received Christianity to retain any

rites of their own religion to which they were attached—and

died in 1610, bequeathing and recommending his policy to

others. This plan of accommodation was far more elaborately

carried out by Robert Nobili, who went to Madura, in southern

Hindostan, as a missionary of the order in 1606. He had

observed the obstacle which caste threw in the way of

missionary labor, and resolved to remove it. He presented

himself as a foreign Brahmin, and attached himself to that

class. They had a tradition, that there once had been four

roads to truth in India, one of which they had lost. This he

professed to restore. He did no violence to their existing

ideas or institutions, but simply gave them other

interpretations, and in three years he had seventy converted

Brahmins about him. From this time he went on gathering crowds

of converts, soon numbering 150,000. This facile policy,

however, attracted the notice of the other religious orders,

was loudly complained of at Rome, and, after almost an entire

century of agitation, was condemned in 1704 by a special

legation, appointed by Clement XI. to inquire into the matter

of complaint. … The attention of the society was early

directed to our own continent, and its missions everywhere

anticipated the settlements. The most remarkable missions were

in South America. Missionaries had been scattered over the

whole continent, everywhere making converts, but doing nothing

for the progress of the order. Aquaviva was general. This

shrewd man saw the disadvantage of the policy, and at once

applied the remedy. He directed, that, leaving only so many

missionaries scattered over the continent as should be

absolutely necessary, the main force should be concentrated

upon a point. Paraguay was chosen. The missionaries formed

what were called reductions—that is, villages into which the

Indians were collected from their roving life, taught the

ruder arts of civilization, and some of the rites and duties

of the Christian religion. These villages were regularly laid

out with streets, running each way from a public square,

having a Church, work-shops and dwellings. Each family had a

small piece of land assigned for cultivation, and all were

reduced to the most systematic habits of industry and good

order. … The men were trained to arms, and all the elements

of an independent empire were fast coming into being. In 1632,

thirty years after the starting of this system, Paraguay had

twenty reductions, averaging 1,000 families each, which at a

moderate estimate, would give a population of 100,000, and

they still went on prospering until three times this number

are, by some, said to have been reached. The Jesuits started,

in California, in 1642, the same system, which they fully

entered upon in 1679. This, next to Paraguay, became their

most successful mission."

A Historical Sketch of the Jesuits

(Putnam's Magazine, September, 1856).

In 1632 the Jesuits entered on their mission work in Canada,

or New France, where they supplanted the Récollet friars. "In

1640 Montreal, the site of which had been already indicated by

Champlain in 1611, was founded, that there might be a nearer

rendezvous than Quebec for the converted Indians. At its

occupation a solemn mass was celebrated under a tent, and in

France itself the following February a general supplication

was offered up that the Queen of Angels would take the Island

of Montreal under her protection. In the August of this year a

general meeting of French settlers and Indians took place at

Montreal, and the festival of the Assumption was solemnised at

the island. The new crusading spirit took full possession of

the enthusiastic French people, and the niece of Cardinal

Richelieu founded a hospital for the natives between the

Kennebec and Lake Superior, to which young and nobly-born

hospital nuns from Dieppe offered their services. Plans were

made for establishing mission posts, not only on the north

amongst the Algonkins, but to the south of Luke Huron, in

Michigan and at Green Bay, and so on as far as the regions to

the west. The maps of the Jesuits prove that before 1660 they

had traced the waters of Lake Erie and Lake Superior and had

seen Lake Michigan. The Huron mission embraced principally the

country lying between Lake Simcoe and Georgian Bay, building

its stations on the rivers and shores. But the French

missionaries, however much they might desire it, could not

keep outside the intertribal strifes of the natives around

them. Succeeding to Champlain's policy, they continued to aid

the Algonkins and Hurons against their inveterate enemies the

Iroquois. The Iroquois retaliated by the most horrible cruelty

and revenge. There was no peace along the borders of this wild

country, and missionaries and colonists carried their lives in

their hands. In 1648 St. Joseph, a Huron mission town on the

shores of Lake Simcoe, was burned down and destroyed by the

Iroquois, and Père Daniel, the Jesuit leader, killed under

circumstances of great atrocity. In 1649 St. Ignace, a station

at the corner of Georgian Bay, was sacked, and there the pious

Brebeuf met his end, after having suffered the most horrible

tortures the Indians could invent. Brebeuf, after being hacked

in the face and burnt all over the body with torches and

red-hot iron, was scalped alive, and died after three hours'

suffering. His companion, the gentle Gabriel Lallemand,

endured terrible tortures for seventeen hours."

W. P. Greswell,

History of the Dominion of Canada,

chapter 6.

The Hurons were dispersed and their nation destroyed by these

attacks of the Iroquois. "With the fall of the Hurons fell the

best hope of the Canadian mission. They, and the stable and

populous communities around them, had been the rude material

from which the Jesuit would have formed his Christian empire

in the wilderness; but, one by one, these kindred peoples were

uprooted and swept away, while the neighboring Algonquins, to

whom they had been a bulwark, were involved with them in a

common ruin. The land of promise was turned to a solitude and

a desolation. There was still work in hand, it is true,—vast

regions to explore, and countless heathens to snatch from

perdition; but these, for the most part, were remote and

scattered hordes, from whose conversion it was vain to look

for the same solid and decisive results. In a measure, the

occupation of the Jesuits was gone.

{1890}

Some of them went home, 'well resolved,' writes the Father

Superior, 'to return to the combat at the first sound of the

trumpet'; while of those who remained, about twenty in number,

several soon fell victims to famine, hardship, and the

Iroquois. A few years more, and Canada ceased to be a mission;

political and commercial interests gradually became ascendant,

and the story of Jesuit propagandism was interwoven with her

civil and military annals."

F. Parkman,

The Jesuits in North America,

chapter 34.

See, also,

CANADA: A. D. 1634-1652.

JESUITS: A. D. 1558.

Mission founded in Abyssinia.

See ABYSSINIA: A. D. 15TH-19TH CENTURIES.

JESUITS: A. D. 1572-1603.

Persecution in England under Elizabeth.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1603.

JESUITS: A. D. 1573-1592.

Change in the statutes of the Order on demands from Spain.

"At the first establishment of the Order, the elder and

already educated men, who had just entered it, were for the

most part Spaniards; the members joining it from other nations

were chiefly young men, whose characters had yet to be formed.

It followed naturally that the government of the society was,

for the first ten years, almost entirely in Spanish hands. The

first general congregation was composed of twenty-five

members, eighteen of whom were Spaniards. The first three

generals belonged to the same nation. After the death of the

third, Borgia, in the year 1573, it was once more a Spaniard,

Polanco, who had the best prospect of election. It was however

manifest that his elevation would not have been regarded

favourably, even in Spain itself. There were many new converts

in the society who were Christianized Jews. Polanco also

belonged to this class, and it was not thought desirable that

the supreme authority in a body so powerful, and so

monarchically constituted, should be confided to such hands.

Pope Gregory XIV., who had received certain intimations on

this subject, considered a change to be expedient on other

grounds also. When a deputation presented itself before him

from the congregation assembled to elect their general,

Gregory inquired how many votes were possessed by each nation;

the reply showed that Spain held more than all the others put

together. He then asked from which nation the generals of the

order had hitherto been taken. He was told that there had been

three, all Spaniards. 'It will be just, then,' replied

Gregory, 'that for once you should choose one from among the

other nations.' He even proposed a candidate for their

election. The Jesuits opposed themselves for a moment to this

suggestion, as a violation of their privileges; but concluded

by electing the very man proposed by the pontiff. This was

Eberhard Mercurianus. A material change was at once perceived,

as the consequence of this choice. Mercurianus, a weak and

irresolute man, resigned the government of affairs, first

indeed to a Spaniard again, but afterwards to a Frenchman, his

official admonitor; factions were formed, one expelling the

other from the offices of importance, and the ruling powers of

the Order now began to meet occasional resistance from its

subordinate members. But a circumstance of much higher moment

was, that on the next vacancy—in the year 1581—this office

was conferred on Claudius Acquaviva, a Neapolitan, belonging

to a house previously attached to the French party, a man of

great energy, and only thirty-eight years old. The Spaniards

then thought they perceived that their nation, by which the

society had been founded and guided on its early path, was now

to be forever excluded from the generalship. Thereupon they

became discontented and refractory, and conceived the design

of making themselves less dependent on Rome. … They first

had recourse to the national spiritual authority of their own

country—the Inquisition. … One of the discontented Jesuits,

impelled, as he affirmed, by a scruple of conscience, accused

his order of concealing, and even remitting, transgressions of

the kind so reserved, when the criminal was one of their

society. The Inquisition immediately caused the Provincial

implicated, together with his most active associates, to be

arrested. Other accusations being made in consequence of these

arrests, the Inquisition commanded that the statutes of the

order should be placed before it, and proceeded to make

further seizures of parties accused. … The Inquisition was,

however, competent to inflict a punishment on the criminal

only: it could not prescribe changes in the regulations of the

society. When the affair, therefore, had proceeded thus far,

the discontented members applied to the king also, assailing

him with long memorials, wherein they complained of the

defects in their constitution. The character of this

constitution had never been agreeable to Philip II.; he used

to say that he could see through all the other orders, but

that the order of Jesuits he could not understand. … He at

once commanded Manrique, bishop of Carthagena, to subject the

Order to a visitation, with particular reference to these

points. … The character of Sixtus V. made it particularly

easy for Acquaviva to excite the antipathies of that pontiff

against the proceedings of the Spaniards. Pope Sixtus had

formed the hope, as we know, of rendering Rome, more decidedly

than it ever yet was, the metropolis of Christendom. Acquaviva

assured him, that the object really laboured for in Spain was

no other than increased independence of Rome. Pope Sixtus

hated nothing so much as illegitimate birth; and Acquaviva

caused him to be informed that Manrique, the bishop selected

as 'Visitator' of the Jesuits, was illegitimate. These were

reasons sufficient to make Sixtus recall the assent he had

already given to the visitation. He even summoned the case of

the provincial before the tribunals of Rome. From his

successor, Gregory XIV., the general succeeded in obtaining a

formal confirmation of the rule of the order. But his

antagonists also were unyielding and crafty. They perceived

that the general must be attacked in the court of Rome itself.

They availed themselves of his momentary absence. … In the

summer of 1592, at the request of the Spanish Jesuits and

Philip II., but without the knowledge of Acquaviva, the

pontiff commanded that a general congregation should be held.

Astonished and alarmed, Acquaviva hastened back. To the

generals of the Jesuits these 'Congregations' were no less

inconvenient than were the Convocations of the Church to the

popes; and if his predecessors were anxious to avoid them, how

much more cause had Acquaviva, against whom there prevailed so

active an enmity! But he was soon convinced that the

arrangement was irrevocable; he therefore resumed his

composure and said, 'We are obedient sons; let the will of the

holy father be done.' …

{1891}

Philip of Spain had demanded some changes, and had

recommended others for consideration. On two things he'

insisted: the resignation of certain papal privileges; those

of reading forbidden books, for example, and of granting

absolution for the crime of heresy; and a law, by virtue of

which every novice who entered the order should surrender

whatever patrimonial rights he might possess, and should even

resign all his benefices. These were matters in regard to

which the order came into collision with the Inquisition and

the civil government. After some hesitation, the demands of

the king were complied with, and principally through the

influence of Acquaviva himself. But the points recommended by

Philip for consideration were of much higher moment. First of

all came the questions, whether the authority of the superiors

should not be limited to a certain period; and whether a

general congregation should not be held at certain fixed

intervals? The very essence and being of the institute, the

rights of absolute sovereignty, were here brought into

question. Acquaviva was not on this occasion disposed to

comply. After an animated discussion, the congregation

rejected these propositions of Philip; but the pope, also, was

convinced of their necessity. What had been refused to the

king was now commanded by the pope. By the plenitude of his

apostolic power, he determined and ordained that the superiors

and rectors should be changed every third year; and that, at

the expiration of every sixth year, a general congregation

should be assembled. It is, indeed, true that the execution of

these ordinances did not effect so much as had been hoped from

them. … It was, nevertheless, a very serious blow to the

society, that it had been compelled, by internal revolt and

interference from without, to a change in its statutes."

L. Ranke,

History of the Popes,

book 6, section 9 (volume 2).

JESUITS: A. D. 1581-1641.

Hostility of the Paulistas of Brazil.

Opposition to enslavement of the Indians.

See BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641.

JESUITS: A. D. 1595.

Expulsion from Paris.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

JESUITS: A. D. 1606.

Exclusion from Venice for half a century.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.

JESUITS: A. D. 1653-1660.

First controversy and conflict with the Jansenists.

See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1602-1660.

JESUITS: A. D. 1702-1715.

The renewed conflict with Jansenism in France.

The Bull Unigenitus.

See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.

JESUITS: A. D. 1757-1773.

Suppression of the Society in Portugal and the Portuguese

dominions.

In 1757, a series of measures intended to break the power, if

not to end the existence, of the Society of Jesus, in Portugal

and the Portuguese dominions, was undertaken by the great

Portuguese minister, Carvalho, better known by his later title

as the Marquis of Pombal. "It is not necessary to speculate on

the various motives which induced Carvalho to attack the

Jesuits, but the principal cause lay in the fact that they

were wealthy and powerful, and therefore a dangerous force in

an absolutist monarchy. It must be remembered that the Jesuits

of the 18th century formed a very different class of men to

their predecessors. They were no longer intrepid missionary

pioneers, but a corporation of wealthy traders, who made use

of their spiritual position to further the cause of their

commerce. They had done a great work in America by opening up

the interior of Brazil and converting the natives, and their

administration of Paraguay, one of the most interesting

achievements in the whole history of Christianity, was without

doubt a blessing to the people. But by the middle of the 18th

century they had gone too far. It was one thing to convert the

natives of Brazil, and another to absorb much of the wealth of

that country, in doing which they prejudiced not only the

Crown but the Portuguese people, whom they kept from settling

in the territory under their rule. Whether it was a sufficient

reason for Carvalho to attack the order, because it was

wealthy and powerful, and had departed from its primitive

simplicity, is a question for everyone to decide for

themselves, but that this was the reason, and that the various

excuses alleged by the admirers of the great minister are

without foundation, is an undoubted fact. On September 19,

1757, the first important blow was struck, when the king's

Jesuit confessor was dismissed, and all Jesuits were forbidden

to come to Court. Carvalho, in the name of the King of

Portugal, also formally denounced the order at Rome, and

Benedict XIV., the then Pope, appointed the Cardinal de

Saldanha, a friend of the minister, Visitor and Reformer of

the Society of Jesus. The cardinal did not take long in making

up his mind, and May 15, 1758, he forbade the Jesuits to

engage in trade. An attempt upon the king's life, which

shortly followed this measure, gave the minister the

opportunity he wanted for urging the suppression of the famous

society. The history of the Tavora plot, which culminated in

this attempt, is one of the most mysterious affairs in the

whole history of Portugal. … The three leaders of the plot

were the Duke of Aveiro, a descendant of John II., and one of

the greatest noblemen in Portugal, the Marquis of Tavora, who

had filled with credit the post of Governor-general of India,

and the Count of Atouguia, a descendant of the gallant Dom

Luis de Athaide, the defender of Goa; but the heart and soul

of the conspiracy was the Marchioness of Tavora, a beautiful

and ambitious woman, who was bitterly offended because her

husband had not been made a duke. The confessor of this lady

was a Jesuit named Gabriel Malagrida. … The evidence on all

sides is most contradictory, and all that is certain is that

the king was fired at and wounded on the night of September 3,

1758; and that in the following January, the three noblemen

who have been mentioned, the Marchioness of Tavora, Malagrida

with seven other Jesuits, and many other individuals of all

ranks of life, were arrested as implicated in the attempt to

murder. The laymen had but a short trial and, together with

the marchioness, were publicly executed ten days after their

arrest. King Joseph certainly believed that the real culprits

had been seized, and in his gratitude he created Carvalho

Count of Oeyras, and encouraged him to pursue his campaign

against the Jesuits. On January 19, 1759, the estates

belonging to the society were sequestrated; and on September

3rd, all its members were expelled from Portugal, and

directions were sent to the viceroys of India and Brazil to

expel them likewise. The news of this bold stroke was received

with admiration everywhere, except at Rome, and it became noised

abroad that a great minister was ruling in Portugal. …

{1892}

In 1764 the Jesuit priest Malagrida was burnt alive, not as a

traitor but as a heretic and imposter, on account of some

crazy tractates he had written. The man was regarded as a

martyr, and all communication between Portugal and the Holy

See was broken off for two years, while the Portuguese

minister exerted all his influence with the Courts of France

and Spain to procure the entire suppression of the society

which he hated. The king supported him consistently, and after

another attempt upon his life in 1769, which the minister as

usual attributed to the Jesuits, King Joseph created his

faithful servant Marquis of Pombal, by which title he is best

known to fame. The prime ministers of France and Spain

cordially acquiesced in the hatred of the Jesuits, for both

the Duc de Choiseul and the Count d'Aranda had something of

Pombal's spirit in them, and imitated his policy; in both

countries the society, which on its foundation had done so

much for Catholicism and Christianity, was proscribed, and the

worthy members treated with as much rigour as the unworthy;

and finally in 1773 Pope Clement XIV. solemnly abolished the

Society of Jesus. King Joseph did not long survive this

triumph of his minister, for he died on February 24, 1777, and

the Marquis of Pombal, then an old man of 77, was at once

dismissed from office."

H. M. Stephens,

The Story of Portugal,

chapter 16.

ALSO IN:

G. B. Nicolini,

History of the Jesuits,

chapter 15.

T. Griesinger,

The Jesuits,

book 6, chapter 4 (volume 2).

JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

Proceedings against the Order in the Parliament of Paris.

Suppression in France, Spain, Bavaria, Parma, Modena, Venice.

Demands on the Pope for the abolition of the Society.

"Father Antoine Lavalette, 'procureur' of the Jesuit Missions

in the Antilles, resided in that capacity at St. Pierre in the

island of Martinique. He was a man of talent, energy, and

enterprise; and, following an example by no means uncommon in

the Society, he had been for many years engaged in mercantile

transactions on an extensive scale, and with eminent success.

It was an occupation expressly prohibited to missionaries; but

the Jesuits were in the habit of evading the difficulty by

means of an ingenious fiction. Lavalette was in correspondence

with the principal commercial firms in France, and

particularly with that of Lioncy Brothers and Gouffre, of

Marseilles. He made frequent consignments of merchandise to

their house, which were covered by bills of exchange, drawn in

Martinique and accepted by them. For a time the traffic

proceeded prosperously; but it so happened that upon the

breaking out of the Seven Years' War, several ships belonging

to Lavalette, richly freighted with West Indian produce, were

captured by the English cruisers, and their cargoes

confiscated. The immediate loss fell upon Lioncy and Gouffre,

to whom these vessels were consigned," and they were driven to

bankruptcy, the General of the Society of Jesus refusing to be

responsible for the obligations of his subordinate, Father

Lavalette. "Under these circumstances the creditors determined

to attack the Jesuit community as a corporate body," and the

latter were so singularly unwary, for once, as not only to

contest the claim before the Parliament of Paris, but to

appeal to the constitutions of their Society in support of

their contention, that each college was independent in the

matter of temporal property, and that no corporate

responsibility could exist. "The Parliament at once demanded

that the constitutions thus referred to should he examined.

The Jesuits were ordered to furnish a copy of them; they

obeyed. … The compulsory production of these mysterious

records, which had never before been inspected by any but

Jesuit eyes, was an event of crucial significance. It was the

turning-point of the whole affair; and its consequences were

disastrous." As a first consequence, "the court condemned the

General of the Jesuits, and in his person the whole Society

which he governed, to acquit the bills of exchange still

outstanding, together with interest and damages, within the

space of a year from the date of the 'arrêt.' In default of

payment the debt was made recoverable upon the common property

of the Order, excepting only the endowments specially

restricted to particular colleges. The delight of the public,

who were present on the occasion in great numbers, 'was

excessive,' says Barbier, 'and even indecent.'" As a second

consequence, the Parliament, on the 6th of August, 1761,

"condemned a quantity of publications by the Jesuits, dating

from the year 1590 downwards, to be torn and burnt by the

executioner and the next day this was duly carried out in the

court of the Palais de Justice. Further, the 'arrêt'

prohibited the king's subjects from entering the said Society;

forbade the fathers to give instruction, private or public, in

theology, philosophy, or humanity; and ordered their schools

and colleges to be closed. The accusation brought against

their books was … that of teaching 'abominable and murderous

doctrine,' of justifying sedition, rebellion, and regicide.

… The Government replied to these bold measures by ordering

the Parliament to suspend the execution of its 'arrêts' for

the space of a year. The Parliament affected to obey, but

stipulated, in registering the letters-patent, that the delay

should not extend beyond the 1st of April, 1762, and made

other provisions which left them virtually at liberty to

proceed as they might think proper. The Jesuits … relied too

confidently on the protection of the Crown. … But the

prestige of the monarchy was now seriously impaired, and it

was no longer wise or safe for a King of France to undertake

openly the defence of any institution which had incurred a

deliberate sentence of condemnation from the mass of his

people." In November, 1761, a meeting of French prelates was

summoned by the Royal Council to consider and report upon

several questions relative to the utility of the Society of

Jesus, the character of its teaching and conduct, and the

modifications, if any, which should be proposed as to the

extent of authority exercised by the General of the Society.

The bishops, by a large majority, made a report favorable to

the Jesuits, but recommended, "as reasonable concessions to

public opinion, certain alterations in its statutes and

practical administration. … This project of compromise was

forwarded to Rome for the consideration of the Pope and the

General; and Louis gave them to understand, through his

ambassador, that upon no other conditions would it be possible

to stem the tide of opposition, and to maintain the Jesuits as

a body corporate in France.

{1893}

It was now that the memorable reply was made, either by the

General Ricci, or, according to other accounts, by Pope

Clement XIII. himself—Sint ut sunt, aut non sint'; 'Let them

remain as they are, or let them exist no longer.'" Even had

the proposed reform been accepted, "its success was

problematical; but its rejection sealed the fate of the Order.

Louis, notwithstanding the ungracious response from Rome,

proposed his scheme of conciliation to the Parliament in

March, 1762, and annulled at the same time all measures

adverse to the Jesuits taken since the 1st of August

preceding. The Parliament, secretly encouraged by the Duc de

Choiseul, refused to register this edict; the king, after some

hesitation, withdrew it; and no available resource remained to

shield the Order against its impending destiny. The

Parliaments, both of Paris and the Provinces, laid the axe to

the root without further delay. By an 'arrêt' of the 1st of

April, 1762, the Jesuits were expelled from their 84 colleges

in the ressort of the Parliament of Paris, and the example was

followed by the provincial tribunals of Rouen, Rennes, Metz,

Bordeaux, and Aix. The Society was now assailed by a general

chorus of invective and execration. … The final blow was

struck by the Parliament of Paris on the 6th of August, 1762.

… The sentence then passed condemned the Society as

'inadmissible, by its nature, in any civilized State, inasmuch

as it was contrary to the law of nature, subversive of

authority spiritual and temporal, and introduced, under the

veil of religion, not an Order sincerely aspiring to

evangelical perfection, but rather a political body, of which

the essence consists in perpetual attempts to attain, first,

absolute independence, and in the end, supreme authority.' …

The decree concludes by declaring the vows of the Jesuits

illegal and void, forbidding them to observe the rules of the

Order, to wear its dress, or to correspond with its members.

They were to quit their houses within one week, and were to

renounce, upon oath, all connection with the Society, upon

pain of being disqualified for any ecclesiastical charge or

public employment. The provincial Parliaments followed the

lead of the capital, though in some few instances the decree

of suppression was opposed, and carried only by a small

majority; while at Besançon and Douai the decision was in

favour of the Society. In Lorraine, too, under the peaceful

government of Stanislas Leczinski, and in Alsace, where they

were powerfully protected by Cardinal de Rohan, Bishop of

Strasburg, the Jesuits were left unmolested. … The

suppression of the Jesuits—the most important act of the

administration of the Duc de Choiseul—was consummated by a

royal ordonnance of November, 1764, to which Louis did not

give his consent without mistrust and regret. It decreed that

the Society should cease to exist throughout his Majesty's

dominions; but it permitted the ex-Jesuits to reside in France

as private citizens, and to exercise their ecclesiastical

functions under the jurisdiction of the diocesans. … Almost

immediately afterwards, on the 7th of January, 1765. appeared

the bull 'Apostolicum,' by which Clement XIII. condemned, with

all the weight of supreme and infallible authority, the

measure which had deprived the Holy See of its most valiant

defenders. … The only effect of the intervention of the

Roman Curia was to excite further ebullitions of hostility

against the prostrate Order. Charles III. of Spain, yielding,

as it is alleged, to the exhortations of the Duc de Choiseul,

abolished it throughout his dominions by a sudden mandate of

April 2, 1767. … The Pope precipitated the final catastrophe

by a further act of imprudence. The young Duke of Parma, a

prince of the house of Bourbon, had excluded the Jesuits from

his duchy, and had published certain ecclesiastical

regulations detrimental to the ancient pretensions of the

Roman See. Clement XIII., reviving an antiquated title in

virtue of which Parma was claimed as a dependent fief of the

Papacy, was rash enough to launch a bull of excommunication

against the Duke, and deprived him of his dominions as a

rebellious vassal. All the Bourbon sovereigns promptly

combined to resent this insult to their family. The Papal Bull

was suppressed at Paris, at Madrid, at Lisbon, at Parma, at

Naples. The Jesuits were expelled from Venice, from Modena,

from Bavaria. The Pontiff was summoned to revoke his

'monitorium'; and on his refusal French troops took possession

of Avignon and the Comtat Venaissin, while the King of Naples

seized Benevento and Pontecorvo. On the 16th of January, 1769,

the ambassadors of Spain, France, and Naples presented a joint

note to the Holy Father, demanding that the Order of Jesus

should be secularised and abolished for ever. Clement, who had

suffered severely from the manifold humiliations and reverses

of his Pontificate, was overwhelmed by this last blow, from

the effects of which he never rallied. He expired almost

suddenly on the 2nd of February, 1769."

W. H. Jervis,

History of the Church of France,

volume 2, chapter 10.

ALSO IN:

T. Griesinger,

The Jesuits,

book 6, chapter 6,

and book 7, chapter 1.

JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871

Papal suppression and restoration of the Order.

"The attitude of the Roman Catholic Courts was so threatening,

and their influence with the Conclave so powerful, that

Lorenzo Ganganelli was selected [1769] for the triple crown,

as the man best suited for their purposes. Belonging to the

Franciscans, who had ever been antagonistic to the Jesuits, he

had been a follower of the Augustinian theology, and was not

altogether free from Jansenism. The Jesuits even went so far

as to pray publicly in their churches for the conversion of

the Pope. The pontificate of Clement XIV. has been rendered

memorable in history by the Papal decree of July 21, 1773,

which in its policy adopted the maxim of Lorenzo Ricci, the

inflexible General of the Jesuits, 'Sint ut sunt, aut non

sunt'—Let us be as we are, or let us not be! That decree

declared that, from the very origin of the Order, sorrow,

jealousies, and dissensions arose, not only among its own

members but between them and the other religious orders and

their colleges. After further declaring that, urged as its

head by a sense of duty to restore the harmony of the Church,

and feeling convinced that the Society could no longer

subserve the uses for which it was created, and on other

grounds of prudence and governmental wisdom, he by his decree

abolished the Order of Jesuits, its offices, houses, and

institutes. … The other religious orders at Rome were

jealous that Jesuits should have been the confessors of

Sovereigns at Westminster, Madrid, Vienna, Versailles, Lisbon,

and Naples. The influences of the Dominicans, the

Benedictines, and the Oratorians were accordingly exercised

for their suppression. … The Papal Bull 'Dominus Redemptor

noster' was at first resisted by the Jesuits, and their

General, Lorenzo Ricci, was sent to the Castle of St. Angelo.

{1894}

Bernardine Renzi, a female Pythoness, having predicted the

death of the Pope, two Jesuits, Coltrano and Venissa, who were

suspected of having instigated her prophecies, were consigned

to the same prison. All that follows relating to the fate of

Ganganelli is of mere historic interest; his end is shrouded

in mystery, which has been as yet, and is likely to continue,

impenetrable. According to the revelations of Cardinal de

Bernis, Ganganelli was himself apprehensive of dying by

poison, and a sinister rumour respecting a cup of chocolate

with an infusion of 'Aqua de Tofana,' administered by a pious

attendant, was generally prevalent throughout Europe; but the

time has long since passed for an inquest over the deathbed of

Clement XIV."

The Jesuits and their Expulsion from Germany

(Fraser's' Magazine, May, 1873).

"All that follows the publication of the brief—the death of

Ganganelli, the fierce and yet unexhausted disputes about the

last year of his life, and the manner of his death—are to us

indescribably melancholy and repulsive. … We have

conflicting statements, both of which cannot be

true—churchman against churchman—cardinal against

cardinal—even, it should seem, pope against pope. On the one

side there is a triumph, hardly disguised, in the terrors, in

the sufferings, in the madness, which afflicted the later days

of Clement; on the other, the profoundest honour, the deepest

commiseration, for a wise and holy Pontiff, who, but for the

crime of his enemies, might have enjoyed a long reign of peace

and respect and inward satisfaction. There a protracted agony

of remorse in life and anticipated damnation—that damnation,

if not distinctly declared, made dubious or averted only by a

special miracle:—here an apotheosis—a claim, at least, to

canonization. There the judgment of God pronounced in language

which hardly affects regret; here more than insinuations, dark

charges of poison against persons not named, but therefore

involving in the ignominy of possible guilt a large and

powerful party. Throughout the history of the Jesuits it is

this which strikes, perplexes, and appals the dispassionate

student. The intensity with which they were hated surpasses

even the intensity with which they hated. Nor is this depth of

mutual animosity among those or towards those to whom the

Jesuits were most widely opposed, the Protestants, and the

adversaries of all religion; but among Roman Catholics—and

those not always Jansenists or even Gallicans—among the most

ardent assertors of the papal supremacy, monastics of other

orders, parliaments, statesmen, kings, bishops, cardinals.

Admiration and detestation of the Jesuits divide, as far as

feeling is concerned, the Roman Catholic world, with a schism

deeper and more implacable than any which arrays Protestant

against Protestant, Episcopacy and Independency, Calvinism and

Arminianism, Puseyism and Evangelicism. The two parties

counterwork each other, write against each other in terms of

equal acrimony, misunderstand each other, misrepresent each

other, accuse and recriminate upon each other, with the same

reckless zeal, in the same unmeasured language—each

inflexibly, exclusively identifying his own cause with that of

true religion, and involving its adversaries in one sweeping

and remorseless condemnation. To us the question of the death

of Clement XIV. is purely of historical interest. It is

singular enough that Protestant writers are cited as alone

doing impartial justice to the Jesuits and their enemies: the

Compurgators of the 'Company of Jesus' are Frederick II. and

the Encyclopedists. Outcast from Roman Catholic Europe, they

found refuge in Prussia, and in the domains of Catherine II.,

from whence they disputed the validity and disobeyed the

decrees of the Pope."

Clement XIV. and the Jesuits

(Quarterly Review, September, 1848.)

"The Jesuit Order remained in abeyance for a period of

forty-two years, until Pius VII. on his return to Rome, after

his liberation from the captivity he endured under Napoleon I.

at Fontainebleau, issued his brief of August 7, 1814,

'solicitudo omnium,' by which he authorised the surviving

members of the Order again to live according to the rules of

their founder, to admit novices, and to found colleges. With

singular fatuity the Papal Edict for the restoration of the

Jesuits, contradicting its own title, assigns on the face of

the document as the principal reason for its being issued the

recommendation contained in the gracious despatch of August

11, 1800, received from Paul, the then reigning Emperor of the

Russias. We have the histories of all nations concurring that

Paul was notoriously mad, and within six months from the date

of that gracious despatch he was strangled in his palace by

the members of his own Court, as the only possible means, as

they conceived, of rescuing the Empire from his insane and

vicious despotism. In return probably for the successful

intercession of Paul, Thadeus Brzozowski, a Pole by birth but

a Russian subject, was elected the first General of the

restored order. We find a striking comment on his

recommendation in the Imperial Ukase of his successor, the

Emperor Alexander, by which, in June 1817, he banished the

Jesuits from all his dominions. Spain, the scene of their

former ignominious treatment, was, under the degraded rule of

the Ferdinandian dynasty, the first country to which they were

recalled; but they were soon again expelled by the National

Cortes. Our limits here confine us to a simple category of

their subsequent expulsions from Roman Catholic States: from

France in 1831, from Saxony in the same year, from Portugal

again in 1834, from Spain again in 1835, from France again in

1845, from the whole of Switzerland, including the Roman

Catholic Cantons, in 1847, and in 1848 from Bavaria and other

German States. In the Revolution of 1848, they were expelled

from every Italian State, even from the territories of the

Pope; but on the counter Revolution they returned, to be again

expelled in 1859 from Lombardy, Parma, Modena and the

Legations. They have had to endure even a more recent

vicissitude, for, in December 1871, a measure relating to the

vexed question, the Union of Church and State, received the

sanction of the National Council (Bundesrath) of Switzerland,

by which the Jesuits were prohibited from settling in the

country, from interfering even in education, or from founding

or re-establishing colleges throughout the Federal

territories. They have thus within a recent period received

sentence of banishment from almost every Roman Catholic

Government, but they still remain in Rome."

The Jesuits and their Expulsion from Germany

(Fraser's Magazine, May, 1873).

{1895}

JESUITS: A. D. 1847.

The question of Expulsion in Switzerland.

The Sonderbund and the war of religions.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

JESUITS: A. D. 1880.

The law against Jesuit schools in the French Republic.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

----------JESUITS: End--------

JESUS, Uncertainty of, the date of the birth of.

See JEWS: B. C. 8-A. D. 1.

JEU-DE-PAUME, The Oath at the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JUNE).

JEUNESSE DOREE, of the Anti-Jacobin reaction in France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

----------JEWS: Start--------

JEWS.

The National Names.

There have been two principal conjectures as to the origin of

the name Hebrews, by which the descendants of Abraham were

originally known. One derives the name from a progenitor,

Eber; the other finds its origin in a Semitic word signifying

"over," or "crossed over." In the latter view, the name was

applied by the Canaanites to people who came into their

country from beyond the Euphrates. Ewald, who rejects this

latter hypothesis, says: "While there is nothing to show that

the name emanated from strangers, nothing is more manifest

than that the nation called themselves by it and had done so

as long as memory could reach; indeed this is the only one of

their names that appears to have been current in the earliest

times. The history of this name shows that it must have been

most frequently used in the ancient times, before that branch

of the Hebrews which took the name of Israel became dominant,

but that after the time of the Kings it entirely disappeared

from ordinary speech, and was only revived in the period

immediately before Christ, like many other names of the

primeval times, through the prevalence of a learned mode of

regarding antiquity, when it came afresh into esteem through

the reverence then felt for Abraham."

H. Ewald,

History of Israel,

volume 1, page 284.

After the return of the Israelites from the Babylonian

captivity—the returned exiles being mostly of the tribes of

Judah and Benjamin—"the name of Judah took the predominant

place in the national titles. As the primitive name of

'Hebrew' had given way to the historical name of Israel, so

that of Israel now gave way to the name of 'Judæan' or 'Jew,'

so full of praise and pride, of reproach and scorn. 'It was

born,' as their later historian [Josephus] truly observes, 'on

the day when they came out from Babylon.'"

A. P. Stanley,

Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,

volume 3, page 101.

JEWS:

The early Hebrew history.

"Of course, in the abstract, it is possible that such persons

as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob should have existed. One can

imagine that such and such incidents in the accounts regarding

them really took place, and were handed down by tradition. …

But our present investigation does not concern the question

whether there existed men of those names, but whether the

progenitors of Israel and of the neighbouring nations who are

represented in Genesis are historical personages. It is this

question which we answer in the negative. Must we then deny

all historical value to the narratives of the patriarchs? By

no means. What we have to do is to make proper use of them.

They teach us what the Israelites thought as to their

affinities with the tribes around them, and as to the manner

of their own settlement in the land of their abode. If we

strip them of their genealogical form, and at the same time

take into consideration the influence which Israel's self-love

must have exercised over the representation of relationships

and facts, we have an historical kernel left. … The

narratives in Genesis, viewed and used in this way, lead us to

the following conception of Israel's early history. Canaan was

originally inhabited by a number of tribes—of Semitic origin,

as we shall perceive presently—who applied themselves to the

rearing of cattle, to agriculture, or to commerce, according

to the nature of the districts in which they were established.

The countries which were subsequently named after Edom, Ammon,

and Moab, also had their aboriginal inhabitants, the Horites,

the Zamzummites, and the Emites. Whilst all these tribes

retained possession of their dwelling-places, and the

inhabitants of Canaan especially had reached a tolerably high

stage of civilization and development, there occurred a

Semitic migration, which issued from Arrapachitis (Arphacsad,

Ur Casdim), and moved on in a south-westerly direction. The

countries to the east and the south of Canaan were gradually

occupied by these intruders, the former inhabitants being

either expelled or subjugated; Ammon, Moab, Ishmael, and Edom

became the ruling nations in those districts. In Canaan the

situation was different. The tribes which—at first closely

connected with the Edomites, but afterwards separated from

them—had turned their steps towards Canaan, did not find

themselves strong enough either to drive out, or to exact

tribute from, the original inhabitants; they continued their

wandering life among them, and lived upon the whole at peace

with them. But a real settlement was still their aim. When,

therefore, they had become more numerous and powerful, through

the arrival of a number of kindred settlers from

Mesopotamia—represented in tradition by the army with which

Jacob returns to Canaan—they resumed their march in the same

south-westerly direction, until at length they took possession

of fixed habitations in the land of Goshen, on the borders of

Egypt."

A. Kuenen,

The Religion of Israel,

chapter 2 (volume 1).

"In the oldest extant record respecting Abraham, Genesis xiv.,

… we see him acting as a powerful domestic prince, among

many similar princes, who like him held Canaan in possession;

not calling himself King, like Melchizedek, the priest-king of

Salem, because he was the father and protector of his house,

living with his family and bondmen in the open country, yet

equal in power to the petty Canaanite kings. …

{1896}

Detached as this account may be, it is at least evident from

it that the Canaanites were at that time highly civilised,

since they had a priest-king like Melchizedek, whom Abraham

held in honour, but that they were even then so weakened by

endless divisions and by the emasculating influence of that

culture itself, as either to pay tribute to the warlike

nations of the northeast (as the five kings of the cities of

the Dead Sea had done for twelve years before they rebelled,

ver. 4), or to seek for some valiant descendants of the

northern lands living in their midst, who in return for

certain concessions and services promised them protection and

defence. … This idea furnishes the only tenable historical

view of the migration of Abraham and his kindred. They did not

conquer the land, nor at first hold it by mere force of arms,

like the four north-eastern kings from whose hand Abraham

delivered Lot, Genesis xiv. They advanced as leaders of small

bands, with their fencible servants and the herds, at first

rather sought or even invited by the old inhabitants of the

land, as good warriors and serviceable allies, than forcing

themselves upon them. Thus they took up their abode and

obtained possessions among them, but were always wishing to

migrate farther, even into Egypt. … Little as we are able to

prove all the details of that migration from the north towards

Egypt, which probably continued for centuries, it may with

great certainty be conceived as on the whole similar to the

gradual advance of many other northern nations; as of the

Germans towards Rome, and of the Turks in these same regions

in the Middle Ages. … We now understand that Abraham's name

can designate only one of the most important and oldest of the

Hebrew immigrations. But since Abraham had so early attained a

name glorious among the Hebrews advancing towards the south,

and since he was everything especially to the nation of Israel

which arose out of this immigration, and to their nearest

kindred, his name came to be the grand centre and

rallying-point of all the memory of those times."

H. Ewald,

History of Israel,

book 1, section 1, C, part 3.

JEWS:

The Children of Israel in Egypt.

"It has been very generally supposed that Abraham's visit to

Egypt took place under the reign of one of the kings of the

twelfth dynasty [placed by Brugsch B. C. 2466-2266], but which

king has not yet been satisfactorily made out. … Some

Biblical critics have considered that Amenemha III. was king

of Egypt when Abraham came there, and others that Usertsen I.

was king, and that Amenemha was the Pharaoh of the time of

Joseph. … It is generally accepted now that Joseph was sold

into Egypt at the time when the Hyksos were in power [and

about 1750 B. C.]; and it is also generally accepted that the

Exodus took place after the death of Rameses II. and under the

reign of Merenptah, or Meneptah. Now the children of Israel

were in captivity in Egypt for 400 or 430 years; and as they

went out of Egypt after the death of Rameses II., it was

probably some time about the year 1350 B. C. There is little

doubt that the Pharaoh who persecuted the Israelites so

shamefully was Rameses II."

E. A. W. Budge,

The Dwellers on the Nile,

chapter 4.

"It is stated by George the Syncellus, a writer whose

extensive learning and entire honesty are unquestionable, that

the synchronism of Joseph with Apepi, the last king of the

only known Hyksos dynasty, was 'acknowledged by all.' The best

modern authorities accept this view, if not as clearly

established, at any rate as in the highest degree probable,

and believe that it was Apepi who made the gifted Hebrew his

prime minister, who invited his father and his brethren to

settle in Egypt with their households, and assigned to them

the land of Goshen for their residence."

G. Rawlinson,

History of Ancient Egypt,

chapter 19 (volume 2).

"The new Pharaoh, 'who knew not Joseph,' who adorned the city

of Ramses, the capital of the Tanitic nome, and the city of

Pithom, the capital of what was afterwards the Sethroitic

nome, with temple-cities, is no other, can be no other, than

Ramessu II. or Rameses—the Sesostris of the Greeks, B. C.

1350, of whose buildings at Zoan the monuments and the

papyrus-rolls speak in complete agreement. … Ramessu is the

Pharaoh of the oppression, and the father of that unnamed

princess, who found the child Moses exposed in the bulrushes

on the bank of the river. … If Ramses-Sesostris … must be

regarded beyond all doubt as the Pharaoh under whom the Jewish

legislator Moses first saw the light, so the chronological

relations—having regard to the great age of the two

contemporaries, Ramses II. and Moses—demand that Mineptah

[his son] should in all probability be acknowledged as the

Pharaoh of the Exodus."

H. Brugsch-Bey,

History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,

chapter 14.

The quotations given above represent the orthodox view of

early Jewish history, in the light of modern monumental

studies,—the view, that is, which accepts the Biblical

account of Abraham and his seed as a literal family record,

authentically widening into the annals of a nation. The more

rationalizing views are indicated by the following: "There can

be no doubt … as to the Semitic character of these Hyksos,

or 'Pastors,' who, more than 2,000 years B. C., interrupted in

a measure the current of Egyptian civilisation, and founded at

Zoan (Tanis), near the Isthmus, the centre of a powerful

Semitic state. These Hyksos were to all appearances

Canaanites, near relations of the Hittites of Hebron. Hebron

was in close community with Zoan, and there is a tradition,

probably based upon historical data, that the two cities were

built nearly at the same time. As invariably happens when

barbarians enter into an ancient and powerful civilisation,

the Hyksos soon became Egyptianised. … The Hyksos of Zoan

could not fail to exercise a great influence upon the Hebrews

who were encamped around Hebron, the Dead Sea, and in the

southern districts of Palestine. The antipathy which

afterwards existed between the Hebrews and the Canaanites was

not as yet very perceptible. … There are the best of reasons

for believing that the immigration of the Beni-Israel took

place at two separate times. A first batch of Israelites seems

to have been attracted by the Hittites of Egypt, while the

bulk of the tribe was living upon the best of terms with the

Hittites of Hebron. These first immigrants found favour with

the Egyptianised Hittites of Memphis and Zoan; they secured

very good positions, had children, and constituted a distinct

family in Israel. This was what was afterwards called the

'clan of the Josephel,' or the Beni-Joseph. Finding themselves

well off in Lower Egypt, they sent for their brethren, who,

impelled perhaps by famine, joined them there, and were

received also favourably by the Hittite dynasties. These

new-comers never went to Memphis. They remained in the

vicinity of Zoan, where there is a land of Goshen, which was

allotted to them. …

{1897}

The whole of these ancient days, concerning which Israel

possesses only legends and contradictory traditions, is

enveloped in doubt; one thing, however, is certain, viz., that

Israel entered Egypt under a dynasty favourable to the

Semites, and left it under one which was hostile. The presence

of a nomad tribe upon the extreme confines of Egypt must have

been a matter of very small importance for this latter

country. There is no certain trace of it in the Egyptian

texts. The kingdom of Zoan, upon the contrary, left a deep

impression upon the Israelites. Zoan became for them

synonymous with Egypt. The relations between Zoan and Hebron

were kept up, and … Hebron was proud of the synchronism,

which made it out seven years older than Zoan. The

first-comers, the Josephites, always assumed an air of

superiority over their brethren, whose position they had been

instrumental in establishing. … Their children, born in

Egypt, possibly of Egyptian mothers, were scarcely Israelites.

An agreement was come to, however; it was agreed that the

Josephites should rank as Israelites with the rest. They

formed two distinct tribes, those of Ephraim and Manasseh. …

It is not impossible that the origin of the name of Joseph

(addition, adjunction, annexation) may have arisen from the

circumstance that the first emigrants and their families,

having become strangers to their brethren, needed some sort of

adjunction to become again part and parcel of the family of

Israel."

E. Renan,

History of the People of Israel,

book 1, chapter 10 (volume 1).

See, also, EGYPT: THE HYKSOS, and ABOUT B. C. 1400-1200.

JEWS:

The Route of the Exodus.

It is said of the oppressed Israelites in Egypt that "they

built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses."

(Exodus i. 11.) One of those "treasure cities," or

"store-cities," has been discovered, in a heap of ruins, at a

place which the Arabs call "Tell el Maskhutah," and it was

supposed at first to be the Raamses of the Biblical record.

But explorations made in 1883 by M. Naville seem to have

proved that it is the store-city of Pithom which lies buried

in the mounds at Tell el Maskhutah and that Raamses is still

to be found. As Raamses or Ramses was the starting point of

the Exodus, something of a controversy concerning the route of

the latter turns upon the question. It is the opinion of M.

Naville that Succoth, where the Children of Israel made their

first halt, was the district in which Pithom is situated, and

that the Land of Goshen, their dwelling-place in Egypt, was a

region embracing that district. The site of Pithom, as

identified by Naville, is "on the south side of the sweet

water canal which runs from Cairo to Suez through the Wadi

Tumilât, about 12 miles from Ismailiah." The excavations made

have brought to light a great number of chambers, with massive

walls of brick, which are conjectured to have been granaries

and storehouses, for the provisioning of caravans and armies

to cross the desert to Syria, as well as for the collecting of

tribute and for the warehousing of trade. Hence the name of

store-city, or treasure-city. Under the Greeks Pithom changed

its name to Heroopolis, and a new city called Arsinoë was

built near it.

E. Naville,

The Store-City of Pithom.

"I submit that Goshen, properly speaking, was the land which

afterwards became the Arabian nome, viz., the country round

Saft el Henneh east of the canal Abu-I-Munagge, a district

comprising Belbeis and Abbaseh, and probably extending further

north than the Wadi Tumilat. The capital of the nome was Pa

Sopt, called by the Greeks Phacusa, now Saft el Henneh. At the

time when the Israelites occupied the land, the term 'Goshen'

belonged to a region which as yet had no definite boundaries,

and which extended with the increase of the people over the

territory they inhabited. The term 'land of Ramses' applies to

a larger area, and covers that part of the Delta which lies to

the eastward of the Tanitic branch. … As for the city of

Ramses, it was situate in the Arabian nome. Probably it was

Phacusa."

E. Naville,

Shrine of Saft el Henneh and the Land of Goshen.

The Israelites leaving Succoth, a region which we now know

well, the neighbourhood of Tell-el-Maskhutah, push forward

towards the desert, skirting the northern shore of the gulf,

and thus reach the wilderness of Etham; but there, because of

the pursuit of Pharaoh, they have to change their course, they

are told to retrace their steps, so as to put the sea between

them and the desert. … 'And the Lord spake unto Moses,

saying: Speak unto the children of Israel that they turn and

encamp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over

against Baalzephon; before it shall ye encamp by the sea.' …

The question is now, Where are we to look for Migdol and

Pi-Hahiroth? As for Migdol, the ancient authors, and

particularly the Itinerary, mention a Migdol, or Magdolon,

which was twelve Roman miles distant from Pelusium. It is not

possible to admit that this is the same Migdol which is spoken

of in Exodus, for then it would not be the Red Sea, but the

Mediterranean, which the Israelites would have before them,

and we should thus have to fall in with MM. Schleiden and

Brugsch's theory, that they followed the narrow track which

lies between the Mediterranean and the Serbonian Bog. However

ingenious are the arguments on which this system is based, I

believe it must now be dismissed altogether, because we know

the site of the station of Succoth. Is it possible to admit

that, from the shore of the Arabian Gulf, the Israelites

turned to the north, and marched forty miles through the

desert in order to reach the Mediterranean? The journey would

have lasted several days; they would have been obliged to pass

in front of the fortresses of the north; they would have

fallen into the way of the land of the Philistines, which they

were told not to take; and, lastly, the Egyptians, issuing

from Tanis and the northern cities, would have easily

intercepted them. … All these reasons induce me to give up

definitively the idea of the passage by the north, and to

return to the old theory of a passage of the Red Sea, but of

the Red Sea as it was at that time, extending a great deal

farther northward, and not the Red Sea of to-day, which

occupies a very different position. The word Migdol, in

Egyptian, … is a common name. It means a fort, a tower. It

is very likely that in a fortified region there have been

several places so called, distinguished from each other,

either by the name of the king who built them, or by some

local circumstance; just as there are in Italy a considerable

number of Torre. I should therefore, with M. Ebers, place

Migdol at the present station of the Serapeum. There the sea

was not wide, and the water probably very shallow; there also

the phenomenon which took place on such a large scale when the

Israelites went through must have been well known, as it is

often seen now in other parts of Egypt.

{1898}

As at this point the sea was liable to be driven back under

the influence of the east wind, and to leave a dry way, the

Pharaohs were obliged to have there a fort, a Migdol, so as to

guard that part of the sea, and to prevent the Asiatics of the

desert from using this temporary gate to enter Egypt, to steal

cattle, and to plunder the fertile land which was round

Pithom."

E. Naville,

The Store-City of Pithom and the Route of the Exodus

(Egypt Expl. Fund, 1885).

"Modern critics prefer an intelligent interpretation,

according to known natural laws, of the words of Exodus xiv.

21, 22, which lay stress upon the 'east wind' as the direct

natural agent by which the sea bottom was for the time made

dry land. … The theory, which dates from an early period,

that the passage was in some sense tidal, miraculously aided

by the agency of wind, has thus come to be very generally

adopted."

H. S. Palmer,

Sinai

(Ancient History from the Monuments),

chapter 6.

JEWS:

The conquest of Canaan.

"The first essay [west of Jordan] was made by Judah in

conjunction with Simeon and Levi, but was far from prosperous.

Simeon and Levi were annihilated; Judah also, though

successful in mastering the mountain land to the west of the

Dead Sea, was so only at the cost of severe losses which were

not again made up until the accession of the Kenite families

of the south (Caleb). As a consequence of the secession of

these tribes, a new division of the nation into Israel and

Judah took the place of that which had previously subsisted

between the families of Leah and Rachel; under Israel were

included all the tribes except Simeon, Levi, and Judah, which

three are no longer mentioned in Judges v., where all the

others are carefully and exhaustively enumerated. This

half-abortive first invasion of the west was followed by a

second, which was stronger and attended with much better

results. It was led by the tribe of Joseph, to which the

others attached themselves, Reuben and Gad only remaining

behind in the old settlements. The district to the north of

Judah, inhabited afterwards by Benjamin, was the first to be

attacked. It was not until after several towns of this

district had one by one fallen into the hands of the

conquerors that the Canaanites set about a united resistance.

They were, however, decisively repulsed by Joshua in the

neighbourhood of Gibeon [or Beth-horon]; and by this victory

the Israelites became masters of the whole central plateau of

Palestine. The first camp, at Gilgal, near the ford of Jordan,

which had been maintained until then, was now removed, and the

ark of Jehovah brought further inland (perhaps by way of

Bethel) to Shiloh, where henceforwards the headquarters were

fixed, in a position which seemed as if it had been expressly

made to favour attacks upon the fertile tract lying beneath it

on the north. The Bne Rachel now occupied the new territory

which up to that time had been acquired—Benjamin, in

immediate contiguity with the frontier of Judah, then Ephraim,

stretching to beyond Shiloh, and lastly Manasseh, furthest to

the north, as far as to the plain of Jezreel. The centre of

gravity, so to speak, already lay in Ephraim, to which

belonged Joshua and the ark, It is mentioned as the last

achievement of Joshua that at the waters of Merom he defeated

Jabin, king of Hazor, and the allied princes of Galilee,

thereby opening up the north for Israelitish settlers. …

Even after the united resistance of the Canaanites had been

broken, each individual community had still enough to do

before it could take firm hold of the spot which it had

searched out for itself or to which it had been assigned. The

business of effecting permanent settlement was just a

continuation of the former struggle, only on a diminished

scale; every tribe and every family now fought for its own

hand after the preliminary work had been accomplished by a

united effort. Naturally, therefore, the conquest was at first

but an incomplete one. The plain which fringed the coast was

hardly touched; so also the valley of Jezreel with its girdle

of fortified cities stretching from Acco to Bethshean. All

that was subdued in the strict sense of that word was the

mountainous land, particularly the southern hill-country of

'Mount Ephraim'; yet even here the Canaanites retained

possession of not a few cities, such as Jebus, Shechem,

Thebez. It was only after the lapse of centuries that all the

lacunæ were filled up, and the Canaanite enclaves made

tributary. The Israelites had the extraordinarily

disintegrated state of the enemy to thank for the ease with

which they had achieved success."

J. Wellhausen,

Sketch of the History of Israel and Judah,

chapter 2.

"Remnants of the Canaanites remained everywhere among and

between the Israelites. Beside the Benjamites the Jebusites (a

tribe of the Amorites) maintained themselves, and at Gibeon,

Kirjath-jearim, Chephirah, and Beeroth were the Hivites, who

had made peace with the Israelites. In the land of Ephraim,

the Canaanites held their ground at Geser and Bethel, until

the latter—it was an important city—was stormed by the

Ephraimites. Among the tribe of Manasseh the Canaanites were

settled at Beth Shean, Dan, Taanach, Jibleam, Megiddo and

their districts, and in the northern tribes the Canaanites

were still more numerous. It was not till long after the

immigration of the Hebrews that they were made in part

tributary. The land of the Israelites beyond the Jordan, where

the tribe of Manasseh possessed the north, Gad the centre, and

Reuben the south as far as the Arnon, was exposed to the

attacks of the Ammonites and Moabites, and the migratory

tribes of the Syrian desert, and must have had the greater

attraction for them, as better pastures were to be found in

the heights of Gilead, and the valleys there were more

fruitful. To the west only the tribe of Ephraim reached the

sea, and became master of a harbourless strip of coast. The

remaining part of the coast and all the harbours remained in

the hands of the powerful cities of the Philistines and the

Phenicians. No attempt was made to conquer these, although

border-conflicts took place between the tribes of Judah, Dan,

and Asher, and Philistines and Sidonians. Such an attempt

could only have been made if the Israelites had remained

united, and even then the powers of the Israelites would

hardly have sufficed to overthrow the walls of Gaza, Ascalon,

and Ashdod, of Tyre, Sidon, and Byblus. Yet the invasion of

the Israelites was not without results for the cities of the

coast: it forced a large part of the population to assemble in

them, and we shall see … how rapid and powerful is the

growth of the strength and importance of Tyre in the time

immediately following the incursion of the Israelites, i. e.,

immediately after the middle of the thirteenth century.

{1899}

As the population and in consequence the power of the cities

on the coast increased, owing to the collection of the ancient

population on the shore of the sea, those cities became all

the more dangerous neighbours for the Israelites. It was a

misfortune for the new territory which the Israelites had won

by the sword that it was without the protection of natural

boundaries on the north and east, that the cities of the

Philistines and Phenicians barred it towards the sea, and in

the interior remnants of the Canaanites still maintained their

place. Yet it was a far more serious danger for the immigrants

that they were without unity, connection, or guidance, for

they had already given up these before the conflict was ended.

Undoubtedly a vigorous leadership in the war of conquest

against the Canaanites might have established a military

monarchy which would have provided better for the maintenance

of the borders and the security of the land than was done in

its absence. But the isolated defence made by the Canaanites

permitted the attacking party also to isolate themselves. The

new masters of the land lived, like the Canaanites before and

among them, in separate cantons; the mountain land which they

possessed was much broken up, and without any natural centre,

and though there were dangerous neighbours, there was no

single concentrated aggressive power in the neighbourhood, now

that Egypt remained in her borders. The cities of the

Philistines formed a federation merely, though a federation

far more strongly organised than the tribes of the Israelites.

Under these circumstances political unity was not an

immediately pressing question among the Israelites."

M. Duncker,

History of Antiquity,

book 2, chapter 11 (volume 1).

H. Ewald,

History of Israel,

book 2, section 2, C.

JEWS:

Israel under the Judges.

The wars of the Period.

Conquest of Gilead and Bashan.

Founding of the kingdom.

"The office which gives its name to the period [between the

death of Joshua and the rise of Samuel] well describes it. It

was occasional, irregular, uncertain, yet gradually tending to

fixedness and perpetuity. Its title is itself expressive. The

Ruler was not regal, but he was more than the mere head of a

tribe, or the mere judge of special cases. We have to seek for

the origin of the name, not amongst the Sheykhs of the Arabian

desert, but amongst the civilised settlements of Phœnicia.

'Shophet,' 'Shophetim,' the Hebrew word which we translate

'Judge,' is the same as we find in the 'Suffes,' 'Suffetes,'

of the Carthaginian rulers at the time of the Punic wars. As

afterwards the office of 'king' was taken from the nations

round about, so now, if not the office, at least the name of

'judge' or 'shophet' seems to have been drawn from the

Canaanitish cities, with which for the first time Israel came

into contact. … Finally the two offices which, in the

earlier years of this period, had remained distinct—the High

Priest and the Judge—were united in the person of Eli."

Dean Stanley,

Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,

lecture 13.

"The first war mentioned in the days of the Judges is with the

Syrians, at a time when the Israelites, or a northern portion

of them, were held in servitude for eight years by a king

whose name, Cushan-rish-athaim, which may be translated the

'Most Wicked Negress,' seems to place him in the region of

imaginary tradition rather than of history. … The next war

mentioned was an invasion by the Moabites, who, being joined

with a body of Ammonites, and Amalakites, harassed the

Israelites of the neighbourhood of Gilgal and Jericho. …

After a servitude of 18 years under the Moabites, Ehud, a

Benjamite, found an opportunity of stabbing Eglon, the king of

Moab; and shortly afterwards the Benjamites were relieved by a

body of their neighbours from the hill country of Ephraim. The

Israelites then defeated the Moabites, and seized the fords of

the Jordan to stop their retreat, and slew them all to a man.

While this war was going on on one side of the land, the

Philistines from the south were harassing those of the

Israelites who were nearest to their country. … The history

then carries us back to the northern Israelites, and we hear

of their struggle with the Canaanites of that part of the

country which was afterwards called Galilee. These people were

under a king named Jabin, who had 900 chariots of iron, and

they cruelly oppressed the men of Naphtali and Zebulun, who

were at that time the most northerly of the Israelites. After

a suffering of 20 years, the two tribes of Zebulun and

Naphtali, under the leadership of Barak, rallied against their

oppressors, and called to their help their stronger

neighbours, the men of Ephraim. The tribe of Ephraim was the

most settled portion of the Israelites, and they had adopted

some form of government, while the other tribes were

stragglers scattered over the land, every man doing what was

right in his own eyes. The Ephraimites were at that time

governed, or, in their own language, judged, by a brave woman

of the name of Deborah, who led her followers, together with

some of the Benjamites, to the assistance of Barak, the leader

of Zebulun and Naphtali; and, at the foot of Mount Tabor, near

the brook Kishon, their united forces defeated Sisern, the

general of the Canaanites. Sisera fled, and was murdered by

Jael, a woman in whose tent he had sought for refuge. … The

next war that we are told of is an invasion by the Midianites

and Amalakites and Children of the East. They crossed the

Jordan to attack the men of Manasseh, who were at the same

time struggling with the Amorites, the natives who dwelt

amongst them. Gideon, the leader of Manasseh, called together

the fighting men of his own tribe, together with those of

Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali. The men of Gilead, who had come

over to help him, seem to have deserted him. Gideon, however,

routed his enemies, and then he summoned the Ephraimites to

guard the fords of the Jordan, and to cut off the fugitives.

… This victory of Gideon, or Jerubbaal, as he was also

named, marked him out as a man fit to be the ruler of Israel,

and to save them from the troubles that arose from the want of

a single head to lead them against the enemies that surrounded

them and dwelt among them. Accordingly, he obtained the rank

of chief of all the northern Israelites. Gideon had dwelt at

Ophrah, in the land of Manasseh; but his son Abimelech, who

succeeded him in his high post, was born in Shechem, in the

land of Ephraim, and had thus gained the friendship of some of

that tribe. Abimelech put to death all but one of his

brethren, the other sons of Gideon, and got himself made king

at Shechem; and he was the first who bore that title among the

Israelites.

{1900}

But his thus violently seizing upon the power was the cause of

a long civil war between Ephraim and Manasseh, which ended in

the death of the usurper Abimelech, and the transfer of the

chieftainship to another tribe. Tola, a man of Issachar, was

then made Judge, or ruler of the northern tribes. … After

Tola, says the historian, Jair of Gilead judged Israel. …

Jair and his successors may have ruled in the east at the same

time that Deborah and Gideon and their successors were ruling

or struggling against their oppressors in the west. Jephtha of

Gilead is the next great captain mentioned. … The Ammonites,

who dwelt in the more desert country to the east of Gilead,

had made a serious incursion on the Israelites on both sides

of the Jordan; and the men of Gilead, in their distress, sent

for Jephtha, who was then living at Tob, in Syria, whither he

had fled from a quarrel with his brethren. … It seems that

the Ammonites invaded Gilead on the plea that they had

possessed that land before the Israelites arrived there, to

which Jephtha answered that the Israelites had dispossessed

the Amorites under Sihon, king of Heshbon, and that the

Ammonites had not dwelt in that part of the country. In

stating the argument, the historian gives a history of their

arrival on the banks of the Jordan. On coming out of Lower

Egypt, they crossed the desert to the Red Sea, and then came

to Kadesh. From thence they asked leave of the Edomites and

Moabites to pass through their territory; but, being refused,

they went round Moab till they came to the northern bank of

the river Arnon, an eastern tributary of the Jordan. There

they were attacked by Sihon, king of the Amorites; and on

defeating him they seized his territory, which lay between the

Arnon and the Jabbok. There the Israelites had dwelt quietly

for 300 years, without fighting against either the Moabites or

the Ammonites, who were both too strong to be attacked. This

is a most interesting narrative, both for what it tells and

for what it omits, as compared with the longer narrative in

the Pentateuch. … It omits all mention of the delivery of

the Law, or of the Ark, or of any supernatural events as

having happened on the march, and of the fighting with Og,

king of Bashan. Og, or Gog, as it is spelled by other writers,

was the name of the monarch whose imaginary castles, seen upon

the mountains in the distance, the traveller thought it not

wise to approach. They were at the limits of all geographical

knowledge. At this early time this fabulous king held Mount

Bashan; in Ezekiel's time he had retreated to the shores of

the Caspian Sea; and ten centuries later the Arabic travellers

were stopped by him at the foot of the Altai Mountains, in

Central Asia. His withdrawing before the advance of

geographical explorers proves his unreal character. He is not

mentioned in this earlier account of the Israelites settling

in the land of the Amorites; it is only in the more modern

narrative in the Book of Numbers that he is attacked and

defeated in battle, and only in the yet more modern Book of

Deuteronomy that we learn about his iron bedstead of nine

cubits in length."

S. Sharpe,

History of the Hebrew Nation,

pages 4-9.

"At the close of the period of the Judges the greater part of

the Israelites had quite lost their pastoral habits. They were

an agricultural people living in cities and villages, and

their oldest civil laws I are framed for this kind of life.

All the new arts which this complete change of habit implies

they must have derived from the Canaanites, and as they

learned the ways of agricultural life they could hardly fail

to acquire many of the characteristics of their teachers. To

make the transformation complete only one thing was lacking

—that Israel should also accept the religion of the

aborigines. The history and the prophets alike testify that to

a great extent they actually did this. Canaanite sanctuaries

became Hebrew holy places, and the vileness of Canaanite

nature-worship polluted the Hebrew festivals. For a time it

seemed that Jehovah, the ancestral God of Israel, who brought

their fathers up out of the house of bondage and gave them

their goodly land, would be forgotten or transformed into a

Canaanite Baal. If this change had been completed Israel would

have left no name in the world's history; but Providence had

other things in store for the people of Jehovah. Henceforth

the real significance of Israel's fortunes lies in the

preservation and development of the national faith, and the

history of the tribes of Jacob is rightly set forth in the

Bible as the history of that divine discipline by which

Jehovah maintained a people for Himself amidst the seductions

of Canaanite worship and the ever-new backslidings of Israel.

… In the end Jehovah was still the God of Israel, and had

become the God of Israel's land. Canaan was His heritage, not

the heritage of the Baalim, and the Canaanite worship appears

henceforth, not as a direct rival to the worship of Jehovah,

but as a disturbing element corrupting the national faith,

while unable to supplant it altogether. This, of course, in

virtue of the close connection between religion and national

feeling, means that Israel had now risen above the danger of

absorption in the Canaanites, and felt itself to be a nation

in the true sense of the word. We learn from the books of

Samuel how this great advance was ultimately and permanently

secured. The earlier wars recorded in the book of Judges had

brought about no complete or lasting unity among the Hebrew

tribes. But at length a new enemy arose, more formidable than

any whom they had previously encountered. The Philistines from

Caphtor, who, like the Israelites, had entered Canaan as

emigrants, but coming most probably by sea had displaced the

aboriginal Avvim in the rich coastlands beneath the mountains

of Judah (Deuteronomy ii. 23; Amos ix. 7), pressed into the

heart of the country, and broke the old strength of Ephraim in

the battle of Ebenezer. This victory cut the Hebrew

settlements in two, and threatened the independence of all the

tribes. The common danger drew Israel together."

W. Robertson Smith,

The Prophets of Israel,

lecture 1.

JEWS:

The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

"No one appeared again in the character at once of judge and

warrior, to protect the people by force of arms. It was the

Levite Samuel, a prophet dedicated to God even before his

birth, who recalled them to the consciousness of religious

feeling. He succeeded in removing the emblems of Baal and

Astarte from the heights, and in paving the way for renewed

faith in Jehovah. … It was the feeling of the people that

they could only carry on the war upon the system employed by

all their neighbors.

{1901}

They demanded a king—a request very intelligible under

existing circumstances, but one which nevertheless involved a

wide and significant departure from the impulses which had

hitherto moved the Jewish community and the forms in which it

had shaped itself. … The Israelites demanded a king, not

only to go before them and fight their battles, but also to

judge them. They no longer looked for their preservation to

the occasional efforts of the prophetic order and the

ephemeral existence of heroic leaders. … The argument by

which Samuel, as the narrative records, seeks to deter the

people from their purpose, is that the king will encroach upon

the freedom of private life which they have hitherto enjoyed,

employing their sons and daughters in his service, whether in

the palace or in war, exacting tithes, taking the best part of

the land for himself, and regarding all as his bondsmen. In

this freedom of tribal and family life lay the essence of the

Mosaic constitution. But the danger that all may be lost is so

pressing that the people insist upon their own will in

opposition to the prophet. Nevertheless, without the prophet

nothing can be done, and it is he who selects from the youth

of the country the man who is to enjoy the new dignity in

Israel. … At first the proceeding had but a doubtful result.

Many despised a young man sprung from the smallest family of

the smallest tribe of Israel, as one who could give them no

real assistance. In order to make effective the conception of

the kingly office thus assigned to him, it was necessary in

the first place that he should gain for himself a personal

reputation. A king of the Ammonites, a tribe in affinity to

Israel, laid siege to Jabesh in Gilead, and burdened the

proffered surrender of the place with the condition that he

should put out the right eyes of the inhabitants. … Saul,

the son of Kish, a Benjamite, designated by the prophet as

king, but not as yet recognized as such, was engaged, as

Gideon before him, in his rustic labors, when he learned the

situation through the lamentations of the people. … Seized

with the idea of his mission, Saul cuts in pieces a yoke of

oxen, and sends the portions to the twelve tribes with the

threat, 'Whosoever cometh not forth after Saul and after

Samuel, so shall it be done unto his oxen.' … Thus urged,

… Israel combines like one man; Jabesh is rescued and Saul

acknowledged as king. … With the recognition of the king,

however, and the progress of his good-fortune, a new and

disturbing element appears. A contest breaks out between him

and the prophet, in which we recognize not so much opposition

as jealousy between the two powers. … On the one side was

the independent power of monarchy, which looks to the

requirements of the moment, on the other the prophet's

tenacious and unreserved adherence to tradition. … The

relations between the tribes have also some bearing on the

question. Hitherto Ephraim had led the van, and jealously

insisted on its prerogative. Saul was of Benjamin, a tribe

nearly related to Ephraim by descent. He had made the men of

his own tribe captains, and had given them vineyards. On the

other hand, the prophet chose Saul's successor from the tribe

of Judah. This successor was David, the son of Jesse. … In

the opposition which now begins we have on the one side the

prophet and his anointed, who aim at maintaining the religious

authority in all its aspects, on the other the champion and

deliverer of the nation, who, abandoned by the faithful, turns

for aid to the powers of darkness and seeks knowledge of the

future through witchcraft. Saul is the first tragic personage

in the history of the world. David took refuge with the

Philistines. Among them he lived as an independent military

chieftain, and was joined not only by opponents of the king,

but by others, ready for any service, or, in the language of

the original, 'men armed with bows, who could use both the

right hand and the left in hurling stones and shooting arrows

out of a bow.' … In any serious war against the Israelites,

such as actually broke out, the Sarim of the Philistines would

not have tolerated him amongst them. David preferred to engage

in a second attack upon the Amalekites, the common enemy of

Philistines and Jews. At this juncture Israel was defeated by

the Philistines. The king's sons were slain; Saul, in danger

of falling into the enemy's hands, slew himself. Meanwhile

David with his freebooters had defeated the Amalekites, and

torn from their grasp the spoil they had accumulated, which

was now distributed in Judah. Soon after, the death of Saul is

announced. … David, conscious of being the rightful

successor of Saul—for on him too, long ere this, the unction

had been bestowed—betook himself to Hebron, the seat of the

ancient Canaanitish kings, which had subsequently been given

up to the priests and made one of the cities of refuge. It was

in the province of Judah; and there, the tribe of Judah

assisting at the ceremony, David was once more anointed. This

tribe alone, however, acknowledged him; the others, especially

Ephraim and Benjamin, attached themselves to Ishbosheth, the

surviving son of Saul. … The first passage of arms between

the two hosts took place between twelve of the tribe of

Benjamin and twelve of David's men-at-arms. It led, however,

to no result; it was a mutual slaughter, so complete as to

leave no survivor. But in the more serious struggle which

succeeded this the troops of David, trained as they were in

warlike undertakings of great daring as well as variety, won

the victory over Ishbosheth; and as the unanointed king could

not rely upon the complete obedience of his

commander-in-chief, who considered himself as important as his

master, David, step by step, won the upper hand. … The

Benjamites had been the heart and soul of the opposition which

David experienced. Nevertheless, the first action which he

undertook as acknowledged king of all the tribes redounded

specially to their advantage, whilst it was at the same time a

task of the utmost importance for the whole Israelitish

commonwealth. Although Joshua had conquered the Amorites, one

of their strongholds, Jebus, still remained unsubdued, and the

Benjamites had exerted all their strength against it in vain.

It was to this point that David next directed his victorious

arms. Having conquered the place, he transferred the seat of

his kingdom thither without delay [see JERUSALEM]. This seat

is Jerusalem; the word Zion has the same meaning as Jebus."

L. von Ranke,

Universal History:

The Oldest Historical Groups of Nations,

chapter 2.

{1902}

"After Saul's death it was at first only in Judah, where David

maintained his government, that a new Kingdom of Israel could be

established at all, so disastrous were the consequences of the

great Philistine victory. The Philistines, who must have already

conquered the central territory, now occupied that to the

north, also, while the inhabitants of the cities of the great

plain of Jezreel and of the western bank of the Jordan, fled,

we are very distinctly informed, across the river."

H. Ewald,

History of Israel,

book 3.

But Abner, the strong warrior and the faithful kinsman of

Saul's family, took Ishbosheth, the oldest surviving son of

his dead king, and throned him in the city of Mahanaim, beyond

the Jordan, proceeding gradually to gather a kingdom for him

by reconquest from the Philistines. Thus the Israelite nation

was first divided into the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah,

and there was bitter war between them. But that first division

was not to endure long. Abner and Ishbosheth fell victims to

treachery, and the tribes which had held by them offered

allegiance to David, who then became king over "all Israel and

Judah." By the conquest of the city of Jebus from its

Canaanite founders and possessors, he acquired a new,

impregnable capital, which, under the name of Jerusalem, grew

to be the most reverently looked upon of all the cities of the

world. "History has been completely distorted in representing

David as the head of a powerful kingdom, which embraced nearly

the whole of Syria. David was king of Judah and of Israel, and

that was all; the neighboring peoples, Hebrews, Canaanites,

Arameans and Philistines, as far as Mahul Hermon and the

desert, were sternly subjected, and were more or less its

tributaries. In reality, with the exception, perhaps, of the

small town of Ziklag, David did not annex any non-Israelite

country to the domain of Israel. The Philistines, the

Edomites, the Moabites, the Ammonites, and the Arameans of

Zoba, of Damascus, of Rehob and of Maacah were, after his day,

very much what they were before, only a little weaker.

Conquest was not a characteristic of Israel; the taking

possession of the Canaanite lands was an act of a different

order, and it came to be more and more regarded as the

execution of a decree of Iahveh. As this decree did not extend

to the lands of Edom, of Moab, of Ammon and of Aram, the

Israelites deemed themselves justified in treating the

Edomites, the Moabites, the Ammonites and the Arameans with

the utmost severity, in carrying off their precious stones and

objects of price, but not in taking their land, or in changing

their dynasty. None of the methods employed by great empires

such as Assyria was known to these small peoples, which had

scarcely got beyond the status of tribes. They were as cruel

as Assur, but much less politic and less capable of a general

plan. The impression produced by the appearance of this new

royalty was none the less extraordinary. The halo of glory

which enveloped David remained like a star upon the forehead

of Israel."

E. Renan,

History of the People of Israel,

book 3, chapter 4 (volume 2).

David died about 1000 B. C. and was succeeded by his son

Solomon, whose mother, Bathsheba, secured the throne for him

by intrigue. "Solomon was a younger son, to whom the throne

had been allotted contrary to ordinary laws of succession,

whilst Adonijah, whom a portion of the people had recognised

as king, was considered the rightful heir. So long as the

latter lived. Solomon's government could not be on a firm

basis, and he could never feel himself secure. Adonijah had

therefore to be removed; the leader of the body guard,

Benaiah, forcibly entered his house and killed him. As an

excuse for this act of violence, it was asserted that Adonijah

had attempted to win the hand of Abishag, the young widow of

David, and thus had revealed his traitorous intention of

contesting the throne with his brother. No sooner had he

fallen than Joab, the former adherent of Adonijah, feared that

a similar fate would overtake him. This exemplary general, who

had contributed so considerably to the aggrandisement of the

people of Israel and to the power of the house of David, fled

to the altar on Mount Zion, and clung to it, hoping to escape

death. Benaiah, however, refused to respect his place of

refuge, and shed his blood at the altar. In order to excuse

this crime, it was circulated that David himself, on his

death-bed, had impressed on his successor the duty of

preventing Joab's grey head from sinking in peace to its last

rest. … Adonijah's priestly partisan, Abiathar, whom Solomon

did not dare to touch, was deprived of his office as high

priest, and Zadok was made the sole head of the priesthood.

His descendants were invested with the dignity of high priest

for over a thousand years, whilst the offspring of Abiathar

were neglected. The Benjamite Shimei, who had attacked David

with execrations on his flight from Jerusalem, was also

executed, and it was only through this three-fold deed of

blood that Solomon's throne appeared to gain stability.

Solomon then directed his attention to the formation of a

court of the greatest magnificence."

H. Graetz,

History of the Jews,

volume 1, chapter 9.

"The main characteristic of Solomon's reign was peace. The

Philistines, allies of the new dynasty, and given profitable

employment by it as mercenaries, were no longer tempted to

cross the frontier. … The decay of military strength was

only felt in the zone of countries which were tributary to the

kingdom. Hadad, or Hadar, the Edomite, who had been defeated

by Joab and had taken refuge in Egypt, having heard of David's

death, and that of Joab as well, left Pharaoh, whose

sister-in-law he had married. We have no details of this war.

… We only know that Hadad braved Israel throughout the whole

of Solomon's reign, that he did it all the injury he could,

and that he was an independent ruler over a great part at all

events of Edom. A still more formidable adversary was Rezon,

son of Eliadah, an Aramean warrior who, after the defeat of

his lord, Hadadezer, king of Zobah, had assembled about him

those who had fled before the sword of David. … A lucky

'coup-de-main' placed the city of Damascus at their mercy, and

they succeeded in maintaining themselves there. During the

whole of Solomon's reign Rezon continued to make war against

Israel. The kingdom of Zobah does not appear, however, to have

been re-established. Damascus became henceforth the centre and

capital of that part of Aramea which adjoined Mount Hermon.

David's horizon never extended beyond Syria. With Solomon,

fresh perspectives opened up for the Israelites, especially

for Jerusalem. Israel is no longer a group of tribes,

continuing to lead in its mountains the patriarchal life of

the past. It is a well-organised kingdom, small according to

our ideas, but rather large judged by the standard of the day.

The worldly life of the people of Iahveh is about to begin. If

Israel had no other life but that it would not have found a

place in history. … An alliance with Egypt was the first

step in that career of profane politics which the prophets

afterwards interlarded with so much that was impossible. …

{1903}

The king of Egypt gave Gezer as a dowry to his daughter, and

married her to Solomon. … It is not too much to suppose that

the tastes of this princess for refined luxury had a great

influence upon the mind of her husband. … The relations of

Solomon with Tyre exercised a still more civilising influence.

Tyre, recently separated from Sidon, was then at the zenith of

its activity, and, so to speak, in the full fire of its first

foundation. A dynasty of kings named Hiram, or rather Ahiram,

was at the head of this movement. The island was covered with

constructions imitated from Egypt. … Hiram is the close ally

of the king of Israel; it is he who provides Solomon with the

artists who were lacking at Jerusalem; the precious materials

for the buildings in Zion; seamen for the fleet of Eziongeber.

The region of the upper Jordan, conquered by David, appears to

have remained tributary to Solomon. What has been related as

to a much larger extension of the kingdom of Solomon is

greatly exaggerated. … The fables as to the pretended

foundation of Palmyra by Solomon come from a letter

intentionally added to the text of the ancient historiographer

by the compiler of the Chronicles. The construction of Baalbec

by Solomon rests upon a still more inadmissible piece of

identification. … In reality, the dominion of Solomon was

confined to Palestine. … What was better than peoples kept

under by force, the Arab brigands were held in check from

pillage. The Amalekites, the Midianites, the Beni-Quedem and

other nomads were confronted with an impassable barrier all

around Israel. The Philistines preserved their independence.

… When it is surmised that Solomon reigned over all Syria,

the size of his kingdom is exaggerated at least fourfold.

Solomon's kingdom was barely a fourth of what is now called

Syria. … Solomon … built 'cities of store,' or warehouses,

the commercial or military object of which cannot well be

defined. There was, more especially, a place named Tamar, in

the direction of Petra, of which Solomon made a city, and

which became a calling-place for the caravans. … With very

good reason, too, Solomon had his attention constantly fixed

upon the Red Sea, a broad canal which placed the dawning

civilisation of the Mediterranean in communication with India,

and thus opened up a new world, that of Ophir. The Bay of Suez

belonged to Egypt, but the Gulf of Akaba was, one may say, at

the mercy of anyone who cared to take it. Elath and

Asiongaber, according to all appearances, had been of very

little importance in earlier times. Without regularly

occupying the country, Solomon secured the route by the Valley

of Araba. He built a fleet at Asiongaber, though the

Israelites had never much liking for the sea. Hiram provided

Solomon with sailors, or, what is more probable, the two

fleets acted together. On leaving the Straits of Aden, they

went to Ophir, that is to say, to Western India, to Guzarate,

or to the coast of Malabar."

E. Renan,

History of the People of Israel,

book 3, chapter 10 (volume 2).

The government of Solomon was extravagant and despotic; it

imposed burdens upon the people which were borne impatiently

until his death; and when his son Rehoboam refused to lessen

them, the nation was instantly broken again on the lines of

the earlier rupture. The two tribes of Judah and Benjamin,

only, remained faithful to the house of David and constituted

the kingdom of Judah. The other ten tribes made Jeroboam their

king and retained the name of Israel for their kingdom. The

period of this division is fixed at 978 B. C. Jerusalem

continued to be the capital of the kingdom of Judah. In the

kingdom of Israel several changes of royal residence occurred

during the first half century, until Samaria was founded by

King Omri and thenceforth became the capital city. "Six miles

from Shechem, in the same well-watered valley, here opening

into a wide basin, rises an oblong hill, with steep yet

accessible sides, and a long level top. This was the mountain

of Samaria, or, as it is called in the original, Shômeron, so

named after its owner Shemer, who there lived in state, and

who sold it to the King for the great sum of two talents of

silver."

Dean Stanley,

Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,

lectures 29-30 (volume 2).

For two centuries, until the overthrow of the kingdom, Samaria

continued to be the queen of the land, and the seat of

government, often giving its name to the whole state, so that

the kings were called "Kings of Samaria." "Under the dynasties

of Omri and Jehu [10th-8th centuries, B. C.] the Northern

Kingdom took the leading part in Israel; even to the Judæan

Amos it was Israel 'par excellence.' Judah was not only

inferior in political power, but in the share it took in the

active movements of national life and thought. In tracing the

history of religion and the work of the prophets, we have been

almost exclusively occupied with the North; Amos himself, when

charged with a message to the whole family that Jehovah

brought up out of Egypt, leaves his home to preach in a

Northern sanctuary. During this whole period we have a much

fuller knowledge of the life of Ephraim than of Judah; the

Judæan history consists of meagre extracts from official

records, except where it comes into contact with the North,

through the alliance of Jehoshaphat with Ahab; through the

reaction of Jehu's revolution in the fall of Athaliah, the

last scion of the house of Ahab, and the accompanying

abolition of Baal worship at Jerusalem, or, finally, through

the presumptuous attempt of Amaziah to measure his strength

with the powerful monarch of Samaria. While the house of

Ephraim was engaged in the great war with Syria, Judah had

seldom to deal with enemies more formidable than the

Philistines or the Edomites; and the contest with these foes,

renewed with varying success generation after generation,

resolved itself into a succession of forays and blood-feuds

such as have always been common in the lands of the Semites

(Amos i.), and never assumed the character of a struggle for

national existence. It was the Northern Kingdom that had the

task of upholding the standard of Israel; its whole history

presents greater interest and more heroic elements; its

struggles, its calamities, and its glories were cast in a

larger mould. It is a trite proverb that the nation which has

no history is happy, and perhaps the course of Judah's

existence ran more smoothly than that of its greater neighbor,

in spite of the raids of the slave-dealers of the coast, and

the lawless hordes of the desert. But no side of national

existence is likely to find full development where there is

little political activity; if the life of the North was more

troubled, it was also larger and more intense.

{1904}

Ephraim took the lead in literature and religion as well as in

politics; it was in Ephraim far more than in Judah that the

traditions of past history were cherished, and new problems of

religion became practical and called for solution by the word

of the prophets. So long as the Northern Kingdom endured Judah

was content to learn from it for evil or for good. It would be

easy to show in detail that every wave of life and thought in

Ephraim was transmitted with diminished intensity to the

Southern Kingdom. In many respects the influence of Ephraim

upon Judah was similar to that of England upon Scotland before

the union of the crowns, but with the important difference

that after the accession of Omri the two Hebrew kingdoms were

seldom involved in hostilities. … The internal condition of

the [Judæan] state was stable, though little progressive; the

kings were fairly successful in war, though not sufficiently

strong to maintain unbroken authority over Edom, the only

vassal state of the old Davidic realm over which they still

claimed suzerainty, and their civil administration must have

been generally satisfactory according to the not very high

standard of the East; for they retained the affections of

their people, the justice and mercy of the throne of David are

favourably spoken of in the old prophecy against Moab quoted

in Isaiah XV., xvi., and Isaiah contrasts the disorders of his

own time with the ancient reputation of Jerusalem for fidelity

and justice (i. 21). … The religious conduct of the house of

David followed the same general lines. Old abuses remained

untouched, but the cultus remained much as David and Solomon

had left it. Local high places were numerous, and no attempt

was made to interfere with them; but the great temple on Mount

Zion, which formed part of the complex of royal buildings

erected by Solomon, maintained its prestige, and appears to

have been a special object of solicitude to the kings, who

treated its service as part of their royal state. It is common

to imagine that the religious condition of Judah was very much

superior to that of the North, but there is absolutely no

evidence to support this opinion."

W. Robertson Smith,

The Prophets of Israel,

lecture 5.

In the year B. C. 745 the throne of Assyria was seized by a

soldier of great ability, called Pul, or Pulu, who took the

name of Tiglath-pileser III. and who promptly entered on an

ambitious career of conquest, with imperial aims and plans.

"In B. C. 738 we find him receiving tribute from Menahem of

Samaria, Rezon of Damascus, and Hiram of Tyre. … The throne

of Israel was occupied at the time by Pekah, a successful

general who had murdered his predecessor, but who was

evidently a man of vigour and ability. He and Rezon

endeavoured to form a confederacy of the Syrian and

Palestinian states against their common Assyrian foe. In order

to effect their object they considered it necessary to

displace the reigning king of Judah, Ahaz, and substitute for

him a creature of their own. … They were aided by a party of

malcontents in Judah itself (Isaiah viii. 6), and the position

of Ahaz seemed desperate. … In this moment of peril Isaiah

was instructed to meet and comfort Ahaz. He bade him 'fear

not, neither be fainthearted,' for the confederacy against the

dynasty of David should be broken and overthrown. … But Ahaz

… had no faith either in the prophet or in the message he

was commissioned to deliver. He saw safety in one course

only—that of invoking the assistance of the Assyrian king,

and bribing him by the offer of homage and tribute to march

against his enemies. In vain Isaiah denounced so suicidal and

unpatriotic a policy. In vain he foretold that when Damascus

and Samaria had been crushed, the next victim of the Assyrian

king would be Judah itself. The infatuated Ahaz would not

listen. He 'sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of

Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy son: come up and

save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the

hand of the king of Israel, which rise up against me.'" The

king of Assyria responded to the call (B. C. 734). He defeated

Rezon in battle, laid siege to Damascus, swept the tribes east

of the Jordan into captivity, overran the territory of Israel,

captured Samaria and put to death Pekah the king. In place of

Pekah he set up a vassal-king Hoshea. Six years later,

Tiglath-pileser having died, and the Assyrian throne having

been seized by another strong soldier, Shalmaneser IV., Hoshea

attempted a revolt, looking to Egypt for help. But before

Sabako king of Egypt could move to his assistance, "Hoshea was

defeated by the Assyrian king or his satraps, and thrown into

chains. The ruling classes of Samaria, however, still held

out. An Assyrian army, accordingly, once more devastated the

land of Israel, and laid siege to the capital. For three years

Samaria remained untaken. Another revolution had meanwhile

broken out in Assyria; Shalmaneser had died or been put to

death, and a fresh military adventurer had seized the crown,

taking the name of Sargon, after a famous monarch of ancient

Babylonia. Sargon had hardly established himself upon the

throne when Samaria fell (B. C. 722). … He contented himself

with transporting only 27,280 of its inhabitants into

captivity, only the upper classes, in fact, who were

implicated in the revolt of Hoshea. An Assyrian satrap, or

governor, was appointed over Samaria, while the bulk of the

population was allowed to remain peaceably in their old

homes."

A. H. Sayce,

Life and Times of Isaiah,

chapter 3.

"Much light is thrown upon the conditions of the national

religion then and upon its subsequent development by the

single fact that the exiled Israelites were absorbed by the

surrounding heathenism without leaving a trace behind them,

while the population of Judah, who had the benefit of a

hundred years of respite, held their faith fast throughout the

period of the Babylonian exile, and by means of it were able

to maintain their own individuality afterwards in all the

circumstances that arose. The fact that the fall of Samaria

did not hinder but helped the religion of Jehovah is entirely

due to the prophets."

J. Wellhausen,

Sketch of the History of Israel and Judah,

chapter 6.

"The first generation of the exiles lived to see the fall of

their conquerors. … After this it is difficult to discover

any distinct trace of the northern tribes. Some returned with

their countrymen of the southern kingdom. … The immense

Jewish population which made Babylonia a second Palestine was

in part derived from them; and the Jewish customs that have

been discovered in the Nestorian Christians, with the

traditions of the sect itself, may indicate at any rate a

mixture of Jewish descent. That they [the 'lost Ten Tribes']

are concealed in some unknown region of the earth, is a fable

with no foundation either in history or prophecy."

Dean Stanley,

Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,

lecture 34 (volume 2).

See, also, JERUSALEM.

{1905}

JEWS: B. C. 724-604.

The kingdom of Judah to the end of the Egyptian domination.

Three years before Sargon's destruction of Samaria, "Hezekiah

had succeeded his father Ahaz upon the throne of Jerusalem.

… Judah was tributary to Assyria, and owed to Assyria its

deliverance from a great danger. But the deliverer and his

designs were extremely dangerous, and made Judah apprehensive

of being swallowed up presently, when its turn came. The

neighbouring countries,—Phœnicia on the north, Moab, Ammon,

and the Arabian nations on the east, Philistia on the west,

Egypt and Ethiopia on the south,—shared Judah's

apprehensions. There were risings, and they were sternly

quelled; Judah, however, remained tranquil. But the scheme of

an anti-Assyrian alliance was gradually becoming popular.

Egypt was the great pillar of hope. By its size, wealth,

resources, pretensions, and fame, Egypt seemed a possible

rival to Assyria. Time went on. Sargon was murdered in 705;

Sennacherib succeeded him. Then on all sides there was an

explosion of revolts against the Assyrian rule. The first

years of Sennacherib's reign were spent by him in quelling a

formidable rising of Merodach Baladan, king of Babylon. The

court and ministers of Hezekiah seized this opportunity for

detaching their master from Assyria, for joining in the

movement of the insurgent states of Palestine and its borders,

and for allying themselves with Egypt. … In the year 701,

Sennacherib, victorious in Babylonia, marched upon Palestine."

M. Arnold,

Isaiah of Jerusalem,

introduction.

Sennacherib advanced along the Phœnician coast. "Having

captured Ascalon, he next laid siege to Ekron, which, after

the Egyptian army sent to its relief had been defeated at

Eltekeh, fell into the enemy's hand, and was severely dealt

with. Simultaneously various fortresses of Judah were

occupied, and the level country was devastated (Isaiah i.).

The consequence was that Hezekiah, in a state of panic,

offered to the Assyrians his submission, which was accepted on

payment of a heavy penalty, he being permitted, however, to

retain possession of Jerusalem. He seemed to have got cheaply

off from the unequal contest. The way being thus cleared,

Sennacherib pressed on southwards, for the Egyptians were

collecting their forces against him. The nearer he came to the

enemy the more undesirable did he find it that he should leave

in his rear so important a fortress as Jerusalem in the hands

of a doubtful vassal. Notwithstanding the recently ratified

treaty, therefore, he demanded the surrender of the city,

believing that a policy of intimidation would be enough to

secure it from Hezekiah. But there was another personality in

Jerusalem of whom his plans had taken no account. Isaiah had

indeed regarded the revolt from Assyria as a rebellion against

Jehovah Himself, and therefore as a perfectly hopeless

undertaking, which could only result in the utmost humiliation

and sternest chastisement for Judah. But much more distinctly

than Amos and Hosea before him did he hold firm as an article

of faith the conviction that the kingdom would not be utterly

annihilated; all his speeches of solemn warning closed with

the announcement that a remnant should return and form the

kernel of a new commonwealth to be fashioned after Jehovah's

own heart. … Over against the vain confidence of the

multitude Isaiah had hitherto brought into prominence the

darker obverse of his religious belief, but now he confronted

their present depression with its bright reverse;

faintheartedness was still more alien to his nature than

temerity. In the name of Jehovah he bade King Hezekiah be of

good courage, and urged that he should by no means surrender.

The Assyrians would not be able to take the city, not even to

shoot an arrow into it, nor to bring up their siege train

against it. 'I know thy sitting, thy going, and thy standing,'

is Jehovah's language to the Assyrian, 'and also thy rage

against Me. And I will put my ring in thy nose, and my bridle

in thy lips, and I will turn thee back by the way by which

thou camest.' And thus it proved in the issue. By a still

unexplained catastrophe, the main army of Sennacherib was

annihilated on the frontier between Egypt and Palestine, and

Jerusalem thereby freed from all danger. The Assyrian king had

to save himself by a hurried retreat to Nineveh; Isaiah was

triumphant. A more magnificent close of a period of

influential public life can hardly be imagined."

J. Wellhausen,

Sketch of the History of Israel and Judah,

chapter 7.

"We possess in duplicate, on the Taylor Cylinder, found at

Nineveh in 1830, and now in the British Museum, and on the

Bull-inscription of Kouyunjik, Sennacherib's own account of

the stages of his campaign. Sidon and the cities of Phœnicia

were the first to be attacked; and, after reducing these, and

receiving homage from several of the kings of the countries

bordering on Palestine, who apparently were not this time

implicated in the plan of revolt, Sennacherib started

southwards, aiming to recover similarly Ashkelon, Ekron, and

Jerusalem. In Ashkelon he deprived Zedek of his crown, which

he bestowed upon Sarludari, the son of a former king,

doubtless on the ground that he was friendly to Assyrian

interests: at the same time four subject-cities belonging to

Zedek, Beth-dagon, Joppa, Bene-Barak, and Azuru were captured

and plundered. Sennacherib next proceeds to deal with Ekron.

The people of Ekron, in order to carry through their plan for

the recovery of independence without hindrance, had deposed

their king Padi, who remained loyal to Assyria, and sent him

bound in chains to Hezekiah. Upon news of the approach of the

Assyrians, they had summoned the Egyptians to their aid; they

arrive now 'with forces innumerable;' the encounter takes

place at Altaku (probably not far from Ekron); victory

declares for the Assyrian; and the Egyptians retire without

effecting the desired relief. After this Sennacherib soon

reduces Ekron; he obtains, moreover, the surrender of Padi

from Jerusalem, and restores him to his throne. Now follows

the account of the aggressive measures adopted by him against

Judah and Jerusalem. 'And Hezekiah of Judah, who had not

submitted to my yoke, forty-six of his strong cities,

fortresses and smaller towns round about their border without

number, with laying low of the walls, and with open (?)

attack, with battle … of feet, … hewing about and

trampling down (?), I besieged, I took 200,150 people, small

and great, male and female, horses, mules,' asses, camels,

oxen, and sheep without number, from the midst of them I

brought out, and I counted them as spoil.

{1906}

Himself, as a bird in a cage, in the midst of Jerusalem, his

royal city, I shut up. Siege-works against him I erected, and

the exit of the great gate of his city I blocked up. His

cities which I had plundered, from his domain I cut off; and

to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, to Padi, king of Ekron, and to

Zilbel, king of Gaza, I gave them; I diminished his territory.

To the former payment of their yearly tribute, the tribute of

subjection to my sovereignty I added; I laid it upon them.

Himself, Hezekiah, the terror of the splendour of my

sovereignty overwhelmed: the Arabians and his dependents, whom

he had introduced, for the defence of Jerusalem, his royal

city, and to whom he had granted pay, together with 30 talents

of gold, 800 talents of silver, bullion (?) … precious (?)

stones of large size, couches of ivory, lofty thrones of

ivory, elephant-skins, ivory, … wood, … woods of every

kind, an abundant treasure, and in addition, his daughters,

the women of his palace, his male and female

harem(?)-attendants unto Nineveh, my royal city, he caused to

be brought after me. For the payment of tribute, and the

rendering of homage: he sent his envoy.' Here the account on

the Inscription closes, the lines which follow relating to the

campaign of the subsequent year."

S. R. Driver,

Isaiah: His Life and Times,

chapter 7.

"Between the retreat of Sennacherib's army and the capture of

the capital by Nebuchadrezzar there was an interval of little

more than a century, yet, meanwhile, upon the basis of the

prophetical teaching, the foundations of Judaism were laid.

… But though Sennacherib had retreated from Palestine, Judah

still remained the vassal of Assyria. The empire of Assyria

was scarcely affected by the event which was to change the

face of the world, and for more than half-a-century its power

was undiminished and supreme. Yet, as regards the internal

condition of Judah, the great deliverance was the occasion of

a reform which at first may well have made Isaiah's heart beat

high. … Influential as he was at the court and with the

king, and with reputation enormously enhanced by the

fulfilment of his promise of deliverance, he probably urged

and prompted Hezekiah to the execution of a religious reform.

The meagre verse in the Book of Kings which describes this

reform is both inaccurate and misplaced. There is no hint in

the authentic writings of Isaiah or Micah that any religious

innovations had been attempted before the Assyrian war. It was

the startling issue of Sennacherib's invasion which afforded

the opportunity and suggested the idea. Moreover, wider

changes are attributed to Hezekiah than he can actually have

effected. … The residuum of fact contained in the 18th

chapter of the Second Book of Kings must be probably limited

to the destruction of the Nehushtan, or brazen serpent, that

mysterious image in which the contemporaries of Hezekiah,

whatever may have been its original signification, doubtless

recognized a symbol of Yahveh. Yet indirect evidence would

incline us to believe that Hezekiah's reform involved more

than the annihilation of a single idol; it is more probably to

be regarded as an attempt at a general abolition of images, as

well as a suppression of the new Assyrian star-worship and of

the 'Moloch' sacrifices which had been introduced into Judah

in the reign of Ahaz. Whether this material iconoclasm

betokened or generated any wide moral reformation is more than

doubtful. … Hezekiah's reign extended for about fourteen

years after the deliverance of Jerusalem in 701. To the early

part of this, its second division, the religious reformation

must be assigned. A successful campaign against the

Philistines, alluded to in the Book of Kings, probably fell

within the same period. Beyond this, we know nothing, though

we would gladly know much, of these fourteen concluding years

of an eventful reign. In 686 Hezekiah died, and was succeeded

by his son Manasseh, who occupied the throne for forty-five

years (686-641). The Book of Kings does not record a single

external incident throughout his long reign. It must have been

a time of profound peace and of comparative prosperity.

Manasseh remained the vassal of Assyria, and the Assyrian

inscriptions speak of him as paying tribute to the two kings,

Esarhaddon (681-669), Sennacherib's successor, and Asurbanipal

(669-626), till whose death the supremacy of Assyria in

Palestine was wholly undisputed. Uneventful as Manasseh's

reign was in foreign politics, it was all the more important

in its internal and religious history. In it, and in the short

reign of Amon, who maintained the policy of his father, there

set in a period of strong religious reaction, extending over

nearly half-a-century (686-638). Manasseh is singled out by

the historian for special and repeated reprobation. In the

eyes of the exilic redactor, his iniquities were the immediate

cause of the destruction of the national life. Not even

Josiah's reformation could turn Yahveh 'from the fierceness of

his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against

Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had

provoked him withal.' Jeremiah had said the same. Exile and

dispersion are to come 'because of Manasseh, the son of

Hezekiah, king of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem.'

… What were the sins of Manasseh? It has already been

indicated that the Assyrians made their influence felt, not

only in politics, but also in religion. It was the old

Babylonian worship of the luminaries of heaven which was

introduced into Judah in the eighth century, and which, after

receiving a short check during the reign of Hezekiah, became

very widely prevalent under his son. … There are many tokens

in the literature of the seventh century that the idolatrous

reaction of Manasseh penetrated deep, making many converts.

… Manasseh would apparently brook no opposition to the

idolatrous proclivities of his court; he met the indignation

of Isaiah's disciples and of the prophetical party by open and

relentless persecution. … The older historian of the Book of

Kings speaks of 'Manasseh shedding innocent blood very much,

till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another.' This

innocent blood must have mainly flowed from those who opposed

his idolatrous tendencies. … From the accession of Manasseh

to the death of Amon (686-638), a period of forty-eight years,

this internal conflict continued; and in it, as always, the

blood of martyrs was the seed of the Church. In 638, Amon was

succeeded by his son Josiah; then only eight years old.

{1907}

It is possible that his accession brought about some

amelioration in the condition of the prophetical party, and

that active persecution ceased. But the syncretistic and

idolatrous worship was still maintained for another eighteen

years, though those years are passed over without any notice

in the Book of Kings. They were, however, years of great

importance in the history of Asia, for they witnessed the

break-up of the Assyrian empire, and the inroads of the

Scythians. The collapse of Assyria followed hard upon the

death of Asurbanipal in 626: Babylon revolted, the northern

and north-western provinces of the empire fell into the hands

of the Medes, and the authority of Assyria over the vassal

kingdoms of the west was gradually weakened."

C. G. Montefiore,

Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion,

as illustrated by the Religion of the ancient Hebrews,

(Hibbert Lectures, 1892), lecture 4.

"The Assyrian empire was much weakened and the king could not

think of maintaining his power in the more distant provinces.

… In the year 610 B. C., Nineveh was again besieged, this

time by the Medes and Babylonians in league together. In the

same year Psammetichus, king of Egypt, died and was succeeded

by his son Necho. If Psammetichus had already tried to enlarge

his kingdom at the expense of Assyria, Necho was not the man

to miss the golden opportunity that now presented itself: he

proposed to seize Syria and Palestine, the Assyrian provinces

that bordered on his own kingdom, and thus to obtain his share

of the spoil, even if he did not help to bring down the giant.

By the second year after his accession to the throne he was on

the march to Syria with a large army. Probably it was

transported by sea and landed at Acco, on the Mediterranean,

whence it was to proceed overland. But in carrying out this

plan he encountered an unexpected obstacle: Josiah went to

meet him with an army and attempted to prevent his march to

Syria. … Josiah must have firmly believed that Jahveh would

fight for his people and defeat the Egyptian ruler. From what

Jeremiah tells us of the attitude of the prophets in the

reigns of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, we must infer that many of

them strengthened the king in his intention not to endure an

encroachment such as that of the Pharaoh. The Chronicler

relates that Necho himself endeavored to dissuade Josiah from

the unequal contest. But [uselessly]. … The decisive battle

was fought in the valley of Megiddo: Judah was defeated;

Josiah perished. … After the victory in the valley of

Megiddo and the death of Josiah, Necho was master of the

kingdom of Judah. Before he arrived there, 'the people of the

land' made Jehoahaz, a younger son of Josiah, king, presumably

because he was more attached than his elder brother to his

father's policy. At all events, Necho hastened to depose him

and send him to Egypt. He was superseded by Eliakim,

henceforward called Jehoiakim. At first Jehoiakim was a vassal

of Egypt, and it does not appear that he made any attempt to

escape from this servitude. But it was not long before events

occurred elsewhere in Asia that entirely changed his position.

Nineveh had fallen; the Medes and the Chaldeans or Babylonians

now ruled over the former territory of the Assyrians; Syria

and Palestine fell to the share of the Babylonians. Of course,

the Egyptians were not inclined to let them have undisputed

possession. A battle was fought at Carchemish (Circesium), on

the Euphrates, between the armies of Necho and Nebuchadnezzar,

who then commanded in the name of his father, Nabopolassar,

but very shortly afterwards succeeded him. The Egyptians

sustained a crushing defeat (604 B. C). This decided the fate

of Western Asia, including Judæa."

A. Kuenen,

The Religion of Israel,

chapter 6 (volume 2).

JEWS: B. C. 604-536.

Fall of the kingdom of Judah.

The Babylonian captivity.

"In the fourth year of Jehoiakim (B. C. 604) the mightiest

monarch who had wielded the Assyrian power, Nebuchadnezzar,

was associated in the empire with his father, and assumed the

command of the armies of Assyria. Babylon now takes the place

of Nineveh as the capital of the Assyrian empire. …

Vassalage to the dominion of Egypt or of Babylon is now the

ignominious doom of the king of Judah. … Nebuchadnezzar,

having retaken Carchemish (B. C. 601), passed the Euphrates,

and rapidly overran the whole of Syria and Palestine.

Jerusalem made little resistance. The king was put in chains

to be carried as a prisoner to Babylon. On his submission, he

was reinstated on the throne; but the Temple was plundered of

many of its treasures, and a number of well-born youths, among

whom were Daniel, and three others, best known by their

Persian names, Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego. From this date

commence the seventy years of the Captivity. Jehoiakim had

learned neither wisdom nor moderation from his misfortunes.

Three years after, he attempted to throw off the yoke of

Chaldea. … At length this weak and cruel king was slain (B.

C. 598). … Jehoiachin (Jeconias or Coniah), his son, had

scarcely mounted the throne, when Nebuchadnezzar himself

appeared at the gates of Jerusalem. The city surrendered at

discretion. The king and all the royal family, the remaining

treasures of the Temple, the strength of the army and the

nobility, and all the more useful artisans, were carried away

to Babylon. Over this wreck of a kingdom, Zedekiah

(Mattaniah), the younger son of Josiah, was permitted to enjoy

an inglorious and precarious sovereignty of eleven years,

during which he abused his powers, even worse than his

imbecile predecessors. In his ninth year, notwithstanding the

remonstrances of the wise Jeremiah, he endeavoured to assert

his independence; and Jerusalem, though besieged by

Nebuchadnezzar in person, now made some resistance. … At

length, in the city, famine reduced the fatal obstinacy of

despair. Jerusalem opened its gates to the irresistible

conqueror. The king, in an attempt to break through the

besieging forces, or meditating flight towards his ally, the

king of Ammon, was seized on the plain of Jericho. His

children were slain before his face, his eyes put out, and

thus the last king of the royal house of David, blind and

childless, was led away into a foreign prison. The capture of

Jerusalem took place on the ninth day of the fourth month: on

the seventh day of the fifth month (two days on which Hebrew

devotion still commemorates the desolation of the city by

solemn fast and humiliation) the relentless Nebuzaradan

executed the orders of his master by levelling the city, the

palaces, and the Temple, in one common ruin. The few remaining

treasures, particularly the two brazen pillars which stood

before the Temple, were sent to Babylon; the chief priests

were put to death, the rest carried into captivity. …

{1908}

The miserable remnant of the people were placed under the

command of Gedaliah, as a pasha of the great Assyrian monarch;

the seat of government was fixed at Mizpeh. … Nebuzaradan

(the general of Nebuchadnezzar) only left, according to the

strong language of the Second Book of Kings, xxv. 12, 'of the

poor of the land, to be vine-dressers and husbandmen.' … In

general it seems that the Jewish exiles [in Babylonia] were

allowed to dwell together in considerable bodies, not sold as

household or personal or prædial slaves, at least not those of

the better order of whom the Captivity chiefly consisted. They

were colonists rather than captives, and became by degrees

possessed of considerable property. … They had free

enjoyment of their religion, such at least as adhered

faithfully to their belief in Jehovah. We hear of no special

and general religious persecution. The first deportation of

chosen beautiful youths, after the earlier defeat of

Jehoiakim, for hostages, or as a kind of court-pages, was not

numerous. The second transportation swept away the king, his

wife, all the officers and attendants of his court, 7,000 of

the best of the army, 1,000 picked artisans, armourers, and

others, amounting to 10,023 men. The last was more general: it

comprehended the mass of the people, according to some

calculations towards 300,000 or 400,000 souls."

H. H. Milman,

History of the Jews,

books 8-9, with foot-note (volume 1).

The inhabitants left behind in Judæa "formed but a pitiful

remnant of the former kingdom of Judah. Part of them had grown

wild and led the lives of freebooters. Others busied

themselves with agriculture, but they had much to suffer from

the bands of Chaldean soldiers that roved about the land, and

from the neighbouring tribes, who took advantage of Israel's

abasement to extend their territories. … We do not know with

certainty the number of the exiles carried off by

Nebuchadnezzar: the returns given in the Old Testament are

evidently incomplete. But that their number was very

considerable, can be gathered from the number of those who

afterwards went back. For their intrinsic worth, even more

than for their numerical strength, these exiles had a right to

be regarded as the real representatives of the kingdom of

Judah and thus of all Israel. … It was … the kernel of the

nation that was brought to Babylonia. Our information as to

the social condition of the exiles is very defective. Even to

the question, where they had to settle, we can only return an

imperfect answer. We meet with a colony of exiles, companions

of Jeconiah, at Tel-abib, in the neighbourhood of the river

Chebar, usually supposed to be the Chaboras, which runs into

the Euphrates not far from Circesium, but considered by others

to be a smaller river, nearer to Babylon. It lay in the nature

of the case, that the second and third company of captives

received another destination. Even had it been possible,

prudence would have opposed their settling in the immediate

vicinity of their predecessors. We are not surprised therefore

that Ezekiel, who lived at Tel-abib, does not mention their

arrival there. Where they did go we are not told. The

historian says 'to Babylon,' to which place, according to him,

the first exiles (597 B. C.) were also brought; probably he

does not, in either passage, mean only the capital of the

Chaldean kingdom, but rather the province of that name to

which the city of course belonged. … Nebuchadnezzar's

purpose, the prevention of fresh disturbances, having been

attained by their removal from Judæa, he could now leave them

to develop their resources. It was even for the interest of

the districts in which they settled, that their development

should not be obstructed. Many unnecessary and troublesome

conflicts were avoided and the best provision was made for the

maintenance of order, by leaving them free, within certain

limits, to regulate their own affairs. So the elders of the

families and tribes remained in possession of the authority

which they had formerly exercised."

A. Kuenen,

The Religion of Israel,

chapter 7 (volume 2).

"About the middle of the sixth century before Christ, Cyrus,

King of Elam, began the career of conquest which left him

master of Western Asia. Greek writers of history have done

full justice to the character of this extraordinary man, but

what they tell of his origin, his early adventures and rise to

power, is for the most part mere fable. … Within recent

years a new light has been thrown on one of the dimmest

figures of the old world by the discovery of contemporary

documents, in which the Conqueror of Babylon himself records

his victories and the policy of his reign. … It appears from

the Inscriptions that the founder of the Persian Empire was by

no means the parvenu prince described by Herodotus. Cyrus was

a king's son, and in early youth, by legitimate succession,

himself became a king. From Susa (Shushan) on the Choaspes,

his capital city, he ruled over the fertile and populous

region lying eastward of the Lower Tigris which bore the name

of Elam or Susiana. This realm was one of the most ancient in

Western Asia. … Nabonidus became king of Babylon in the year

555 B. C. He had raised himself to the throne by conspiracy

and murder, and his position at first was insecure. The

eastern provinces, Syria and Phœnicia, rose in revolt against

the usurper, while the Medes on the north began a harassing

warfare and threatened an invasion of Babylonia. This latter

danger was averted for the time by an unlooked-for

deliverance. In the sixth year of Nabonidus (550 B. C.) Cyrus

led his army against Astyages, the Median king. The

discontented soldiery of Astyages mutinied on the eve of

battle, seized the person of their sovereign, and delivered

him up to the enemy. … This bloodless victory added Media to

the dominions of Cyrus, gave him Ecbatana as a second capital

and place of arms, and more than doubled his military

strength. … The real aim of Cyrus was the overthrow of

Babylon, and the construction of a new and still wider empire

on the ruins of the old. … Within the two years following

his conquest of the Medes he had extended his sway over the

kindred race of the Persians, from which he himself had

sprung. The wild tribes of Iran had long looked greedily on

the rich Chaldæan plains and cities, and only waited a leader

before swooping down like ravenous birds on their prey. This

leader appeared in Cyrus. … Forty years had passed since the

destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of the great mass

of the Jewish people to Babylonia (588 B. C.). During this

period, under Nebuchadnezzar and his immediate successors on

the throne, the exiles had lived in peace, following without

interference their own customs, religious and social. …

Nothing hindered them from leading a quiet and comfortable

life among the Chaldæans, if only they were content to break

with their past and give up hope for the future.

{1909}

But this was impossible for all true Israelites. They could

not forget what they had been, or reconcile themselves to be

what they now were. They had the means of livelihood in

abundance, but to them their drink was as vinegar, their meat

as gall. … The home-sickness of the people finds manifold

expression in the literature of the Exile. … Now, as at

every crisis in the national history, the Prophets stood

forth, the true leaders of Israel. They kept the people

constantly in mind of their high destinies, and comforted and

encouraged them in their darkest hours. … Among the Jewish

exiles, enlightened by the prophetic word, the name Koresh

passed from lip to lip, and the movements of this new

Conqueror were followed with straining eyes. … In the month

Nisan (March) of the year 547 B. C., the ninth year of

Nabonidus, Cyrus crossed the Tigris at the fords of Arbela,

eastward of the modern Mosul, and began his first invasion of

Babylonia. … Meanwhile the fainéant king Nabonidus lingered

in his palace near Babylon, leaving the defence of the empire

to his eldest son, the Prince Royal Belshazzar. Whether

worsted in battle or, as is more likely, baffled by the

difficulties in the way of an invader—the country seamed

with water-courses, the numerous fortified towns, the Median

Wall—Cyrus was forced to retreat. … In the seventeenth

year of Nabonidus (539 B. C.) the King of Elam once more took

the field against Babylon. This time the attack was made from

the southeast. An opportune revolt of the southern provinces,

probably fomented by Cyrus himself, opened the way for him

into the heart of the land. … On all sides the disaffected

subjects of Nabonidus went over to the invader, who passed on

at the head of his 'vast army, innumerable, like the waters of

a river,' without meeting any serious resistance. The last

hope of Nabonidus rested on his Army of the North. In the

month Tammuz (June) a pitched battle was fought near Routou, a

town in Accad, and ended in the defeat of the Babylonians. A

revolution followed at once. … Some days later the

victorious army, under a lieutenant of the King, appeared

before the walls of Babylon. The collapse of all authority

made useless defences which were the wonder of the world;

friendly hands threw open the brazen gates, and without a

struggle the great city fell. … Four months later Cyrus

entered Babylon in triumph. … The hitherto accepted opinion

that Cyrus was an Aryan monotheist, a worshipper of Ormazd,

and therefore so far in religious sympathy with the Jews, is

seriously shaken if not overthrown by the Inscriptions which

record his Babylonian conquest. Even if allowance be made for

the fact that these are state documents, and reveal only what

the monarch professed, not necessarily what he believed, there

still remains the strong probability that Cyrus was not

Zoroastrian in creed, but polytheist like his people of Elam.

The Cyrus of the Inscriptions is either a fanatical idolater

or simply an opportunist in matters of religion. The latter

alternative is the more probable."

P. H. Hunter,

After the Exile,

part 1, chapters 1-2.

JEWS: B. C. 537.

The return from Babylon.

"The fall of the metropolis had decided the fortune of the

Babylonian kingdom, and the provinces. The most important of

these was Syria, with the great trading places of the

Phenicians on the Mediterranean. … The hopes of the Jews

were at last fulfilled. The fall of Babylon had avenged the

fall of Jerusalem, and the subjugation of Syria to the armies

of Babylon opened the way for their return. Cyrus did not

belie the confidence which the Jews had so eagerly offered

him; without hesitation he gave the exiles permission to

return and erect again their shrine at Jerusalem. The return

of the captives and the foundation of a new state of the Jews

was very much to his interest; it might contribute to support

his empire in Syria. He did not merely count on the gratitude

of the returning exiles, but as any revival of the Babylonian

kingdom, or rebellion of the Syrians against the Persian

empire, imperilled the existence of this community, which had

not only to be established anew, but would never be very

strong, it must necessarily oppose any such attempts.

Forty-nine years—seven Sabbatical years, instead of the ten

announced by Jeremiah—had passed since the destruction of

Jerusalem, and more than sixty since Jeremiah had first

announced the seventy years of servitude to Babylon. Cyrus

commissioned Zerubbabel, the son of Salathiel, a grandson of

Jechoniah, the king who had been carried away captive, and

therefore a scion of the ancient royal race, and a descendant

of David, to be the leader of the returning exiles, to

establish them in their abode, and be the head of the

community; he bade his treasurer Mithridates give out to him

the sacred vessels, which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away as

trophies to Babylon, and placed in the temple of Bel; there

are said to have been more than 5,000 utensils of gold and

silver, baskets, goblets, cups, knives, etc. But all the Jews

in Babylon did not avail themselves of the permission. Like

the Israelites deported by Sargon into Media and Assyria some

180 years previously, many of the Jews brought to Mesopotamia

and Babylonia at the time of Jechoniah and Zedekiah, had found

there a new home, which they preferred to the land of their

fathers. But the priests (to the number of more than 3,000),

many of the families of the heads of the tribes, all who cared

for the sanctuary and the old country, all in whom Jehovah

'awoke the spirit,' as the Book of Ezra says, began the march

over the Euphrates. With Zerubbabel was Joshua, the high

priest, the most distinguished among all the Jews, a grandson

of the high priest, Zeraiah, whom Nebuchadnezzar had executed

after the capture of Jerusalem. … It was a considerable

multitude which left the land 'beyond the stream,' the waters

of Babylon, to sit once more under the fig-tree in their

ancient home, and build up the city of David and the temple of

Jehovah from their ruins; 42,360 freemen, with 7,337 Hebrew

men-servants and maid-servants; their goods were carried by

435 camels, 736 horses, 250 mules, and 6,720 asses (537 B.

C.). The exodus of the Jews from Babylon is accompanied by a

prophet with cries of joy, and announcements filled with the

wildest hopes. … 'Go forth from Babylon,' he cries; 'fly

from the land of the Chaldæans! Proclaim it with shouts of

joy, tell it to the end of the earth and say: "Jehovah hath

redeemed his servant Jacob."'

{1910}

'How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that

bringeth glad tidings, that publisheth peace, that saith unto

Zion, Thy God reigneth. Up, up, go forth, touch no unclean

person; go forth from among them. Cleanse yourselves, ye that

bear Jehovah's vessels. Ye shall go forth in joy, and be led

in peace; the mountains and the hills shall break forth before

you into singing, and all the trees shall clap their hands.

Jehovah goes before you, and the God of Israel brings up the

rear. … Jehovah calls thee as an outcast sorrowful woman,

and thy God speaks to thee as to a bride who has been put

away; thy ruins, and deserts, and wasted land, which was

destroyed from generation to generation—thy people build up

the ruins, and renew the ancient cities. Behold, I will make

thy desert like Eden, and thy wilderness like the garden of

the Lord; I will lay thy stones with bright lead, and thy

foundations with sapphires, and make thy towers of rubies and

thy gates of carbuncles. Joy and delight is in them,

thanksgiving and the sound of strings. The wealth of the sea

shall come to thee, and the treasures of the nations shall be

thine; like a stream will I bring salvation upon Israel, and

the treasures of the nations like an overflowing river. Thy

sons hasten onward; those that laid thee waste go forth from

thee. Lift up thine eyes and see; thy sons come from far, and

I will gather them to those that are gathered together. The

islands and the ships of Tarshish wait to bring thy children

from afar, their gold and their silver with them. The land

will be too narrow for the inhabitants; widen the place for

thy tent, let the carpets of thy habitation be spread—delay

not. Draw out the rope; to the right and to the left must thou

be widened. I will set up my banner for the nations, that they

bring thy sons in their arm, and thy daughters shall be

carried on the shoulders. Kings shall be thy guardians, and

queens thy nursing-mothers; I will bow them to the earth

before thee, and they shall lick the dust of thy feet, and

thou shalt know that I am Jehovah, and they who wait patiently

for me shall not be put to shame.' Such expectations and hopes

were far from being realised. The Edomites had, in the

mean-time, extended their borders and obtained possession of

the South of Judah, but the land immediately round Jerusalem

was free and no doubt almost depopulated. As the returning

exiles contented themselves with the settlement at Jerusalem,

the towns to the North, Anathoth, Gebah, Michmash,

Kirjath-Jearim, and some others—only Bethlehem is mentioned

to the South—they found nothing to impede them. Their first

care was the restoration of the worship, according to the law

and the custom of their fathers. … Then voluntary gifts were

collected from all for the rebuilding of the temple;

contributions even came in from those who had remained in

Babylonia, so that 70,000 pieces of gold and 5,000 mimæ of

silver are said to have been amassed. Tyrian masons were

hired, and agreements made with Tyrian carpenters, to fell

cedars in Lebanon, and bring them to Joppa, for which Cyrus

had given his permission. The foundation of the temple was

laid in the second year of the return (536 B. C.). … The

fortunate beginning of the restoration of the city and temple

soon met with difficulties. The people of Samaria, who were a

mixture of the remnant of the Israelites and the strangers

whom Sargon had brought there after the capture of Samaria,

… and Esarhaddon at a later date, … came to meet the

exiles in a friendly spirit, and offered them assistance, from

which we must conclude that in spite of the foreign admixture

the Israelitish blood and the worship of Jehovah were

preponderant in Samaria. The new temple would thus have been

the common sanctuary of the united people of Israel. But the

'sons of captivity' were too proud of the sorrows which they

had undergone, and the fidelity which they had preserved to

Jehovah, and their pure descent, to accept this offer. Hence

the old quarrel between Israel and Judah broke out anew, and

the exiles soon felt the result. After their repulse the

Samaritans set themselves to hinder the building by force;

'they terrified the exiles that they built no more, and hired

counsellors to make the attempt vain during the

whole of the remainder of the reign of Cyrus.'"

M. Duncker,

History of Antiquity,

book 8, chapter 8 (volume 6).

The duration of the Captivity, strictly speaking, "was only

forty-seven years, if we reckon by the Canon of Ptolemy, from

the 19th year of Nabuchodrozzor to the first of Cyrus; or,

better, forty-nine years, if we add on, as we probably ought

to do, the two years' reign of the Median king whom Cyrus set

on the throne of Babylon."

H. Ewald,

History of Israel,

book 5, introduction.

"The decree of Cyrus, at the close of the captivity, extended

only to the rebuilding of the Temple. 'Thus saith Cyrus, king

of Persia, The Lord God of heaven … hath charged me to build

him an house at Jerusalem.' And under this decree Jeshua and

Zerubbabel 'builded the altar of the God of Israel. … But

the foundation of the Temple of the Lord was not yet laid.'

Afterwards they 'laid the foundation of the Temple of the

Lord,' including, apparently, the outer wall, for their

enemies made a representation to the king of Persia that the

Jews were rebuilding the walls of their city: 'The Jews which

came up from thee to us are … building the rebellious and

the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined

the foundations.' And as the wall of the Temple, which was

about twelve feet thick, gave a colour to the charge, a decree

was issued by Artaxerxes to prohibit the further prosecution

of the work. 'Then ceased the work of the house of God, which

is at Jerusalem.' On the accession of Darius to the throne of

Persia, Jeshua and Zerubbabel recommenced the restoration of

the Temple, including the wall of the Outer Temple, for they

'began to build the house of God,' when their enemies again

stepped forward, saying, 'Who hath commanded you to build this

house, and to make up this wall?' And on a renewed complaint

to the king of Persia, search was made for the decree of

Cyrus, and when it was found, Darius permitted the Jews to

proceed with the Temple; 'Let the governor of the Jews and the

'elders of the Jews build this house of God in his place;' and

thereupon the structure and the outer walls thereof (the

square of 600 feet) were completed: 'They builded and finished

it … on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the

sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.' Thus far the

rebuilding extended to the Temple only, and not to the walls

of the city. Ezra afterwards obtained a decree to restore the

nationality of the Jews, viz., to 'set magistrates and judges,

which might judge all the people;' and afterwards Nehemiah,

the cupbearer to the king, was enabled in a favourable moment

to win from him express permission to rebuild the Baris, or

Vestry, afterwards Antonia, and also the city: 'Send me unto

Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may

build it;' and a direction was given to the governors beyond

the Euphrates to forward Nehemiah and his company to

Jerusalem; and the king's forester was required to supply the

necessary timber."

T. Lewin,

Jerusalem,

chapter 2.

{1911}

"The Jews returned home sobered and improved by their

sufferings in exile, and entirely cured of their early

hankering after idolatry. Having no political independence,

and living under a governor, they devoted themselves all the

more to religion, the only source and support of their

nationality, and became zealots for the law, and for a devout

carrying out of all its precepts, as far as practicable. All,

indeed, could not be again restored, The most holy of the new

temple was empty, for it was without the lost and

irreplaceable ark of the covenant; the oracular ornaments of

the high-priest had disappeared. As Jerusalem was now, far

more than formerly, the head and heart of the nation, the

high-priesthood … was the authority to which the nation

willingly submitted; it served as the representative and

pillar of unity, and the sons of David were forgotten. Another

of the abiding consequences of their exile was, the altered

mode of life which the nation led. At first they had been

exclusively devoted to agriculture; but after mixing with

strangers they learnt to engage in trade, and this inclination

went on always increasing; it contributed essentially to their

being spread far beyond the borders of Palestine, and to their

multiplying their settlements in foreign lands."

J. J. I. Dollinger,

The Gentile and the Jew

in the Courts of the Temple of Christ,

book 10, section 1 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

H. H. Milman,

History of the Jews,

book 9.

JEWS: B. C. 536-A. D. 50.

The Babylonian Jews.

"There is something very remarkable in the history of this

race, for the most part descendants of those families which

had refused to listen to the summons of Zorobabel, Ezra, and

Nehemiah, and to return to the possession of their native

country. … The singular part of their history is this, that,

though willing aliens from their native Palestine, they

remained Jews in character and religion; they continued to be

a separate people, and refused to mingle themselves with the

population of the country in which they were domiciliated.

While those who returned to the Holy Land were in danger of

forming a mixed race, by intermarriages with the neighbouring

tribes, which it required all the sternest exercise of

authority in their rulers to prevent, the Babylonian Jews were

still as distinct a people as the whole race of Israel has

been since the final dispersion. … Nor did they, like the

Jews of Alexandria, become in any degree independent of the

great place of national worship; they were as rigid Jews as if

they had grown up within sight of the Temple. … The Temple

became what the Caaba of Mecca is to the Mohammedans, the

object of the profoundest reverence, and sometimes of a pious

pilgrimage; but the land of their fathers had lost its hold on

their affections; they had no desire to exchange the level

plains of Babylonia for the rich pastures, the golden

cornfields, or the rocky vineyards of Galilee and Judæa. This

Babylonian settlement was so numerous and flourishing, that

Philo more than once intimates the possibility of their

marching in such force to the assistance of their brethren in

Palestine, in case the Roman oppression was carried to excess,

as to make the fate of the war very doubtful. Their chief city

Nearda, was strongly situated in a bend of the river

Euphrates, which almost surrounded the town." About the middle

of the first century (of the Christian era) a band of

freebooters, formed by two brothers of this Jewish community,

gave great provocation to the Babylonians, and to the Parthian

king whose subjects they then were. They were finally, but

with much difficulty, destroyed, and the Babylonians then

"began to commit dreadful reprisals on the whole Jewish

population. The Jews, unable to resist, fled in great numbers

to Seleucia; six years after many more took refuge from a

pestilence in the same city. Seleucia happened to be divided

into two factions: one of the Greeks, the other of the

Syrians. The Jews threw themselves into the scale of the

Syrians, who thus obtained a superiority, till the Greeks came

to terms with the Syrians; and both parties agreed to fall

upon the unhappy Jews. As many as 50,000 men were slain. The

few who escaped fled to Ctesiphon. Even there the enmity of

the Seleucians pursued them; and at length the survivors took

refuge in their old quarters, Nearda and Nisibis."

H. H. Milman,

History of the Jews,

book 12 (volume 2).

JEWS: B. C. 433-332.

The century of Silence.

"The interval between the Testaments has been called 'The

Centuries of Silence.' The phrase is most untrue; for, as a

whole, this time was vocal with the cry of a battle in which

empire contended with empire, and philosophy with philosophy:

it was an age of earnest and angry contention. But the hundred

years succeeding the death of Nehemiah are for us, so far as

any record remains of that Judæan history, a century of

silence. For some reason which does not appear, the period

from the death of this sturdy old captain at Jerusalem to the

time of the Greek conquest of Persia has no Jewish history.

That it was a period of growth and development with the

Judæans—especially in their theological and ecclesiastical

life—is evident from the changes which the close of the

century shows. The stress of external events made it a time of

heavy taxation and distress,—a time of struggle with Samaria,

and of internal conflict for the control of the high priest's

office."

T. R Slicer,

Between the Testaments

(The New World, March, 1892).

JEWS: B. C. 413-332.

The rule of the High Priests.

"After the death of Nehemiah and the high priest, Eliashib

(413 B. C.), the Persian Court did not appoint governors of

Judea. Samaria was the seat of the Persian Satrap for Syria,

Phœnicia and Palestine. The sons of David had lost prestige

under Nehemiah (Psalm lxxxix.). The ruler acknowledged by the

Law, the prophet (Deuteronomy xviii. 15), was no more; the

last prophets under Nehemiah, with the exception of Malachi,

had proved unworthy of their illustrious predecessors.

Therefore, the high priest was now the first man in the

theocracy, and, contrary to the Laws of Moses (Leviticus x.

3), he was acknowledged the chief ruler of the nation,

although he was no longer the bearer of the Urim and Thumim

(Ezra ii. 63). He presided over the Great Synod, was the

representative of the people before the king and his satrap,

and gradually he established himself in the highest dignity of

the nation."

I. M. Wise,

History of the Hebrews' Second Commonwealth, 1st period,

chapter 4.

{1912}

JEWS: B. C. 332-167.

The Greek domination.

Jewish dispersion.

Hellenism.

On the fall of the Persian monarchy, Judea, with all the rest

of western Asia, was gathered into the empire of Alexander the

Great (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330, and after), Jerusalem

submitting to him without a siege, and so avoiding the fate of

Tyre. In the wars between Alexander's generals and successors,

which followed his death, Palestine changed masters several

times, but does not seem to have been much disturbed. The High

Priests continued to be the chiefs of the nation, and neither

the religion nor the internal government of the Hebrew state

suffered much interference. The final partition made among the

new Macedonian kings (B. C. 302), gave Palestine to Ptolemy of

Egypt, and it remained subject to Egypt for a century. This

period was a happy one, on the whole, for the Jews. The

Ptolemies were friendly to them, with one exception,

respecting their religion and laws. Large numbers of them

settled in Egypt, and especially in the rising new capital and

emporium of trade—Alexandria. But in 201 B. C. Antiochus the

Great, king of the Syrian or Seleucid monarchy, wrested

Cœlosyria and Palestine from the Ptolemies and added it to his

own dominions.

See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

Antiochus dealt favorably with the Jews, but his successors

proved harder masters than the Egyptian Greeks.

H. Ewald,

History of Israel,

book 5, section 2 (volume 5).

"These kings promoted the settlement of Greeks and Syrians in

Palestine, so that it was by degrees all covered with cities

and towns of Grecian nomenclature. The narrow territory of

Judea alone kept free of them, but was surrounded with

settlers whose speech, customs, and creed were Greek. On the

other hand, the Jews went on spreading in lands where Greek

was spoken. A good many of these were planted in Egypt, in the

newly founded capital Antioch, in Lydia and Phrygia. Led on by

their love of trade, they soon became numerous in the

commercial cities of western Asia, Ephesus, Pergamus, Miletus,

Sardis, &c. From Egypt and Alexandria, in which city, at a

later period, they formed two-fifths of the inhabitants, they

drew along the coast of Africa to Cyrene and the towns of the

Pentapolis, and from Asia Anterior to the Macedonian and Greek

marts; for the national love of commerce became more and more

developed, till it absorbed all other occupations, and to this

certainly the general inclination for commercial intercourse,

prevalent at that period, greatly contributed. Thus it

happened that two movements, identical in their operation,

crossed each other, viz., an influx of Greek, or of Asiatic

but hellenised, settlers into Palestine, and an outpouring of

Jews and Samaritans into the, cities speaking the Greek

tongue. In olden times, while the Israelites still possessed a

national kingdom, they felt their isolation from other people

as a burden. It was as an oppressive yoke to them, which they

bore impatiently, and were always trying to shake off. They

wanted to live like other nations, to eat, drink, and

intermarry with them, and, together with their own God, to

honour the gods of the stranger also; for many raw and

carnally-minded Jews only looked upon the one special God and

protector of their nation as one god amongst many. But now

there was a complete change in this respect. The Jews

everywhere lived and acted upon the fundamental principle,

that between them and all other nations there was an

insurmountable barrier; they shut themselves off, and formed

in every town separate corporations, with officers of their

own; while at the same time they kept up a constant connexion

with the sanctuary at Jerusalem. They paid a tribute to the

temple there, which was carefully collected everywhere, and

from time to time conveyed in solemn procession to Jerusalem.

There alone, too, could the sacrifices and gifts which were

demanded by the law be offered. In this wise they preserved a

centre and a metropolis. And yet there followed from all this

an event, which in its consequences was one of the most

important in history, namely, the hellenising of the Jews who

were living out of Judea, and even, in a degree, of those who

remained in their own land. They were a people too gifted

intellectually to resist the magnetic power by which the

Hellenistic tongue and modes of thought and action worked even

upon such as were disposed to resist them on principle. The

Jews in the commercial towns readily acquired the Greek, and

soon forgot their mother tongue; and as the younger generation

already in their domestic circle were not taught Greek by

natives, as might be supposed, this Jewish Greek grew into a

peculiar idiom, the Hellenistic. During the reign of the

second Ptolemy, 284-247 B. C., the law of Moses was translated

at Alexandria into Greek, probably more to meet the religious

wants of the Jews of the dispersion than to gratify the desire

of the king. The necessity of a knowledge of Hebrew for the

use of the holy Scriptures was thereby done away with, and

Greek language and customs became more and more prevalent.

Individuals began to join this or that school of philosophy,

according to predilection and intellectual bias. The Platonic

philosophy had necessarily most attractions for the disciples

of Moses. The intrusion of Hellenism into Judea itself met

with a much more considerable resistance from the old

believing and conservative Jews. Those of the heathen

dispersion were obliged to be satisfied with mere prayer,

Bible readings and expositions, in their proseuchæ and

synagogues, and to do without the solemn worship and

sacrifices of the temple; but in Jerusalem the temple-worship

was carried out with all its ancient usages and symbols. There

presided the Sopherim, the Scribes or skilled expounders of

the law, a title first appropriated to Esdras (about 450 B.

C.). He was one of the founders of the new arrangements in the

restored state, and was a priest, and at the same time a judge

appointed by the king of Persia. … From that time forth

dependence on the law, pride in its possession as the pledge

of divine election, and the careful custody of this wall of

partition, sank deep into the character of the nation, and

became the source of many advantages as well as of serious

faults. … The later Jewish tradition makes much mention of

the great synagogue believed to have existed already in the

time of Esdras, or to have been founded by him. It is supposed

to have mustered 120 members, and, under the presidency of the

high-priest, was to be the guardian of the law and doctrine.

{1913}

One of its last rulers was Simon the Just, who was

high-priest, and the most distinguished doctor of his time

(that of the first Ptolemys). Afterwards this threefold

dignity or function of high-priest, scribe or rabbi, and of

Nasi or prince of the synagogue, were never united in one

person. … The high-priesthood fell into contempt, the more

it served foreign rulers as the venal instrument of their

caprice; but the Scribes flourished as being the preservers of

all theological and juridical knowledge, and were supported by

the respect and confidence of the people. … By the year 170

B. C., Hellenism had undoubtedly made such progress among the

Jews, in Palestine even, that the Assyrian king, Antiochus

Epiphanes, was able to plan the extirpation of the Jewish

religion, and the conversion of the temple at Jerusalem into a

temple of Jupiter Olympius."

J. J. I. Döllinger,

The Gentile and the Jew

in the Courts of the Temple of Christ,

book 10, section 1 (volume 2).

Twice, Antiochus Epiphanes crushed rebellion in Jerusalem with

awful ferocity. On the last occasion, the slain were believed

to number 80,000, while 10,000 captives were led away and sold

as slaves. The city was sacked and partly burned; the Temple

was plundered and polluted. "Not content with these

enormities, Antiochus determined to abolish altogether the

Jewish religion, and, if possible, entirely to exterminate the

race. With this intention, he issued an edict throughout his

dominions, calling upon all the nations who were subject to

his authority to renounce their religion and worship his gods,

and this order he enforced with the most severe pains and

penalties. The Jews were the only people who ventured to

disobey the edict, whereupon, Antiochus ordered them to be

treated with the utmost rigour, and sent to Jerusalem an old

man named Atheneas, who was well versed in the rites of the

Greek worship, as commissioner, to enforce obedience to his

commands. This old pagan dedicated the Temple to Jupiter

Olympus, and placed a statue of that false deity upon the

altar of burnt offering. This desecration was not confined to

Jerusalem, for everywhere throughout the Syrian empire groves

and temples were dedicated, and statues and altars erected, to

the heathen deities, and the worship of the true God was

everywhere prohibited, and punished as the worst of crimes.

That the chief fury of Antiochus's impious rage was directed

against the Jews is evident from the fact that, whilst a

general edict was published, condemning to death or torture

all those who refused to worship the idols, a special decree

was promulgated, by which it was made death to offer

sacrifices to the God of Israel, observe the Sabbath, practise

circumcision, or indeed to conform in the smallest degree to

the precepts of the Mosaic law. Every effort was also made to

destroy the copies of the Holy Scriptures; and persons

refusing to deliver them up were punished by death. In this

terrible distress, many of the Jews abandoned their homes and

took shelter in the wilderness, where 'they lived in the

mountains after the manner of beasts, and fed on herbs

continuously lest they should be partakers of the pollution'

(Maccabees v.). Of those who remained behind, some few yielded

to the temptation, and saved themselves by apostacy, but the

majority remained faithful to the God of their forefathers,

Who, in His own good time, hearkened to the prayers of His

people, and sent them a deliverer."

E. H. Palmer,

History of the Jewish Nation,

chapter 7.

JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

Revolt of the Maccabees.

Reign of the Asmoneans.

Rise of Herod.

The heroic family called The Maccabees, which began and led

the revolt of the Jewish people against the oppression and

persecution of the Seleucidæan kings, bore, also, the name of

the Asmonean or Hasmonean family, derived from the name of

"its chief of four generations back, Chasmon, or Asmon, 'the

magnate.'" The head of the family at the time of the outbreak

of the revolt, and who precipitated it, was Mattathias. He had

five sons, the third of whom, Judas, became the military

leader and great hero of the nation in its struggle. To Judas

was given the surname or appellation of Makkabi, from whence

came his historical name of Judas Maccabæus, and the general

name of The Maccabees by which his family at large is commonly

designated. The surname "Makkabi" is conjectured to have had

the same meaning as that of Charles the "Martel"—viz., the

"Hammerer"; but this is questioned. "Under Judas the revolt

assumed larger proportions, and in a short time he was able to

meet and defeat the Syrians in the open field. The situation

which the Romans had created in Syria was favourable to the

Jewish cause. In order to find money to pay the tribute

imposed by Rome upon his house; Antiochus had to undertake an

expedition into the Far East, which depleted Syria of a large

number of troops. During the king's absence the government of

the country was entrusted to a high functionary named Lysias.

Lysias took a serious view of the rebellion in Judæa, and

despatched a force under the command of three generals to

suppress it. But this army met with alarming reverses at the

hands of Judas, and Lysias was obliged to go to Palestine in

person to conduct the campaign. Meanwhile Antiochus had been

apprised of the disasters which had befallen his captains, and

was hastening homewards to assume the supreme direction of

affairs, when death put a termination to his career (B. C.

164). The pressure of Roman policy upon Antiochus was the

indirect cause of the Jewish revolt, and the immediate cause

of the king's inability to suppress it. After the death of

Antiochus, the distracted state of Syria and the struggles of

rival pretenders for the crown strengthened the position of

the Jewish patriots. Antiochus V., son of the late king, was

only nine years old when he began to reign (B. C. 164). His

father had appointed a courtier named Philip regent during his

son's minority. But this arrangement did not satisfy Lysias,

who had the young king in his custody, and who was carrying on

the campaign in Palestine when the news of his supersession by

Philip arrived. Lysias immediately left off the contest with

Judas, and devoted his energies to the task of resisting

Philip's claims. At this juncture, if any historic value can

be attached to a statement in the Second Book of the

Maccabees, two Roman envoys, Quintus Memmius and Titus

Manlius, who were probably on their way from Alexandria to

Antioch, offered to take charge of Jewish interests at the

Syrian capital. Peace is said to have been the outcome of

their efforts (B. C. 162). But it was a peace which did not

endure.

{1914}

In the following year the Syrian king once more invaded

Palestine at the head of a great army, and, in spite of the

strenuous opposition of Judas, laid siege to the Holy City.

Famine soon reduced the garrison to the last extremities, and

their fate would have been a hard one had not the disordered

condition of Syria compelled the besiegers to accept

honourable terms. Whilst the siege was in progress news came

to the Syrian camp that Philip had put himself at the head of

a large army, with the intention of enforcing his claims to

the regency. No time was to be lost, and the king, acting on

the advice of Lysias, accorded the Jews religious liberty.

Jerusalem capitulated; and the same order of things was

established as had existed previous to the insurrection. Soon

after these events Antiochus V. was dethroned and executed by

his relative, Demetrius I. In Judæa the new monarch allowed

the people to retain the religious liberties granted them by

his predecessor, and had he exercised more judgment in the

selection of a High Priest it would have been impossible for

Judas to renew the struggle against Syria with any prospect of

success. The Assidæans, or Pious Ones, who afterwards

developed into the party known as the Pharisees, and who,

while their religion was at stake, were devoted followers of

Judas, were satisfied with the attainment of religious

freedom. But Judas and his friends, who formed the party which

afterwards became the Sadducees, … were unwilling to relax

their efforts till the country was completely independent. The

Assidæans, consisting of the scribes and the bulk of the

population, accepted Alcimus, the High Priest whom Demetrius

had appointed, and were disposed for peace. But the senseless

barbarities of Alcimus threw the Assidæans once more into the

arms of the war party, and the struggle began afresh. The High

Priest was obliged to flee from Jerusalem; Demetrius sent an

army to reinstate him, but Judas defeated the Syrian forces,

and the Jews enjoyed a short period of repose. … Two Jewish

delegates, Eupolemos and Jason, were sent to Italy to form an

alliance with Rome. The Senate, which never neglected an

opportunity of crippling the Syrian monarchy, accorded a

favourable reception to the Jewish envoys, and acknowledged

the independence of their country. … While these

negotiations were taking place the Syrian army again invaded

Palestine. Judas went forth to meet them, and, after a

desperate conflict, was defeated and slain [at Beer-Zath] (B.

C. 161). The death of their leader shattered the party of

freedom, and the Romans, probably because they saw no distinct

centre of authority left standing in the country, ignored the

treaty they had just made with the Jewish envoys, and left

Judæa to its fate. It was not by direct intervention that the

Romans helped the Jews forward on the path of independence; it

was by the disintegrating action of Roman policy on the

kingdom of Syria. The Jewish leaders did not fail to take

advantage of the opportunities which were thus afforded them.

About nine years after the death of Judas Maccabæus, the

Romans started a new pretender to the Syrian crown in the

person of Alexander Balas, a young man of unknown origin (B.

C. 152). Supported by the allies of Rome, Balas was able to

take the field against Demetrius, who became alarmed at the

threatening aspect of affairs: Jonathan, a brother of Judas,

was then at the head of the Jewish patriots (B. C. 161-142),

and Demetrius attempted by concessions to win him over to his

side. When the pretender Balas heard of this, he immediately

outbade Demetrius, and offered Jonathan the High Priesthood as

the price of his support. Jonathan sold himself to the highest

bidder, and, notwithstanding further profuse promises from

Demetrius, the Jewish leader remained true to his allegiance.

The war between the two rivals did not last long; Demetrius

was overthrown and slain (B. C. 151), and at the marriage of

the new king, Jonathan was appointed civil and military

governor of Judæa." The spiritual and the temporal government

of the Jews was now united in the office of High Priest.

Jonathan, captured and murdered by one of the Syrian

pretenders, was succeeded in the office (B. C. 142), by

another brother, Simon, who was assassinated, B. C. 135, by an

ambitious son-in-law. Simon's son, John Hyrcanus, took his

place.

W. D. Morrison,

The Jews under Roman Rule,

chapter 1.

The Asmonean family had now become so established in its

princely character that the next of the line, Judas (who took

the Greek name Aristobulus), assumed the crown and title of

King (B. C. 105). Aristobulus reigned less than two years, and

was succeeded by his brother Jonathan (Jannæus) Alexander.

"These Jewish princes were as wide apart in character as in

name from the house whose honours they inherited. Aristobulus,

the bloody, … starved in prison his mother, whom John had

left as regent. … Alexander, named Jannæus, in a reign of

five and twenty years, was mostly occupied in petty

wars,—generally unsuccessful, but indefatigable to begin

afresh. He signalized himself in successive revolts of his

people, first by the barbarous slaughter of 6,000, then by a

civil war of some six years, which cost 10,000 lives, and

finally by crucifying 800. … A restless, dissolute,

ambitious man, called 'the Thracian' for his barbarities, his

rule abhorred except for the comparative mercy he showed in

the cities he had conquered, he died [B. C. 79] before the age

of fifty, having done the one service of confirming the Jewish

power upon the soil of Palestine."

J. H. Allen,

Hebrew Men and Times,

chapter 10.

"When … Jannæus Alexander died, the Jewish kingdom stretched

towards the south over the whole Philistian territory as far

as the Egyptian frontier; towards the south-east as far as the

Nabatæan kingdom of Petra, from which Jannæus had wrested

considerable tracts on the right bank of the Jordan and the

Dead Sea; towards the north over Samaria and the Decapolis up

to the lake of Gennesareth; here he was already making

arrangements to occupy Ptolemais (Acco) and victoriously to

repel the aggressions of the Ityræans. The coast obeyed the

Jews from Mount Carmel as far as Rhinocorura, including the

important Gaza—Ascalon alone was still free; so that the

territory of the Jews, once almost cut off from the sea, could

now be enumerated among the asylums of piracy. Now that the

Armenian invasion, just as it approached the borders of Judæa,

was averted by the intervention of Lucullus, … the gifted

rulers of the Hasmonæan house would probably have carried

their arms still further, had not the development of the power

of that remarkable conquering sacerdotal state been arrested

by internal divisions.

{1915}

The spirit of religious independence and the national

patriotism—the energetic union of which had called the

Maccabee state into life—very soon became dissociated and

even antagonistic. The Jewish orthodoxy [or Pharisaism]

gaining fresh strength in the times of the Maccabees, …

proposed as its practical aim a community of Jews composed of

the orthodox in all lands essentially irrespective of the

secular government—a community which found its visible points

of union in the tribute to the temple at Jerusalem obligatory

on every conscientious Jew and in the schools of religion and

spiritual courts, and its canonical superintendence in the

great temple consistory at Jerusalem, which was reconstituted

in the first period of the Maccabees and may be compared as

respects its sphere of jurisdiction to the Roman pontifical

college. Against this orthodoxy, which was becoming more and

more ossified into theological formalism and a painful

ceremonial service, was arrayed the opposition of the

so-called Sadducees—partly dogmatic, in so far as these

innovators acknowledged only the sacred books themselves and

conceded authority merely, not canonicity, to the 'bequests of

the scribes,' that is canonical tradition; partly political,

in so far as instead of a fatalistic waiting for the strong

arm of the Lord of Zebaoth they taught that the salvation of

the nation was to be expected from the weapons of this world,

and above all from the internal and external strengthening of

the kingdom of David as re-established in the glorious times

of the Maccabees. The partisans of orthodoxy found their

support in the priesthood and the multitude. … Jannæus had

kept down the priesthood with a strong hand; under his two

sons there arose … a civil and fraternal war, since the

Pharisees opposed the vigorous Aristobulus and attempted to

obtain their objects under the nominal rule of his brother,

the good-natured and indolent Hyrcanus. This dissension not

merely put a stop to the Jewish conquests, but gave also

foreign nations opportunity to interfere and to obtain a

commanding position in southern Syria. This was the case first

of all with the Nabatæans. This remarkable nation has often

been confounded with its eastern neighbours, the wandering

Arabs, but it is more closely related to the Aramæan branch

than to the proper children of Ishmael. This Aramæan, or,

according to the designation of the Occidentals, Syrian, stock

must have in very early times sent forth from its most ancient

settlements about Babylon a colony, probably for the sake of

trade, to the northern end of the Arabian gulf; these were the

Nabatæans on the Sinaitic peninsula, between the gulf of Suez

and Aila, and in the region of Petra (Wadi Mousa). In their

ports the wares of the Mediterranean were exchanged for those

of India; the great southern caravan-route, which ran from

Gaza to the mouth of the Euphrates and the Persian gulf,

passed through the capital of the Nabatæans—Petra—whose

still magnificent rock-palaces and rock-tombs furnish clearer

evidence of the Nabatæan civilization than does an almost

extinct tradition. The party of the Pharisees, to whom after

the manner of priests the victory of their faction seemed not

too dearly bought at the price of the independence and

integrity of their country, solicited Aretas the king of the

Nabatæans for aid against Aristobulus, in return for which

they promised to give back to him all the conquests wrested

from him by Jannæus. Thereupon Aretas had advanced with, it

was said, 50,000 men into Judæa and, reinforced by the

adherents of the Pharisees, he kept king Aristobulus besieged

in his capital."

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 5, chapter 4 (volume 4).

"While this was going on, Pompey had meanwhile begun his

victorious campaign in Asia [see ROME: B. C. 69-63]. He had

conquered Mithridates in B. C. 66, and had in the same year

received the voluntary submission of Tigranes. While he

himself now pressed on farther into Asia, he sent Scaurus to

Syria in B. C. 65. When that general arrived at Damascus he

heard of the war between the brothers in Judea, and pushed

forward without delay to see how he might turn to account this

strife between the rival princes. He had scarcely reached

Judea when ambassadors presented themselves before him, both

from Aristobulus and from Hyrcanus. They both sought his

favour and support. Aristobulus offered him in return four

hundred talents; and Hyrcanus could not be behind, and so

promised the same sum. But Scaurus trusted Aristobulus rather

because he was in a better position to fulfil his engagement,

and so decided to take his side. He ordered Aretas to withdraw

if he did not wish to be declared an enemy of the Romans.

Aretas did not venture to show opposition. He therefore raised

the siege, and thereupon Scaurus returned to Damascus. But

Aristobulus pursued Aretas on his way homeward, and inflicted

upon him a crushing defeat. But the Roman favour which

Aristobulus had so exerted himself to secure, under the

protection of which he believed himself to be safe, soon

proved fatal to his well-being and that of his country. He

himself left no stone unturned in order to win the goodwill of

Pompey as well as of Scaurus. He sent Pompey a costly present,

a skilfully wrought golden vine worth five hundred talents,

which Strabo found still on view at Rome in the temple of

Jupiter Capitolinus. But all this could not save Aristobulus,

whenever Pompey found it to be for his advantage to withdraw

his favour and take the side of Hyrcanus. In the spring of B.

C. 63, Pompey proceeded from his winter quarters into Syria,

subdued the greater and smaller princes in the Lebanon, and

advanced by way of Heliopolis and Chalcis upon Damascus. There

he was met at one and the same time by representatives of

three Jewish parties. Not only did Aristobulus and Hyrcanus

appear, but the Jewish people also sent an embassy. Hyrcanus

complained that Aristobulus, in defiance of all law, had

violently assumed the government; Aristobulus justified his

conduct by pointing out the incapacity of Hyrcanus. But the

people wished to have nothing to do with either, asked for the

abolition of the monarchy and the restoration of the old

theocratic constitution of the priests. Pompey heard them, but

cautiously deferred any decision, and declared that he would

put all things in order when he had accomplished his

contemplated expedition against the Nabatheans. Till then all

parties were to maintain the peace. Aristobulus, however, was

by no means satisfied with this arrangement, and betrayed his

discontent by suddenly quitting Dium, whither he had

accompanied Pompey on his expedition against the Nabatheans.

Pompey grew suspicious, postponed his campaign against the

Nabatheans, and marched immediately against Aristobulus.

{1916}

He … pursued him through Jericho, and soon appeared in the

neighbourhood of Jerusalem. But now Aristobulus lost heart. He

betook himself to the camp of Pompey, gave him further

presents, and promised to surrender to him the city if Pompey

would suspend hostilities. Pompey was satisfied with this, and

sent his general Gabinius to take possession of the city,

while he retained Aristobulus in the camp. But Gabinius

returned without having obtained his object, for the people in

the city had shut the gates against him. Pompey was so enraged

at this that he put Aristobulus in prison, and immediately

advanced against the city. … The city was surrendered to

Pompey, who sent in his legate Piso, and without drawing sword

took possession of it. But the war faction gathered together

on the temple mount and there prepared themselves for

resistance. The temple mount was then, as afterwards, the

strongest point in Jerusalem. It presented to the east and the

south a sheer precipice. Also on the west it was separated

from the city by a deep ravine. Only on the north was there a

gradual slope; but even there approach was made almost

impossible by the construction of strong fortifications. In

this fortress, well nigh impregnable, the adherents of

Aristobulus had now taken refuge, and Pompey, whether he would

or not, had to engage upon a regular siege. … After a three

months' siege, a breach was made in the wall. A son of the

dictator Sulla was the first to make way through it with his

troops. Others quickly followed. Then began a frightful

massacre. The priests, who were then engaged offering

sacrifice, would not desist from the execution of their

office, and were hewn down at the altar. No less than 12,000

Jews are said to have lost their lives in this general

butchery. It was towards the close of autumn of the year B. C.

63, under Cicero's consulship, according to Josephus on the

very day of atonement, according to Dio Cassius on a Sabbath,

that this holy city bowed its head before the Roman commander.

Pompey himself forced his way into the Most Holy Place, into

which only the feet of the high priest had ever before

entered. But he left the treasures and precious things of the

temple untouched, and also took care that the service of God

should be continued without interruption. On the besieged he

passed a severe sentence. Those who had promoted the war were

beheaded; the city and the country were made tributary. …

The boundaries of the Jewish territories were greatly

curtailed. All the coast towns from Raphia to Dora were taken

from the Jews; and also all non-Jewish towns on the east of

the Jordan, such as Hippos, Gadara, Pella, Dium, and others;

also Scythopolis and Samaria, with the regions around them.

All these towns were immediately put under the rule of the

governor of the newly-formed Roman province of Syria. The

contracted Jewish territory was given over to Hyrcanus II.,

who was recognised as high priest, without the title of king.

… With the institutions of Pompey the freedom of the Jewish

people, after having existed for scarcely eighty years, if we

reckon it as beginning in B. C. 142, was completely

overthrown. Pompey, indeed, was acute enough to insist upon no

essential change in the internal government of the country. He

suffered the hierarchical constitution to remain intact, and

gave the people as their high priest Hyrcanus II., who was

favoured by the Pharisees. But the independence of the nation

was at an end, and the Jewish high priest was a vassal of the

Romans."

E. Schürer,

History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ,

division 1, volume 1, pages 317-324.

Hyrcanus II. was not merely the vassal of the Romans; he was

the puppet of one of his own partisans—the able Idumean,

Antipater, who gathered the reins of government into his own

hands. "Antipater ruled without interfering with Hyrcanus; he

rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem, and appointed Phasael, the

eldest of his four heroic sons (whose mother was Kypros, an

Arabian), to be ruler of the district of the holy city, and

Herod the younger to be ruler of Galilee. This young man, who

was at that time scarcely twenty-five years old, was soon able

to surpass even his father. … He purified Galilee from the

robber-bands, of which Hezekiah was the most dreaded leader,

and by so doing, although he was already a mark for the hatred

borne by the national and priestly party against the Edomites,

as friends of their new tyrants the Romans, he distinguished

himself by dealing summarily with the robbers, without

appealing to the legal authorities. He therefore appeared

before the Sanhedrim of Jerusalem, to which he was summoned by

Hyrcanus, with a military escort, wearing purple, with his

head anointed, and bearing a letter of safe-conduct from his

patron Sextus Cæsar, the ruler of Syria. … Hyrcanus allowed

him to withdraw in defiance: he hastened to Syria, bought the

governments of Cœle-Syria and Samaria (B. C. 46), marched

thence with an army towards Jerusalem, and when he had with

difficulty been persuaded by his father and brother to return,

he rejoiced that he had at least menaced the country. Neither

the death of Julius Cæsar (B. C. March 44), the civil war at

Rome, nor the poisoning of his father Antipater at the table

of Hyrcanus in the year 43, interfered with Herod's success:

He bought the favour of Cæsar's murderers by the unexampled

haste with which he brought in large contributions, amounting

to a hundred talents (more than £20,000) from Galilee alone,

so that Cassius appointed him Procurator of Syria, and

promised him the dignity of king, in the event of a victory

over Anthony and Octavianus, a prospect which indeed cost his

father his life. Nor was Herod's power destroyed by the

unfortunate battle of Philippi in the autumn of B. C. 42. He

succeeded in gaining Anthony by the influence of his person

and of his wealth; and in spite of all the embassies of the

Jews, Phasael and Herod were appointed tetrarchs of the whole

of Judea in the year B. C. 41. His betrothal to Mariamne,

grand-child of Hyrcanus, which took place at the same time,

added the illusion of national and hereditary right to Herod's

previous good fortune. But there was first an interval of

hardship. Immediately afterwards, the Parthian armies overran

Upper Asia, while Anthony remained in Egypt, ensnared by

Cleopatra: they took Jerusalem [B. C. 40], and to please that

place as well as the Jews of Babylon, they installed

Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, as king, taking Phasael and

Hyrcanus prisoners, while Herod escaped with difficulty. All

was ended with a blow, Herod was put to flight, Phasael killed

himself, and Antigonus cut off the cars of Hyrcanus the high

priest. Herod landed in Italy as an adventurer.

{1917}

He met Anthony, and by his means also gained over Octavianus.

Fear and hatred of the Parthians effected even more than old

acquaintance and new engagements: and beyond his most daring

hopes a decree of the senate [B. C. 40] bestowed the kingdom

of Judea upon him."

T. Keim,

History of Jesus of Nazara,

volume I, page 231.

JEWS: B. C. 40-A. D. 44.

Herod and the Herodians.

Roman rule.

Returning to Judæa with his new rank and the confirmed support

of Rome, "Herod slowly obtained possession of the country, not

without the help of Roman legions, and in a third campaign, in

June (Sivan), B. C. 37, occupied Jerusalem [after a siege of

half a year] and the Temple, in the halls of which fire raged,

contrary to his wish, and blood streamed through its courts.

This was the second Roman occupation of Jerusalem, after an

interval of twenty-six years, even to a day. Antigonus fell,

by the king's wish, beneath the axe of Anthony, and the

Maccabean house had ceased to reign. The new kingdom underwent

its final crisis in the war between Octavianus and Anthony, in

which Herod was constrained to take part with Anthony. … The

frankness with which, after the battle of Actium (September,

B. C. 31), he proclaimed his friendship for Anthony to

Octavianus at the island of Rhodes, in order to set before him

the prospect of a like faithfulness, procured the crown for

him afresh, which Octavianus set upon his head." Octavianus

"restored to him all the possessions which his intriguing

enemy Cleopatra had obtained at his expense in the south of

the country and on its western coast, giving to him Gadra,

Hippo, Samaria, and on the coast Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa, the

tower of Strato, and in short the whole country, and even more

than he had lost by Pompey's conquests. A few years later the

same benefactor enlarged the kingdom on the north-east, by

making over to Herod, between the years B. C. 24-21, the wide

extent of territory reaching to Anti-Lebanon, and Damascus, in

order to protect that city from attacks on the side of the

desert. He was appointed Procurator-General of Syria, and

afterwards nearly obtained the government of Arabia. It was in

fact almost the kingdom of David which was again united under

Herod. Herod enjoyed the favour of Octavianus, with few

intervals, to the last. … Herod did not merely owe his

success to that officious attention which displayed the

greatness of Rome in costly hospitalities, gifts, and edifices

of every kind, but to his genuine fidelity and manly heroism,

his pre-eminent wisdom and readiness to accept the culture of

the West, qualities which were recognized as adapting him to

be a most useful ally in the territory which bounded the

eastern empire of Rome, where the inhabitants were so ready to

take offence. Herod, in a certain sense, emulated his friend

in Rome, in introducing an Augustan era into his land. He, as

well as Octavianus, put an end to war, and the dominion which

had been cemented together by the blood of its citizens

enjoyed a long peace, lasting for almost forty years. … The

prosperity of the country increased so much in these quiet

times that Herod, when he began to build the Temple, boasted

of the wealth and income which had accumulated in an

unprecedented manner, so as to confirm the most fabulous

accounts of the luxurious expenditure of his reign. … Herod

was not devoid of nobler qualities, even although they have

been forgotten by the Jews and Christians. He was not merely a

brave leader in war, a bold hunter and rider, and a sagacious

ruler; there was in him a large-heartedness and an innate

nobility of mind which enabled him to be a benefactor of his

people. This fundamental characteristic of his nature,

inherited from his father, is admitted by the Jewish

historian, times out of number, and has been shown by his

affection for his father, mother, and brothers, and also for

his friends, by his beneficence in good fortune, and even in

adversity. … When in the thirteenth year of his reign (B. C.

25), some years before the building of the Temple, famine and

sickness devastated the land, he sold the gold and silver

treasures in his house, and himself became poor, while he

bespoke great quantities of grain from Egypt, which he

dispensed, and caused to be made into bread: he clothed the

poor, and fed 50,000 men at his own expense: he himself sent

help to the towns of Syria, and obtained the immediate, and

indeed the enduring gratitude of the people as a second

Joseph. Yet it was only the large-heartedness of a barbarian,

without true culture, or deeper morality. Hence came the

unscrupulousness, the want of consideration for the national

peculiarities which he opposed, the base cunning and vanity

which coloured all his actions, and hence again, especially in

later life, he became subject to caprices, to anger and

repentance, to mistrust and cruelty, to the wiles of women and

of eunuchs. He was, in short, only the petty tyrant, the

successful upstart who was self-seeking, and at once rash and

timid; a beggar before Augustus; a foolish time-server before

the Greek and Roman world; a tyrant in his own house, and

incapable either of resisting influence or of enduring

contradiction. … The dangerous position of the upstart, with

respect to the earlier royal family and to the national

aversion, the divisions of his numerous family, the intrigues

of a court of women, eunuchs, barbers, and frivolous

flatterers of every description, drew him on, as if with

demoniacal power, from one stage of cruelty to another. …

Daily executions began on his entry into Jerusalem in the year

B. C. 37 with the execution of Antigonus, of the nephew of

Hyrcanus, and of his own dependants. … He pardoned no one

whom he suspected: he enforced obedience by an oath, and

whoever would not swear forfeited his life. Innumerable people

disappeared mysteriously in the fortress of Hyrcania. Life was

forfeited even for the offence of meeting or standing

together, when it was noticed by the countless spies in the

city and on the highways, and indeed by himself in his rounds

by night. The bloody decimation of his own family was most

revolting. About the year B. C. 35 he caused his wife's

brother Aristobulus, who had been high priest for eighteen

years, to be stifled by his Gallic guards in a pond at

Jericho, because he was popular, and belonged to the old

family: in the year B. C. 31, after the battle of Actium, he

murdered his grandfather-in-law Hyrcanus, aged eighty years,

and in the year B. C. 30 or 29 his wife Mariamne, and a little

later her intriguing mother Alexandra, since they had become

objects of suspicion to him: in the year B. C. 25 his

brother-in-law, Kostobar, find a long line of friends were

slain: about the year B. C. 6, the sons of Mariamne, Alexander

and Aristobulus, were judicially condemned and strangled in

Samaria: and finally the diabolical Antipater, the son of the

first marriage, who, together with Salome, Herod's sister, and

with Alexandra, his mother-in-law, had taken the greatest part

in the crimes of the family."

T. Keim,

History of Jesus of Nazara,

volume 1, pages 233-246.

{1918}

Herod died within the year (B. C. 4) which has been most

generally agreed upon as that of the birth of Jesus. By ten

wives he had had many children, and had slain not a few; but a

large family survived, to quarrel over the heritage, disputing

a will which Herod left. There was a hearing of the disputants

at Rome, and also a hearing given to deputies of the Jewish

people, who prayed to be delivered from the Herodian family,

all and singly. The latter prayer, however, received small

consideration. The imperial judgment established Archelaus,

eldest son of Herod's sixth wife, Malthace, in the sovereignty

of Judæa, Idumæa, and Samaria, with the title of Ethnarch. To

Herod Antipas, second son of the same mother, it gave Galilee

and Peræa. Philip, another son, by a seventh wife, was made

tetrarch of a small principality. Archelaus governed so

oppressively that, after some years (A. D. 6), he was deposed

by the Romans and banished to Gaul. Judæa was then joined to

the præfecture of Syria, under a succession of Roman

governors, the fifth of whom was Pontius Pilate. "Judaea thus

became in the year 6 A. D. a Roman province of the second

rank, and, apart from the ephemeral restoration of the kingdom

of Jerusalem under Claudius in the years 41-44, thenceforth

remained a Roman province. Instead of the previous native

princes holding office for life and, under reservation of

their being confirmed by the Roman government, hereditary,

came an official of the equestrian order, nominated and liable

to recall by the emperor. The port of Caesarea rebuilt by

Herod after a Hellenic model became, probably at once, the

seat of Roman administration. The exemption of the land from

Roman garrison, as a matter of course, ceased, but, as

throughout in provinces of second rank, the Roman military

force consisted only of a moderate number of cavalry and

infantry divisions of the inferior class; subsequently one ala

and five cohorts—about 3,000 men—were stationed there. These

troops were perhaps taken over from the earlier government, at

least in great part formed in the country itself, mostly,

however, from Samaritans and Syrian Greeks. The province did

not obtain a legionary garrison, and even in the territories

adjoining Judaea there was stationed at the most one of the

four Syrian legions. To Jerusalem there came a standing Roman

commandant, who took up his abode in the royal castle, with a

weak standing garrison; only during the time of the Passover,

when the whole land and countless strangers flocked to the

temple, a stronger division of Roman soldiers was stationed in

a colonnade belonging to the temple. … For the native

authorities in Judaea as everywhere the urban communities

were, as far as possible, taken as a basis. Samaria, or as the

town was now called, Sebaste, the newly laid out Caesarea, and

the other urban communities contained in the former kingdom of

Archelaus, were self-administering, under superintendence of

the Roman authority. The government also of the capital with

the large territory belonging to it was organised in a similar

way. Already in the pre-Roman period under the Seleucids there

was formed … in Jerusalem a council of the elders, the

Synhedrion, or as Judaised, the Sanhedrin. The presidency in

it was held by the high priest, whom each ruler of the land,

if he was not possibly himself high priest, appointed for the

time. To the college belonged the former high priests and

esteemed experts in the law. This assembly, in which the

aristocratic element preponderated, acted as the supreme

spiritual representative of the whole body of Jews, and, so

far as this was not to be separated from it, also as the

secular representative in particular of the community of

Jerusalem. It is only the later Rabbinism that has by a pious

fiction transformed the Sanhedrion of Jerusalem into a

spiritual institute of Mosaic appointment. It corresponded

essentially to the council of the Greek urban constitution,

but certainly bore, as respected its composition as well as

its sphere of working, a more spiritual character than

belonged to the Greek representations of the community. To

this Synhedrion and its high priest, who was now nominated by

the procurator as representative of the imperial suzerain, the

Roman government left or committed that jurisdiction which in

the Hellenic subject communities belonged to the urban

authorities and the common councils. With indifferent

short-sightedness it allowed to the transcendental Messianism

of the Pharisees free course, and to the by no means

transcendental land-consistory—acting until the Messiah

should arrive—tolerably free sway in affairs of faith, of

manners, and of law, where Roman interests were not directly

affected thereby. This applied in particular to the

administration of justice. It is true that, as far as Roman

burgesses were concerned in the matter, justice in civil as in

criminal affairs must have been reserved for the Roman

tribunals even already before the annexation of the land. But

civil justice over the Jews remained even after that

annexation chiefly with the local authority. Criminal justice

over them was exercised by the latter probably in general

concurrently with the Roman procurator; only sentences of

death could not be executed by it otherwise than after

confirmation by the imperial magistrate. In the main those

arrangements were the inevitable consequences of the abolition

of the principality, and when the Jews had obtained this

request of theirs, they in fact obtained those arrangements

along with it. … The local coining of petty moneys, as

formerly practised by the kings, now took place in the name of

the Roman ruler; but on account of the Jewish abhorrence of

images the head of the emperor was not even placed on the

coins. Setting foot within the interior of the temple

continued to be forbidden in the case of every non-Jew under

penalty of death. … In the very beginning of the reign of

Tiberius the Jews, like the Syrians, complained of the

pressure of the taxes; especially the prolonged administration

of Pontius Pilatus is charged with all the usual official

crimes by a not unfair observer. But Tiberius, as the same Jew

says, had during the twenty-three years of his reign

maintained the time-hallowed holy customs, and in no part set

them aside or violated them. This is the more to be

recognised, seeing that the same emperor in the West

interfered against the Jews more emphatically than any other,

and thus the long-suffering and caution shown by him in Judaea

cannot be traced back to personal favour for Judaism. In spite of

all this both the opposition on principle to the Roman

government and the violent efforts at self-help on the part of

the faithful developed themselves even in this time of peace."

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome: The Provinces, from Caesar to Diocletian,

book 8, chapter 11.

{1919}

In the year 41 A. D. the house of Herod rose to power again,

in the person of his grandson, Herod Agrippa, descendant of

the unfortunate Mariamne. Agrippa had lived long at Rome and

won the favor of two successive emperors, Caligula and

Claudius. Caligula deposed Herod Antipas from the tetrarchy of

Galilee and conferred it on Agrippa. Claudius, in 41, added

Judæa and Samaria to his dominions, establishing him in a

kingdom even greater than that of his grandfather. He died

suddenly in 44 A. D. and Judæa again relapsed to the state of

a Roman province. His young son, also named Herod Agrippa, was

provided, after a few years, with a small kingdom, that of

Chalcis, exchanged later for one made up of other districts in

Palestine. After the destruction of Jerusalem he retired to

Rome, and the line of Herod ended with him.

H. H. Milman,

History of the Jews,

book 12.

ALSO IN:

Josephus,

Antiquity of the Jews,

books 15-20.

H. Ewald,

History of Israel,

book 5, section 2.

JEWS: B. C. 8-A. D. 1.

Uncertainty of the date of the birth of Jesus.

"The reigning Christian computation of time, that sovereign

authority in accordance with which we reckon our life, and

which is surely above the assault of any critical doubts,

goes, be it remembered, but a very little way towards the

settlement of this question [as to the year of the birth of

Jesus] in as much as its inventor, a Scythian by birth,

Dionysius the Less, Abbot of a Roman monastery (died 556 A.

D.) [see ERA, CHRISTIAN], … had certainly no entire immunity

from human frailty. … The comparatively best assured and

best supported account places the birth of Jesus in the reign

of King Herod the Great. Matthew knows no other chronology:

Luke gives the same, along with another, or, if we will, along

with two others. Matthew more particularly, in his own

account, puts the birth in the last years of that king. Jesus

is a little child at the time of the coming of the Magi, and

he is still a child at the return of Joseph from the flight

into Egypt, after the death of Herod has taken place. We shall

hit the sense of the writer most exactly if we assume that

Jesus, at the time of the coming of the Magi, who gave King

Herod ground for conjecturing a Messiah of about the age of

two,—was about two years old; at the time of Herod's death,

about four. … Now since Herod died … shortly before Easter

of the year 750 A. U. C., i. e., 4 years before the Christian

era, Jesus must have been born four years before. 746 A. U.

C., or 8 years before the reputed Christian era, a view which

is expressly espoused in the fifth Christian century;

according to Apocrypha, 3 years before Herod's death, 747 A.

U. C., 7 years B. C. If we are able in addition to build upon

Kepler's Conjunction of Planets, which Bishop Münter, in his

book, 'The Star of the Wise Men,' 1827, called to remembrance,

we get with complete certainty 747 or 748, the latter, that

is, if we attach any value to the fact that in that year Mars

was added to Jupiter and Saturn. Desirable however as such

certainty might be, it is nevertheless hard to abandon oneself

to it with enthusiastic joy. … An actual reminiscence on the

part of the Christian community of the approximate point of

time at which the Lord was born, would be hard to call in

question, even though it might have overlooked or forgotten

every detail of the youth of Jesus besides. Finally, there is

after all a trace of such reminiscence independent of all

legendary formation. The introductory history of Luke without

any appreciable historical connexion, rather in conflict with

the world of legend represented in his Gospel, places the

birth of John the Baptist and of Jesus in Herod's time. At the

same time there is just as little, or even less, sign than

elsewhere in Luke's preliminary story, of any dependence on

the account in Matthew, or any world of legend like his. We

should thus still be inclined to infer that Jesus, according

to ancient Christian tradition, was born under King Herod, and

more particularly, according to the legend of Matthew, which

after all is the better guaranteed of the two, towards the

close of his reign. … Luke appears … so far to give the

most precise boundary line to the birth of Jesus, inasmuch as

he brings it into immediate connexion with the first taxing of

Judæa by the Romans, which admits of exact historical

computation. The Roman taxing was indeed the occasion of

Joseph and Mary's journey to Bethlehem, and of the birth of

Jesus in the inn there. This taxing took place, as Luke quite

rightly observes, for the first time in Judæa, under the

Emperor Augustus, and more precisely, under Quirinius'

Governorship of Syria, and moreover, … not only after the

death of Herod, but also after his son Archelaos had been

reigning about ten years, in consequence of the dethronement

of Archelaos and the annexation of Judæa and Samaria by the

Romans in the year 760 A. U. C. 7 A. D. But here too at once

begins the difficulty. According to this statement Jesus would

have been born from ten to fourteen years later than the

Gospels otherwise assert, Luke himself included. This late

birth would not only clash with the first statement of the

Gospels themselves, but equally with all probability, inasmuch

as Jesus would then not have been as much as thirty years old

at his death, which in any case took place before the recall

of the Procurator Pilate (781 A. U. C. 35 A. D.). We are here

therefore compelled to acknowledge a simple error of the

writer. … Once more … does Luke incidentally compute the

time of the birth of Jesus. By describing the time of John the

Baptist's appearance and speaking of Jesus at that period as

about thirty years old, he favours the assumption, that Jesus

was born about thirty years before the fifteenth year of the

reign of the Emperor Tiberius. … We shall … see grounds

for considering the commencement of the Baptist's ministry, as

fixed far too early anywhere near the date 28 A. D. But if

after all we assume the figure, as it stands, the fifteenth

year of Tiberius, reckoning his reign from the 19th of August,

767, or 14 A. D., was the year 781-782, or 28-29 A. D. In that

case Jesus must have been born, reckoning about 30 years

backwards, towards the year 751-752, i. e., 2-3 years before

our reputed era. … Of the later attempts to restore the year

of Jesus' birth, those of antiquity and of modern times claim

our attention in different ways. …

{1920}

Irenæus, followed by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Jerome, gives the

forty-first year of the Emperor Augustus, Clement of

Alexandria the twenty-eighth year of the same, as the year of

birth: much the same in both cases, viz. (751-752), inasmuch

as the former reckons from the first consulate of Augustus

after the death of Cæsar (731 A. U. C.); Clement from his

conquest of Egypt (724). Later authorities since Eusebius, the

first Church historian, marked the forty-second year of

Augustus, following a notice of their predecessors, that is

752-753, which date however Eusebius would make out to agree

with the year of Clement, with the twenty-eighth year from the

occupation of Egypt. But how many other years besides were

possible! Here Sulpicius Severus (400 A. D.) pushed back

beyond the limit set by Irenæus, naming at one time 746-747 as

the time of Jesus' birth, at another the consuls of 750, and

the later date has also been found … by the Arabic Gospel of

the Infancy. Here again the date was shifted lower down than

the figure of Eusebius to the forty-third year of Augustus, i.

e., 753-754. This date is found already in Tertullian in one

reading, though in conflict with the year 41; the Chronograph

of the year 354 puts it down with the express mention of the

Consuls Cæsar and Paulus at 754 A. U. C., the Egyptian monk

Panodorus (400 A. D.) has so reckoned it; and the founder of

the Christian reckoning, the Abbot Dionysius (Easter Table 525

A. D.) introduced it for all time. … What is certain is that

this year 754 A. U. C. 1 A. D., this official Christian

calendar, does not hit the tradition of the Gospels. In modern

times, thanks to the efforts of great astronomers and

chronologists, Kepler, Ideler, and Münter, the year 747 or 748

has found the greatest favour as the year of the Wise Men's

star. But since people have come back from their enthusiasm

for the discovery of this conjunction to a more faithful

regard for the Gospels, it has always commended itself afresh,

to place the birth of Jesus at latest in the first beginning

of the year 750 (4 B. C.), i. e., before the death of King

Herod, but if possible from two to four years earlier still

746-748, or 8-6 B. C. Thus Ewald inclines half to the year

748, and half to 749: Petavius, Usher, Lichtenstein to 749,

Bengal, Anger, Winer, Wieseler to 750, Wurm indeed following

Scaliger to 751, finally in latest times Rösch, attaching

great weight to the statements of the Fathers, as well as to

the Chinese star, actually gets by a multifariously laborious

method, at 751-752, in which year, as he decides, even Herod

must have been alive in spite of Josephus, and on the strength

of an innocuous observation by a Jewish Rabbi. If it was hard

enough to arrive at any certainty, or, at all events,

probability with respect to the year of Jesus' birth, we must

entirely waive all pretensions to tell the month or the day,

however justifiable may be our curiosity on this head. Our

traditional observance of the Day of Jesus on the 25th of

December is not prescribed in any ancient calendar."

Dr. T. Keim,

History of Jesus of Nazara,

volume 2, pages 109-126.

ALSO IN:

W. H. Anderdon,

Fasti Apostolici,

introd.

JEWS: A. D. 26.

Political situation of Judæa

at the time of the appearance of Jesus.

"Let us recall, in a few outlines, the political situation of

Judæa at the exact moment when Jesus appeared before His

countrymen. The shadow of independence, which had been left to

it under the vassal kingdom of Herod the Great, had long

vanished. Augustus had annexed Judæa to the Roman empire, not

by making it one of those senatorial provinces governed by

proconsuls, but as a direct dependant on his authority. He

associated it with the government of Syria, the capital of

which was Antioch, the residence of the imperial legate. In

consequence, however, of its importance, and the difficulties

presented by the complete subjection of such a people, the

procurator of Judæa enjoyed a certain latitude in his

administration; he at the same time managed the affairs of

Samaria, but as a second department, distinct from the first.

Faithful to the wise policy which it had pursued with so much

success for centuries, Rome interfered as little as possible

with the usages and institutions of the conquered province.

The Sanhedrim was, therefore, allowed to continue side by side

with the procurator, but its power was necessarily very

limited. Its jurisdiction was confined to matters of religion

and small civil causes: the procurator alone had the right of

decreeing capital punishment. The high-priestly office had

lost much of its importance. The Asmoneans and Herods had

reduced it to a subordinate magistracy, of which they made a

tool for their own purposes. Herod the Great had constituted

himself guardian of the sacerdotal vestments, under pretext

that he had had them restored to their first magnificence, on

the Levitical model; he bestowed them only on the men of his

choice. The Romans hastened to follow his example, and thus to

keep in their hands an office which might become perilous to

them. The procurator of Judæa resided at Cæsarea. He only came

to Jerusalem for the solemn feasts, or in exceptional cases,

to administer justice. His prætorium stood near the citadel of

Antonia. The Roman garrison in the whole of Palestine did not

exceed one legion. The levying of imposts on movable property,

and on individuals, led to perpetual difficulties; no such

objection was raised to the tribute of two drachms for the

temple, which was levied by the Sanhedrim. The tax-gatherers

in the service of the Romans were regarded as the

representatives of a detested rule; thus the publicans—for

the most part Jews by birth—were the objects of universal

contempt. The first rebellion of any importance took place on

the occasion of the census under Cyrenius. At the period at

which we have arrived, Judæa was governed by Pilate, the third

procurator since the annexation to the empire; he had found in

the high-priestly office John, surnamed Caiaphas, son-in-law

of Annas, the son of Seth, who had for a long time filled the

same office under Valerius Gratus. Pilate had an ally rather

than a rival in the Sadducee Caiaphas, who acted on no higher

principle than the interest of his order, and the maintenance

of his power. Pontius Pilate was wanting in the political tact

which knows how to soften in form the severities of a foreign

rule; he was a man of vulgar ambition, or rather, one of those

men without patriotism, who think only of using their

authority for their own advantage. He took no heed of the

peculiar dispositions and aversions of the people whom he was

to govern. Thus he sent to Jerusalem a Roman garrison with

standards; the Jews regarded this as a horrible profanation,

for the eagles were worshipped as gods.

{1921}

Assailed in his prætorium at Cæsarea by a suppliant crowd,

which no violence could disperse, the procurator was compelled

to yield to prayers, which might soon be changed into

desperate resistance. From that moment his influence was gone

in Judæa; he compromised it still further when he caused

shields of gold, bearing his name engraved beside that of the

emperor Tiberias, to be suspended from the outer walls of the

citadel of Antonia. This flattery to the sovereign, which

might have been unaccompanied with peril elsewhere, was

received at Jerusalem as a gratuitous provocation, and he was

obliged to recall a measure, persistence in which would have

led to a terrible tumult. Having thus made himself an object

of general aversion, he could not even do good without danger:

his plan to build an aqueduct, a thing peculiarly needed on

the burning soil of Judæa, created opposition so violent, that

it could only be put down by force. Under such a governor, the

national passions were in a perpetual state of agitation. This

increase of patriotic fanaticism created great obstacles to a

purely spiritual work like that of Jesus. Gaulonitis, Peræa,

and Galilee still belonged, at this time, to the family of

Herod. The tetrarch Philip governed the north-west of the

country for thirty-seven years, and was distinguished for his

moderation. … Galilee and Peræa were the portion of Herod

Antipas, the murderer of John the Baptist. His divorce from

the daughter of Aretas, after his marriage with Herodias, his

brother's wife, had brought war upon the wide provinces which

he governed. He was about soon to undergo a humiliating

defeat. Like his brother, he was childless. Under the

influence of such a prince, surrounded by a licentious court,

evil propensities had free play, and the corruption of manners

was a bad preparation for a religion of purity and

self-denial. In the lowness of the times, the Herods, though

of the family of the vile despots who had sold the

independence of the Jews, were regarded as in some measure a

national dynasty. They had a party which bore their name, and

which, in religious matters, combined, after the example of

Herod the Great, Pharisaism and Sadduceeism. Such were the

political circumstances in the midst of which Jesus was

placed."

E. de Pressensé,

Jesus Christ: His Times, Life, and Work,

book 3, chapter 1.

JEWS: A. D. 33-100.

The rise and diffusion of Christianity.

See CHRISTIANITY.

JEWS: A. D.66-70.

The Great Revolt.

The oppression of the Jewish nation under the Roman governors

who ruled Judæa directly, after the death of the first Herod

Agrippa (A. D. 44), may not have been heavier in reality than

it had been while the dependent and Romanized tyranny of the

Herodian kings prevailed, but it proved to be more irritating

and exasperating. "The burden, harshly shifted, was felt to be

more galling. The priests and nobles murmured, intrigued,

conspired; the rabble, bolder or more impatient, broke out

into sedition, and followed every chief who offered to lead

them to victory and independence. … It was only indeed under

extraordinary provocation that the populace of the Jewish

capital, who were generally controlled by the superior

prudence of their chiefs, broke into violence in the streets.

… But the ruder independence of the Galileans was not so

easily kept in check. Their tract of heath and mountain was

always then, as it has since always been, in a state of

partial insurrection. … For their coercion [at Jerusalem]

the Romans had invented a peculiar machinery. To Agrippa, the

tetrarch [the second Herod Agrippa], … they had given the

title of King of the Sacrifices, in virtue of which he was

suffered to reside in the palace at Jerusalem, and retain

certain functions, fitted to impose on the imagination of the

more ardent votaries of Jewish nationality. The palace of the

Herods overlooked the Temple, and from its upper rooms the

king could observe all that passed in that mart of business

and intrigue. Placed, however, as a spy in this watch-tower,

he was regarded by the Zealots, the faction of independence,

as a foe to be baffled rather than a chief to be respected and

honoured. They raised the walls of their sanctuary to shut out

his view, and this, among other causes of discontent between

the factions in the city, ripened to an enmity. … And now

was introduced into the divisions of this unhappy people a new

feature of atrocity. The Zealots sought to terrify the more

prudent or time-serving by an organized system of private

assassination. Their 'Sicarii,' or men of the dagger, are

recognised in the records of the times as a secret agency, by

which the most impatient of the patriots calculated on

exterminating the chief supporters of the foreign government.

… Hitherto the Romans, from policy rather than respect, had

omitted to occupy Jerusalem with a military force. They were

now invited and implored by the chiefs of the priesthood and

nobility, and Florus [the Roman governor] sent a detachment to

seize the city and protect the lives of his adherents. This

was the point to which the Zealots themselves had wished to

lead him."

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 59.

A furious battle in the streets of Jerusalem occurred on the

entrance of the Roman troops. The latter gained possession of

the citadel, with the upper city, but, after seven days of

fighting, were forced to capitulate, and were ruthlessly put

to the sword, in violation of sworn pledges. "On that very day

and hour, while the Jews were plunging their daggers in the

hearts of the Romans, a great and terrible slaughter of their

own people was going on in Cæsarea, where the Syrians and

Greeks had risen upon the Jews, and massacred 20,000 of them

in a single day. And in every Syrian city the same madness and

hatred seized the people, and the Jews were ruthlessly

slaughtered in all. No more provocation was needed; no more

was possible. … The heads of the people began the war with

gloomy forebodings; the common masses with the wildest

enthusiasm, which became the mere intoxication of success when

they drove back Cestius from the walls of the city, on the

very eve of his anticipated victory—for Cestius [præfect of

Syria] hastened southwards with an army of 20,000 men, and

besieged the city. The people, divided amongst themselves,

were on the point of opening the gates to the Romans, when, to

the surprise of everybody, Cestius suddenly broke up his camp

and began to retreat. Why he did so, no one ever knew. … The

retreat became a flight, and Cestius brought back his army

with a quarter of its numbers killed. … Vespasian was sent

hastily with a force of three legions, besides the cohorts of

auxiliaries. … Of the first campaign, that in Galilee, our

limits will not allow us to write. …

{1922}

The months passed on, and yet the Romans did not appear before

the walls of the city. This meantime was a prey to internal

evils, which when read appear almost incredible. … The

events at Rome which elevated Vespasian to the throne were the

principal reasons that the siege of Jerusalem was not actually

commenced till the early summer of the year 70, when, in

April, Titus began his march from Cæsarea. … The city,

meanwhile, had been continuing those civil dissensions which

hastened its ruin. John [of Gischala], Simon Bar Gioras, and

Eleazar, each at the head of his own faction, made the streets

run with blood. John, whose followers numbered 6,000, held the

Lower, New, and Middle City; Simon, at the head of 10,000 Jews

and 5,000 Idumeans, had the strong post of the Upper City,

with a portion of the third wall; Eleazar, with 2,000 zealots,

more fanatic than the rest, had barricaded himself within the

Temple itself. … In the sallies which John and Simon made

upon each other all the buildings in this part of the town

were destroyed or set on fire, and all their corn burned; so

that famine had actually begun before the commencement of the

siege."

W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,

Jerusalem, the City of Herod and Saladin,

chapters 1-2.

The awful but fascinating story of the siege, as told by

Josephus and repeated by many writers since, is familiar to

most readers and will not be given here. It was prolonged from

April until the 7th of September, A. D. 70, when the Romans

forced their way into the upper city. "They spread through the

streets, slaying and burning as they went. In many houses

where they expected rich plunder, they found nothing but heaps

of putrid bodies, whole families who had died of hunger; they

retreated from the loathsome sight and insufferable stench.

But they were not moved to mercy towards the living; in some

places the flames were actually retarded or quenched with

streams of blood; night alone put an end to the carnage. …

The city was ordered to be razed, excepting the three towers,

which were left as standing monuments of the victory. …

During the whole siege the number killed [according to

Josephus] was 1,100,000, that of prisoners 97,000. In fact,

the population not of Jerusalem alone, but that of the

adjacent districts—many who had taken refuge in the city,

more who had assembled for the feast of unleavened bread—had

been shut up by the sudden formation of the siege." Of those

who survived to the end and were spared, when the Roman

soldiers had tired of slaughter, "all above seventeen years

old were sent to Egypt to work in the mines, or distributed

among the provinces to be exhibited as gladiators in the

public theatres, and in combats against wild beasts. Twelve

thousand died of hunger. … Thus fell, and forever, the

metropolis of the Jewish state. … Of all the stately

city—the populous streets, the palaces of the Jewish kings,

the fortresses of her warriors, the Temple of her God—not a

ruin remained, except the tall towers of Phasaelis, Mariamne,

and Hippicus, and part of the western wall, which was left as

a defence for the Roman camp."

H. H. Milman,

History of the Jews,

book 16.

ALSO IN:

H. Ewald,

History of Israel,

book 7.

Josephus,

The Jewish War.

A. J. Church,

Story of the Last Days of Jerusalem.

I. M. Wise,

History of the Hebrew Second Commonwealth, 7th period.

JEWS: A. D. 70-133.

After the war with Rome.

The state of the surviving people.

"It might have been expected that, from the character of the

great war with Rome, the people, as well as the state of the

Jews, would have fallen into utter dissolution, or, at least,

verged rapidly towards total extermination. Besides the loss

of nearly a million and a half of lives during the war, the

markets of the Roman empire were glutted with Jewish slaves.

… Yet still this inexhaustible race revived before long to

offer new candidates for its inalienable inheritance of

detestation and misery. Of the state of Palestine, indeed,

immediately after the war, we have little accurate

information. It is uncertain how far the enormous loss of

life, and the numbers carried into captivity drained the

country of the Jewish population; or how far the rescript of

Vespasian, which offered the whole landed property of the

province for sale, introduced a foreign race into the

possession of the soil. The immense numbers engaged in the

rebellion during the reign of Hadrian imply, either that the

country was not nearly exhausted, or that the reproduction in

this still fertile region was extremely rapid. In fact, it

must be remembered that … the ravage of war was, after all,

by no means universal in the province. Galilee, Judæa, and

great part of Idumæa were wasted, and probably much

depopulated; but, excepting a few towns which made resistance,

the populous regions and wealthy cities beyond the Jordan

escaped the devastation. The dominions of King Agrippa were,

for the most part, respected. Samaria submitted without

resistance, as did most of the cities on the sea-coast. …

The Jews, though looked upon with contempt as well as

detestation, were yet regarded, during the reign of Vespasian

and his immediate successors, with jealous watchfulness. A

garrison of 800 men occupied the ruins of Jerusalem, to

prevent the reconstruction of the city by the fond and

religious zeal of its former inhabitants. … Still, … it is

impossible, unless communities were suffered to be formed, and

the whole race enjoyed comparative security, that the nation

could have appeared in the formidable attitude of resistance

which it assumed in the time of Hadrian."

H. H. Milman,

History of the Jews,

book 18 (volume 2).

JEWS: A. D. 116.

The rising in Trajan's reign.

"Not quite fifty years after the destruction of Jerusalem, in

the year 116, the Jews of the eastern Mediterranean rose

against the imperial government. The rising, although

undertaken by the Diaspora, was of a purely national character

in its chief seats, Cyrene, Cyprus, Egypt, directed to the

expulsion of the Romans as of the Hellenes, and, apparently,

to the establishment of a separate Jewish state. It ramified

even into Asiatic territory, and seized Mesopotamia and

Palestine itself. When the insurgents were victorious they

conducted the war with the same exasperation as the Sicarii in

Jerusalem; they killed those whom they seized. … In Cyrene

220,000, in Cyprus even 240,000 men are said to have been thus

put to death by them. On the other hand, in Alexandria, which

does not appear itself to have fallen into the hands of the

Jews, the besieged Hellenes slew whatever Jews were then in

the city. The immediate cause of the rising is not clear. …

To all appearance it was an outbreak of religious exasperation

of the Jews, which had been growing in secret like a volcano

since the destruction of the temple. …

{1923}

The insurgents were nowhere able to offer resistance to the

compact troops, … and similar punishments were inflicted on

this Diaspora as previously on the Jews of Palestine. That

Trajan annihilated the Jews in Alexandria, as Appian says, is

hardly all incorrect, although perhaps a too blunt expression

for what took place."

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 8, chapter 11 (The Provinces, volume 2).

See, also, CYPRUS, A. D. 117.

JEWS: A. D. 130-134.

The rising in Hadrian's reign.

The Emperor Hadrian, when his tour through the Empire brought

him to Palestine, A. D. 130, resolved to erect the destroyed

holy city of the Jews as a Roman colony with a Roman name, and

to divest it altogether of the character which made it sacred

in the eyes of the Jews. He forbade their sojourn in the new

city, and exasperated them still more by showing favor, it is

said, to the Christian sect. By this and by other measures a

fresh revolt was provoked, A. D. 132, incited by the priest

Eleazar and led by the bandit-chief Barcochebas, or

Bar-Kok-heba ('Son of the Star'). The cruel struggle, redeemed

by no humanity on either side, continued for three years, and

was ended only when hundreds of thousands of Jews had been

slain. "The dispersion of the unhappy race, particularly in

the West, was now complete and final. The sacred soil of

Jerusalem was occupied by a Roman colony, which received the

name of Ælia Capitolina, with reference to the emperor who

founded it [Publius Ælius Hadrianus] and to the supreme God of

the pagan mythology, installed on the desecrated summits of

Zion and Moriah."

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 65.

"The whole body of the Jews at home and abroad was agitated by

the movement and supported more or less openly the insurgents

on the Jordan; even Jerusalem fell into their hands, and the

governor of Syria and indeed the emperor Hadrian appeared on

the scene of conflict. … As in the war under Vespasian no

pitched battle took place, but one place after another cost

time and blood, till at length after a three years' warfare

the last castle of the insurgents, the strong Bether, not far

from Jerusalem, was stormed by the Romans. The numbers handed

down to us in good accounts of 50 fortresses taken, 985

villages occupied, 580,000 that fell, are not incredible,

since the war was waged with inexorable cruelty, and the male

population was probably everywhere put to death. In

consequence of this rising the very name of the vanquished

people was set aside; the province was thenceforth termed, not

as formerly Judaea, but by the old name of Herodotus, Syria of

the Philistines, or Syria Palaestina. The land remained

desolate; the new city of Hadrian continued to exist, but did

not prosper. The Jews were prohibited under penalty of death

from ever setting foot in Jerusalem."

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 8, chapter 11 (The Provinces, volume 2).

JEWS: A. D. 200-400.

The Nation without a country.

Its two governments.

"In less than sixty years after the war under Hadrian, before

the close of the second century after Christ, the Jews present

the extraordinary spectacle of two regular and organized

communities: one under a sort of spiritual head, the Patriarch

of Tiberias, comprehending all of Israelitish descent who

inhabited the Roman empire; the other under the Prince of the

Captivity, to whom all the eastern [Babylonian] Jews paid

their allegiance. … Unfortunately it is among the most

difficult parts of Jewish history to trace the growth of the

patriarchal authority established in Tiberias, and its

recognition by the whole scattered body of the nation, who,

with disinterested zeal, and I do not scruple to add, a noble

attachment to the race of Israel, became voluntary subjects

and tributaries to their spiritual sovereign, and united with

one mind and one heart to establish their community on a

settled basis. It is a singular spectacle to behold a nation

dispersed in every region of the world, without a murmur or

repugnance, submitting to the regulations, and taxing

themselves to support the greatness, of a supremacy which

rested solely on public opinion, and had no temporal power

whatever to enforce its decrees. It was not long before the

Rabbins, who had been hunted down with unrelenting cruelty,

began to creep forth from their places of concealment. The

death of Hadrian, in a few years after the termination of the

war, and the accession of the mild Antoninus, gave them

courage, not merely to make their public appearance, but

openly to reëstablish their schools and synagogues. … The

Rabbinical dominion gradually rose to greater power; the

schools flourished; perhaps in this interval the great

Synagogue or Sanhedrin had its other migrations, … and

finally to Tiberias, where it fixed its pontifical throne and

maintained its supremacy for several centuries. Tiberias, it

may be remembered, was a town built by Herod Antipas, over an

ancient cemetery, and therefore abominated by the more

scrupulous Jews, as a dwelling of uncleanness. But the Rabbins

soon obviated this objection. Simon Ben Jochai, by his

cabalistic art, discovered the exact spot where the

burial-place had been; this was marked off, and the rest of

the city declared, on the same unerring authority, to be

clean. Here, then, in this noble city, on the shore of the sea

of Galilee, the Jewish pontiff fixed his throne; the

Sanhedrin, if it had not, as the Jews pretend, existed during

all the reverses of the nation, was formally reëstablished.

Simon, the son and heir of Gamaliel, was acknowledged as the

Patriarch of the Jews, and Nasi or President of the Sanhedrin.

… In every region of the West, in every province of the

Roman empire, the Jews of all ranks and classes submitted,

with the utmost readiness, to the sway of their Spiritual

Potentate. His mandates were obeyed, his legates received with

honour, his supplies levied without difficulty, in Rome, in

Spain, in Africa. … In the mean time the rival throne in

Babylonia, that of the Prince of the Captivity, was rapidly

rising to the state and dignity which perhaps did not attain

its perfect height till under the Persian monarchs. There

seems to have been some acknowledged hereditary claim in R.

Hona, who now appears as the Prince of the Captivity, as if

his descent from the House of David had been recognized by the

willing credulity of his brethren. … The Court of the

Resch-Glutha [Prince of the Captivity] is described as …

splendid; in imitation of his Persian master, he had his

officers, counsellors, and cupbearers. Rabbins were appointed

as satraps over the different communities. This state, it is

probable, was maintained by a tribute raised from the body of

the people, and substituted for that which, in ancient times,

was paid for the Temple in Jerusalem. … Whether the

authority of the Prince of the Captivity extended beyond

Babylonia and the adjacent districts is uncertain."

H. H. Milman,

History of the Jews,

book 19 (volume 2).

{1924}

JEWS: A. D. 415.

Driven from Alexandria by Cyril.

See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 413-415.

JEWS: 5-6th Centuries.

Early Jewish settlements in Europe.

Arian toleration and Catholic persecution.

"The survey of the settlement of the Jews in Europe begins, as

we leave Asia, with the Byzantine Empire. They already lived

in its cities before Christianity acquired the empire of the

world. In Constantinople the Jewish community inhabited a

separate quarter, called the brass-market, where there was

also a large synagogue. They were, however, expelled thence by

an emperor, either Theodosius II., or Justinus II., and the

synagogue was converted into the 'Church of the Mother of

God.' … In Greece, Macedonia, and Illyria the Jews had

already been settled a long time. … In Italy the Jews are

known to have been domiciled as early as the time of the

Republic, and to have been in enjoyment of full political

rights until these were curtailed by the Christian emperors.

They probably looked with excusable pleasure on the fall of

Rome. … When Italy became Ostrogothic under Theodoric, the

position of the Jews in that country was peculiar. Outbreaks

of a spirit of hostility to them were not infrequent during

this reign, but at the bottom they were not directed against

the Jews, but were meant to be a demonstration against this

hated Arian monarch. … Those nations … which were baptised

in the Arian creed betrayed less intolerance of the Jews. Thus

the more Arianism was driven out of Europe and gave way before

the Catholic religion, the more were the Jews harassed by

proselytising zeal. … In spite of the antipathy entertained

against them by the leaders of opinion, the Jews of Italy were

happy in comparison with their brethren of the Byzantine

empire. … Even when the Lombards embraced the Catholic faith

the position of the Jews in Italy remained supportable. The

heads of the Catholic Church, the Popes, were free from savage

intolerance. Gregory I. (590-604), surnamed the great and

holy, who laid the foundation of the power of Catholicism,

gave utterance to the principle, that the Jews should only be

converted by means of persuasion and gentleness, not by

violence. … In the territory which was subject to the Papal

sway, in Rome, Lower Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia, he

steadfastly persisted in this course in the face of the

fanatical bishops, who regarded the oppression of the Jews as

a pious work. … In the west of Europe, in France and Spain,

where the Church was first obliged to make its way

laboriously, the situation of the Jews assumed a different and

much more favourable aspect. … It was a long while before

Catholicism gained a firm footing in the west of Europe, and

the Jews who had settled there enjoyed undisturbed peace until

the victorious Church gained the upper hand. The immigration

of the Jews into these important and wealthy provinces took

place most probably as early as the time of the Republic or of

Cæsar. … The presence of the Jews in the west of Europe is,

however, not certain until the 2d century. The Gaulish Jews,

whose first settlement was in the district of Arles, enjoyed

the full rights of Roman citizenship, whether they arrived in

Gaul as merchants or fugitives, with the pedlar's pack or in

the garb of slaves; they were likewise treated as Romans by

the Frankish and Burgundian conquerors." The Burgundian King

Sigismund, who embraced the Catholic faith in 516, "first

raised the barrier between Jews and Christians. … A spirit

of hostility to the Jews gradually spread from Burgundy over

the Frankish countries. … The later of the Merovingian kings

became more and more bigoted, and their hatred of the Jews

consequently increased. … The Jews of Germany are certainly

only to be regarded as colonies of the Frankish Jews, and such

of them as lived in Austrasia, a province subject to the

Merovingian kings, shared the same fate as their brethren in

France. … While the history of the Jews in Byzance, Italy,

and France, possesses but special interest, that of their

brethren in the Pyrenean peninsula rises to the height of

universal importance. … Jewish Spain contributed almost as

greatly to the development of Judaism as Judæa and Babylonia.

… Cordova, Grenada, and Toledo, are as familiar to the Jews

as Jerusalem and Tiberias, and almost more so than Naherdea

and Sora. When Judaism had come to a standstill in the East,

and had grown weak with age, it acquired new vigour in Spain.

… The first settlement of the Jews in beautiful Hesperia is

buried in dim obscurity. It is certain that they came there as

free men as early as the time of the Roman Republic, in order

to take advantage of the productive resources of this country.

The tortured victims of the unhappy insurrections under

Vespasian, Titus, and Hadrian were also dispersed to the

extreme west, and an exaggerated account relates that 80,000

of them were dragged off to Spain as prisoners. … The Jews

… were unmolested under the Arian kings; … but as soon as

the Catholic Church obtained the supremacy in Spain, and

Arianism began to be persecuted, an unfavourable crisis set in."

H. Graetz,

History of the Jews,

volume 3, chapter 2.

JEWS: A. D. 615.

Siege and capture of Jerusalem by the Persians.

Sack and massacre.

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 615.

JEWS: A. D. 637.

Surrender of Jerusalem to the Moslems.

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 637.

JEWS: 7th Century.

General persecution.

First expulsion from Spain.

In the seventh century, during the reign of the Eastern Roman

Emperor Heraclius (A. D. 610-641) the Jews were subjected to a

more general and bitter persecution than they had experienced

before at the hands of the Christians. "It is said that about

this time a prophecy was current, which declared that the

Roman empire would be overthrown by a circumcised people. This

report may have been spread by the Jews, in order to excite

their own ardour, and assist their projects of rebellion; but

the prophecy was saved from oblivion by the subsequent

conquests of the Saracens. … The conduct of the Jews excited

the bigotry, as it may have awakened the fears, of the

imperial government, and both Phocas and Heraclius attempted

to exterminate the Jewish religion, and if possible to put an

end to the national existence. Heraclius not only practised

every species of cruelty himself to effect this object within

the bounds of his own dominions, but he even made the forced

conversion or banishment of the Jews a prominent feature in

his diplomacy." Thus Heraclius induced Sisebut, the Gothic

king in Spain, and Dagobert, the Frank king, to join him in

forcing baptism on the Jews, with the alternative of flight.

G. Finlay,

Greece under the Romans,

chapter 4, section 5.

{1925}

"Urged by the request and incited by the example of Heraclius,

Sisebuto [or Sisebut] issued an edict in the year 616, that,

within a year, the Jews in Spain should either embrace

Christianity, or should be shorn, scourged, and expelled from

the kingdom, and their property confiscated. … It was a

premium on hypocrisy; for hypocrisy was an instrument of

self-preservation. Ninety thousand Jews made a nominal

submission."

H. Coppée,

Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,

book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).

See, also, GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.

JEWS: 7th Century.

The Epoch of the Geonim.

The Exilarchate and the Gaonate.

After the death of the Caliph Othman (A. D. 655), when the

followers of Mohammed were divided into two camps—the

partisans of Ali and the partisans of Moawiyah, "the

Babylonian Jews and Nestorian Christians sided with Ali, and

rendered him their assistance." Prominent among the Jewish

supporters of Ali was Mar-Isaac, the head of a school. "The

unhappy Ali valued this homage, and, doubtless, accorded

privileges to the Jewish head of the school. It is quite

probable that from this time the head of the school of Sora

occupied a certain dignity, and took the title of Gaon. There

were certain privileges connected with the Gaonate, upon which

even the Exilarch—also politically appointed—did not

venture to encroach. Through this there arose a peculiar

relationship between the two entirely opposing offices—the

Exilarchate and the Gaonate. This led to subsequent quarrels.

With Bostanaï [then Exilarch] and Mar-Isaac, the Jewish

officials recognised by the Caliph, there begins a new period

in Jewish history—the Epoch of the Geonim. … For the space

of 40 years (680 to 720), only the names of the Geonim and

Exilarchs are known to us, historical details, however, are

entirely wanting. During this time, through quarrels and

concessions, there arose peculiar relations between the

officials of the Jewish-Persian kingdom, which developed into

a kind of constitution. The Jewish community in Babylonia

(Persia), which had the appearance of a state, had a peculiar

constitution. The Exilarch was at their head, and next to him

stood the Gaon. Both together they formed the unity of the

community. The Exilarch filled political functions. He

represented the Babylonian-Persian Judaism under the Caliphs.

He collected the taxes from the various communities, and paid

them into the treasury. The Exilarchs, both in their outer

appearance and mode of life, were like princes. They drove

about in a state carriage; they had outriders and a kind of

body guard, and received princely homage. The religious unity

of Judaism, on the other hand, was represented in the two

chief schools of Sora and Pumbaditha. They expounded the

Talmud, giving it a practical application; they made new laws

and institutions, and saw that they were carried out, by

allotting punishments for those who transgressed them. The

Exilarch shared the judicial power in common with the Gaon of

Sora and the head of the school of Pumbaditha. … The head of

the school of Sora, however, was alone privileged to be styled

'Gaon'; the head of the school of Pumbaditha did not bear the

title officially. The Gaon of Sora enjoyed general preference

over his colleague of Pumbaditha."

H. Graetz,

History of the Jews,

volume 3, chapter 4.

JEWS: 8th Century.

Conversion of the Khazars to Judaism.

See KHAZARS.

JEWS: 8th Century.

Origin of the Karaites.

See KARAISM.

JEWS: 8-15th Centuries.

Toleration by Moors and Christians in Spain, followed by

merciless persecution and expulsion.

Treatment in Portugal.

"Under the Moorish government in Spain the lot of this

persecuted, tormented people was more tolerable than in any

Christian country. … Under the Christian kings of the 12th

and 13th centuries, they rose to still greater influence as

financial advisers and treasurers, astronomers and physicians;

in Toledo alone they numbered 12,000. … Their condition in

Spain from the time of the Moorish supremacy to the end of the

13th century was upon the whole more favourable than in any

other country of Europe. … The 14th century brought disaster

to the Jews of the Peninsula and elsewhere. … They were

detested by the people; first in one town and then in another

they were attacked and murdered, and their synagogues were

burned down; and at length, in 1391, the storm broke upon them

in all its fury, and raged through the length and breadth of

Spain. … Many thousands were slain; whilst 200,000 saved

themselves by receiving baptism, but it was discovered in a

few years that 17,000 had lapsed into Judaism. A century

later, in 1492, a royal edict commanded all Jews to quit the

country, leaving their goods behind them. As the Inquisition

at the same time forbade the sale of victuals to the Jews, the

majority … were compelled to submit to baptism. Of those who

withdrew into exile—the numbers are variously reckoned from

170,000 to 400,000—the greater part perished from pestilence,

starvation, or shipwreck. The descendants of those who

survived, the Sephardim, found refuge in Italy, and under

Turkish rule in the East, and, for a short space, even in

Portugal. … In Portugal the Jews fared even worse than their

brethren in Spain. … The Inquisition was … introduced as

the approved means for handing over to the exchequer the

wealth of the new Christians."

J. I. von Döllinger,

The Jews in Europe

(Studies in European History, chapter 9).

ALSO IN:

H. C. Lea,

Chapters from the Religious History of Spain,

pages 437-468.

W. H. Prescott,

History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,

part 1, chapter 17 (volume 2).

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

JEWS: 11th Century.

First appearance of Jews in England.

Their treatment as usurers.

"Their first appearance in England is said to have been due to

the Conqueror, who brought over a Jewish colony from Rouen to

London. They were special favourites of William Rufus; under

Henry they play a less conspicuous part; but in the next reign

we find them at Lincoln, Oxford, and elsewhere, and there can

be no doubt that they were already established in most of the

chief English towns. They formed, however, no part of the

townsfolk. The Jew was not a member of the state; he was the

king's chattel, not to be meddled with, for good or for evil,

save at the king's own bidding.

{1926}

Exempt from toll and tax and from the fines of justice, he had

the means of accumulating a hoard of wealth which might indeed

be seized at any moment by an arbitrary act of the king, but

which the king's protection guarded with jealous care against

all other interference. The capacity in which the Jew usually

appears is that of a money-lender—an occupation in which the

scruples of the Church forbade Christians to engage, lest they

should be contaminated with the sin of usury. Fettered by no

such scruples, the Hebrew money-lenders drove a thriving

trade."

K. Norgate,

England Under the Angevin Kings,

volume 1, chapter 1.

"The Church declared against capitalism of any kind, branding

it as usury. It became impossible in Angevin England to obtain

the capital for any large scheme of building or organisation

unless the projectors had the capital themselves. Here was the

function which the Jew could perform in England of the twelfth

century, which was just passing economically out of the stage

of barter. Capital was wanted in particular for the change of

architecture from wood to stone with the better classes, and

especially for the erection of castles and monasteries. The

Jews were, indeed, the first in England to possess

dwelling-houses built with stone, probably for purposes of

protection as well as of comfort. And as a specimen of their

influence on monastic architecture, we have it on record that

no less than nine Cistercian monasteries of the North Country

were built by moneys lent by the great Aaron of Lincoln, who

also boasted that he had built the shrine of St. Alban. …

The result of the Church's attitude towards Jews and towards

usury was to put the king into a peculiar relation towards his

Jewish subjects. The Church kept them out of all other

pursuits but that of usury, which it branded as infamous; the

State followed suit, and confiscated the estates of all

usurers dying as such. Hence, as a Jew could only be a usurer,

his estate was always potentially the king's, and could be

dealt with by the king as if it were his own. Yet, strange to

say, it was not to the king's interest to keep the Jews'

wealth in his own hands, for he, the king, as a good

Christian, could not get usury for it, while the Jew could

very soon double and treble it, since the absence of

competition enabled him to fix the rate of interest very high,

rarely less than forty per cent., often as much as eighty. …

The only useful function the Jew could perform towards both

king and people was to be as rich as possible, just as the

larger the capital of a bank, the more valuable the part it

plays in the world of commerce. … The king reaped the

benefit of these riches in several ways. One of his main

functions and main source of income was selling justice, and

Jews were among his best customers. Then he claimed from them,

as from his other subjects, fines and amerciaments for all the

events of life. The Pipe Rolls contain entries of fines paid

by Jews to marry, not to marry, to become divorced, to go a

journey across the sea, to become partners with another Jew,

in short, for all the decisive events of life. And above all,

the king got frequent windfalls from the heirs of deceased

Jews who paid heavy reliefs to have their fathers' charters

and debts, of which, as we have seen, they could make more

profitable use than the king, to whom the Jew's property

escheated not qua Jew, but qua usurer. In the case of Aaron of

Lincoln the king did not disgorge at all at his death, but

kept in his own hands the large treasures, lands, houses and

debts of the great financier. He appears to have first

organised the Jewry, and made the whole of the English Jews

his agents throughout the country. … In addition to these

quasi-regular and normal sources of income from his Jews, the

king claimed from them—again as from his other

subjects—various contributions from time to time under the

names of gifts and tallages. And here he certainly seems, on

occasion at least, to have exercised an unfavourable

discrimination in his demands from the Jews. In 1187, the year

of Aaron of Lincoln's death, he took a tenth from the rest of

England, which yielded £70,000, and a quarter from the Jews,

which gave as much as £60,000. In other words, the Jews were

reckoned to have, at that date, one quarter of the movable

wealth of the kingdom (£240,000 against £700,000 held by the

rest). … They acted the part of a sponge for the Royal

Treasury, they gathered up all the floating money of the

country, to be squeezed from time to time into the king's

treasure-chest. … The king was thus … the sleeping-partner

in all the Jewish usury, and may be regarded as the

Arch-usurer of the kingdom. By this means he was enabled to

bring pressure on any of his barons who were indebted to the

Jews. He could offer to release them of their debt of the

usury accruing to it, and in the case of debts falling into

his hand by the death of a Jew, he could commute the debt for

a much smaller sum. Thus the Cistercian abbeys referred to

above paid Richard I. 1,000 marks instead of the 6,400 which

they had owed to Aaron of Lincoln."

Joseph Jacobs,

The Jews of Angevin England,

introduction.

JEWS: A. D. 1076.

Capture of Jerusalem by the Seljuk Turks.

See CRUSADES: CAUSES, &C.

JEWS: A. D. 1096-1146.

Massacre of Jews in Europe by Crusaders.

The lawless and savage mobs of Crusaders which followed in the

wake of the disorderly hosts of Peter the Hermit and Walter

the Penniless, A. D. 1096, expended their zeal, at the outset

of their march, in hunting and killing Jews. "Acting on the

notion that the infidels dwelling in Europe should be

exterminated before those in Asia should be attacked, [they]

murdered 12,000 Jews. In Treves, many of these unfortunate

men, driven to despair, laid violent hands on their children

and on themselves, and multitudes embraced Christianity, from

which they lapsed the moment the peril had passed. Two hundred

Jews fled from Cologne and took refuge in boats; they were

overtaken and slain. In Mayence, the archbishop, Rudhart, took

them under his protection, and gave them the great hall of his

castle for an asylum; the pilgrims, nevertheless, forced their

way in, and murdered 700 of them in the archbishop's presence.

At Spires the Jews valiantly defended themselves. At Worms

they all committed suicide. At Magdeburg the archbishop,

Ruprecht, amused himself by attacking them during the

celebration of the feast of tabernacles, and by seizing their

property."

W. Menzel,

History of Germany,

chapter 145 (volume 1).

The fervors of the Second Crusade [A. D. 1146] inclined, in

Germany, to the same direction, of Jew-hunting; but St.

Bernard, the apostle of the Crusade, was enlightened and

humane enough to suppress the outrage by his great influence.

{1927}

A monk named Radulf, self-appointed preacher of the Crusade in

Germany, stirred up the people of the cities of the Rhine

against the Jews, and numbers were massacred, notwithstanding

attempts of the emperor, Conrad, to protect them. But Bernard

went in person to the scene, and, by his personal authority,

drove the brutal monk into his convent.

T. Keightley,

The Crusaders

chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

H. Graetz,

History of the Jews,

volume 3, chapters 9 and 11.

H. C. Adams,

History of the Jews,

chapter 15.

JEWS: A. D. 1099.

Conquest of Jerusalem by the Crusaders.

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099.

JEWS: 11-17th Centuries.

Alternating toleration and oppression in Poland.

"It cannot be denied that this frugal, careful race formed the

only class of traders in the land [16th-17th centuries]. That

branch of industry which the nobleman despised, owing to pride

or carelessness, and from which the peasant was excluded by

stupidity and ignorance, fell to the share of the Jews. Though

their presence may have been a misfortune for the nation in

after years, they were certainly at the same time a national

necessity. … Perpetually oppressed by capricious laws, the

race raised itself by perseverance and cunning. Ill-treated,

persecuted by fire and sword, still they returned, or others

took their place; robbed and plundered repeatedly, the wealth

of the land was yet theirs. … The first Jewish immigrants

were exiles from Germany and Bohemia. In 1096 they fled to

Poland, where at that time there was more religious tolerance

than in the rest of Europe. The cruelty and greed of the first

crusaders caused this exodus of the Jews. … Casimir the

Great [1333-1370], instigated by his love for Esther, the

beautiful Jewess of Opocno, gave the Jews such civil rights

and privileges as a Polish king could grant, which conduced to

the advantage of the land; but already in the time of Lewis of

Hungary, 1371, they were sentenced to exile. Notwithstanding

this, we find them scattered over the whole of Poland in 1386.

Christians were forbidden on pain of excommunication to have

any intercourse with Jews or to purchase from them. When they

settled in towns they were forced to live in particular

suburbs. … The incredible increase of the Jewish population,

supposed to be three times as rapid as that of the Polish

inhabitants, was very alarming, as the Jews managed to avoid

all public burdens and taxes. Sigismund Augustus [1548-1572]

resolved, in spite of their objections, to impose a poll tax

of one florin per head, and at the same time to discover by

this means their actual number. It was estimated at 200,000,

but only 16,000 florins were paid as tax. Their power was

increased by John Sobiesky, to whom they had prophesied that

he would ascend the throne. He favoured the Jews so much, that

the senate in 1682 implored him to regard the welfare of the

state, and not let the favours of the crown pass through their

hands. The laws forbidding the Jews on pain of death to trade

with the peasants, to keep inns, to sell brandy—laws which

were passed anew in every reign—show that they never ceased

to carry on these trades, so profitable for them, so ruinous

for the peasant."

Count Von Moltke,

Poland:

chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

H. Graetz,

History of the Jews,

volume 4, chapter 18.

JEWS: A. D. 1189.

Massacres in England.

At the time of the accession of Richard Cœur de Lion, king of

England, the crusading spirit had inflamed a specially bitter

hatred of the Jews. Some of the obnoxious people were

imprudent enough to press in among the spectators of King

Richard's coronation. They were driven back with blows; "a

riot ensued, and the Jews' quarter was plundered. A day

elapsed before the king's troops could restore order, and then

only three rioters were punished, for damage done to

Christians. Thus encouraged, or allowed, the frenzy of

persecution spread over the land. Generally it was the country

people who were setting out as pilgrims for Palestine, who

began the crusade at home, while the cities interposed to

preserve the king's peace. But the rumour that the unbelievers

were accustomed to crucify a Christian boy at Easter had

hardened men's hearts against them. The cause of murder and

rapine prevailed in Dunstable, Stamford, and Lincoln. At York,

the viscount allowed 500 Jews to take refuge in the castle.

Fearing, in spite of this, to be given up, they closed the

gates against the king's officers. They were now besieged by

the townsmen, under orders of the viscount, and the defence of

men untrained to arms and without artillery lay only in the

strength of the walls. They offered to ransom their lives, but

the crowd thirsted for blood. Then a rabbi rose up and

addressed his countrymen. 'Men of Israel, hear my words: it is

better for us to die for our law than to fall into the hands

of those who hate it; and our law prescribes this.' Then every

man slew his wife and children, and hurled the corpses over

the battlements. The survivors shut themselves up with their

treasures in the royal chamber, and set fire to it. The crowd

indemnified themselves by sacking the Jews' quarter, and

burning the schedules of their debts, which were kept for

safety in the cathedral."

C. H. Pearson,

History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,

volume 1, chapter 32.

ALSO IN:

H. C. Adams,

History of the Jews,

chapter 16.

JEWS: 12-15th Centuries.

Treatment in France.

In France, during the Middle Ages, the extorting of money from

the Jews was one of the devices depended upon for replenishing

the royal treasury. "It is almost incredible to what a length

this was carried. Usury, forbidden by law and superstition to

Christians, was confined to this industrious and covetous

people. … The children of Israel grew rich in despite of

insult and oppression, and retaliated upon their Christian

debtors. If an historian of Philip Augustus may be believed,

they possessed almost one-half of Paris. Unquestionably they

must have had support both at court and in the halls of

justice. The policy of the kings of France was to employ them

as a sponge to suck their subjects' money, which they might

afterwards express with less odium than direct taxation would

incur. Philip Augustus released all Christians in his

dominions from their debts to the Jews, reserving a fifth part

to himself. He afterwards expelled the whole nation from

France. But they appear to have returned again—whether by

stealth, or, as is more probable, by purchasing permission.

St. Louis twice banished and twice recalled the Jews. A series

of alternate persecution and tolerance was borne by this

extraordinary people with an invincible perseverance, and a

talent of accumulating riches which kept pace with their

plunderers; till new schemes of finance supplying the turn,

they were finally expelled under Charles VI. and never

afterwards obtained any legal establishment in France."

H. Hallam,

The Middle Ages,

chapter 2, part 2 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

J. I. von Döllinger,

The Jews in Europe

(Studies in European History, chapter 9).

{1928}

JEWS: 13-14th Centuries.

Hostility of the Papacy and the Church.

Doctrine of the Divine condemnation of the Jews to Slavery.

Claim of the Emperors to ownership of them.

"The declaration by Innocent III. [Pope, 1198-1216] that the

entire nation was destined by God on account of its sins to

perpetual slavery, was the Magna Charta continually appealed

to by those who coveted the possessions of the Jews and the

earnings of their industry; both princes and people acted upon

it. … The succeeding popes took their stand upon the maxims

and behests of Innocent III. If the Jews built themselves a

synagogue, it was to be pulled down; they might only repair

the old ones. No Jew might appear as a witness against a

Christian. The bishops were charged to enforce the wearing of

the distinctive badge, the hat or the yellow garment, by all

the means in their power. The wearing of the badge was

particularly cruel and oppressive, for in the frequent tumults

and risings in the towns the Jews, being thus recognisable at

a glance, fell all the more easily into the hands of the

excited mob; and if a Jew undertook a journey he inevitably

became a prey to the numerous bandits and adventurers, who

naturally considered him as an outlaw. … Where popes failed

to interfere, the councils of the various countries made

amends for the omission; they forbade, for instance, a

Christian letting or selling a house to a Jew, or buying wine

from him. Besides all this, the order was often renewed that

all copies of the Talmud and commentaries upon

it—consequently the greater part of the Jewish

literature—should be burnt. … The new theory as to the Jews

being in a state of slavery was now adopted and enlarged upon

by theologians and canonists. Thomas Aquinas, whose teaching

was received by the whole Roman Church as unassailable,

pronounced that since the race was condemned to perpetual

bondage princes could dispose of the possessions of the Jews

just as they would of their own. A long list of canonical

writers maintained, upon the same ground, the right of princes

and governors to seize upon the sons and daughters of Jews and

have them baptized by force. It was commonly taught, and the

ecclesiastical claim still exists, that a Jewish child once

baptized was not to be left to the father. Meanwhile princes

had eagerly seized upon the papal doctrine that the perpetual

slavery of the Jews was ordained by God, and on it the Emperor

Frederick II. founded the claim that all Jews belonged to him

as Emperor, following the contention prevalent at the time

that the right of lordship over them devolved upon him as the

successor of the old Roman Emperors. … King Albert went so

far as to claim from King Philip of France that the French

Jews should be handed over to him. … From the 14th century

this 'servitude to the state' was understood to mean complete

slavery. 'You yourselves, your bodies and your possessions,

belong,' says the Emperor Charles IV. in a document addressed

to the Jews, 'to us and to the empire; we may act, make and do

with you what we will and please.' The Jews were, in fact,

constantly handed about like merchandise from one to another;

the emperor, now in this place, now in that, declared their

claims for debts to be cancelled; and for this a heavy sum was

paid into his treasury, usually 30 per cent."

J. I. Von Döllinger,

The Jews in Europe

(Studies in European History, chapter 9).

JEWS: A. D. 1290.

Banished from England.

"At the same time [A. D. 1290], the King [Edward I.] banished

all the Jews from the kingdom. Upward of 16,000 are said to

have left England, nor did they reappear till Cromwell

connived at their return in 1654. It is not quite clear why

the King determined on this act of severity, especially as the

Jews were royal property and a very convenient source of

income. It is probable, however, that their way of doing

business was very repugnant to his ideas of justice, while

they were certainly great falsifiers of the coinage, which he

was very anxious to keep pure and true. Earlier in the reign

he had hanged between 200 and 300 of them for that crime, and

they are said to have demanded 60 per cent. for their loans,

taking advantage of the monopoly as money-lenders which the

ecclesiastical prohibition of usury had given them."

J. F. Bright,

History of England, period 1,

page 179.

The expulsion was in compliance with a demand made by

Parliament. "We have no record of any special action or crime

on the part of the Jews which suggested the particular

parliamentary demand in 1290." It had been made four years

before, when, "in one night, all the Jews in England were

flung into prison, and would most likely have been expelled

there and then, had they not outbribed the King with £12,000."

G. H. Leonard,

Expulsion of the Jews by Edward I.

(Royal History Society Transactions,

new series, volume 5, 1891).

JEWS: A. D. 1321.

Persecution of Lepers and Jews.

"In the year 1321, a general rumour prevailed through Europe

that the unhappy beings afflicted with leprosy (a disease with

which the Crusaders had become infected in the East …) had

conspired to inoculate all their healthy fellow-creatures with

their own loathsome malady. … The King of Grenada and the

Jews were denounced as the prime movers of this nefarious plot

directed to the extermination of Christianity; and it was said

that the latter, unable to overcome the many impediments which

opposed their own agency, had bribed the lepers to become

their instruments. This 'enormous Creed,' in spite of its

manifold absurdities, found easy admission; and, if other

evidence were wanting for its support, torture was always at

hand to provide confessions. Philip V. [of France] was among

the firmest believers, and therefore among the most active

avengers of the imaginary crime; and he encouraged persecution

by numerous penal edicts. At Toulouse, 160 Jews were burned

alive at once on a single pile, without distinction of sex,

and, as it seems, without any forms of previous examination.

In Paris, greater gentleness was manifested; those only were

led to the stake from whom an avowal of guilt could be

extorted."

E. Smedley,

History of France,

part 1, chapter 8.

{1929}

"The lord of Parthenay writes word to the king that 'a great

leper,' arrested on his territory, has confessed that a rich

Jew had given him money, and supplied him with drugs. These

drugs were compounded of human blood, of urine, and of the

blood of Christ (the consecrated wafer), and the whole, after

having been dried and pounded, was put into a bag with a

weight and thrown into the springs or wells. Several lepers

had already been provisionally burnt in Gascony, and the king,

alarmed at the new movement which was originating, hastily

returned from Poitou to France, and issued an ordinance for

the general arrest of the lepers. Not a doubt was entertained

by anyone of this horrible compact between the lepers and the

Jews. 'We ourselves,' says a chronicler of the day, 'have seen

with our own eyes one of these bags, in Poitou, in a burgh of

our own vassalage.' … The king ordered all found guilty to

be burnt, with the exception of those female lepers who

happened to be pregnant. The other lepers were to be confined

to their lazarettos. As to the Jews, they were burnt

indiscriminately, especially in the South."

J. Michelet,

History of France,

book 5, chapter 5 (volume 1).

JEWS: A. D. 1348-1349.

Accused of causing the Black Plague.

On the appearance in Europe, A. D. 1348, of the pestilence

known as the Black Death, "there was a suspicion that the

disease was due to human agencies, and, as usual, the Jews

were asserted to have contrived the machinations by which the

calamity was created. They were charged with poisoning the

wells, and through France, Switzerland, and Germany, thousands

of these unhappy people were destroyed on evidence derived

from confessions obtained under torture. As far as he could,

the Emperor Charles IV. protected them. They escaped

persecution too in the dominions of Albrecht of Austria. It is

said that the great number of the Jewish population in Poland

is due to the fact that Casimir the Great was induced by the

entreaties of one Esther, a favourite Jewish mistress of that

monarch, to harbour and shelter them in his kingdom. It should

be mentioned that Clement VI. forbad the persecution of the

Jews at Avignon."

J. E. T. Rogers,

History of Agriculture and Prices,

volume 1, chapter 15.

ALSO IN:

H. Graetz,

History of the Jews,

volume 4, chapter 4.

JEWS: A. D. 1391.

Massacre and expulsion from Spain.

See above: 8TH-15TH CENTURIES;

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

JEWS: A. D. 1492.

Expulsion of Jews from Spain.

See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

JEWS: 17th Century.

Toleration in Holland.

Attractiveness of that country to wealthy Israelites.

See NETHERLANDS A. D. 1621-1633.

JEWS: A. D. 1655.

Toleration in England by Cromwell.

"Wednesday, Dec. 12, 1655. This day, 'in a withdrawing room at

Whitehall,' presided over by his Highness [the Lord Protector,

Oliver Cromwell], who is much interested in the matter, was

held 'a Conference concerning the Jews';—of which the modern

reader too may have heard something. Conference, one of Four

Conferences, publicly held, which filled all England with

rumour in those old December days; but must now contract

themselves into a point for us. Highest official Persons, with

Lord Chief Barons, Lord Chief Justices, and chosen Clergy have

met here to advise, by reason, Law-learning,

Scripture-prophecy, and every source of light for the human

mind, concerning the proposal of admitting Jews, with certain

privileges as of alien-citizens, to reside in England. They

were banished near Four-hundred years ago: shall they now be

allowed to reside and trade again? The Proposer is Manasseh

Ben Israel,' a learned Portuguese Jew of Amsterdam; who, being

stirred up of late years by the great things doing in England,

has petitioned one and the other, Long Parliament and Little

Parliament, for this object; but could never, till his

Highness came into power, get the matter brought to a hearing.

And so they debate and solemnly consider; and his Highness

spake;—and says one witness, 'I never heard a man speak so

well.' His Highness was eager for the scheme, if so might be.

But the Scripture-prophecies, Law-learnings, and lights of the

human mind seemed to point another way: zealous Manasseh went

home again; the Jews could not settle here except by private

sufferance of his Highness."

T. Carlyle,

Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,

part 9, letter 207.

"Cromwell … was able to overcome neither the arguments of

the theologians, nor the jealousies of the merchants, nor the

prejudices of the indifferent; and seeing that the conference

was not likely to end as he desired, he put an end to its

deliberations. Then, without granting the Jews the public

establishment which they had solicited, he authorized a

certain number of them to take up their residence in London,

where they built a synagogue, purchased the land for a

burial-ground, and quietly commenced the formation of a sort

of corporation, devoted to the Protector, on whose tolerance

their safety entirely depended."

F. P. Guizot,

History of Oliver Cromwell,

book 6 (volume 2).

JEWS: A. D. 1662-1753.

Condition in England.

Defeated attempt to legalize their naturalization.

"The Jews … were not formally authorised to establish

themselves in England till after the Restoration. The first

synagogue in London was erected in 1662. … There does not

appear … to have been any legal obstacle to the sovereign

and Parliament naturalising a Jew till a law, enacted under

James I., and directed against the Catholics, made the

sacramental test an essential preliminary to naturalisation.

Two subsequent enactments exempted from this necessity all

foreigners who were engaged in the hemp and flax manufacture,

and all Jews and Protestant foreigners who had lived for seven

continuous years in the American plantations. In the reign of

James II. the Jews were relieved from the payment of the alien

duty, but it is a significant fact that it was reimposed after

the Revolution at the petition of the London merchants. In the

reign of Anne some of them are said to have privately

negotiated with Godolphin for permission to purchase the town

of Brentford, and to settle there with full privileges of

trade; but the minister, fearing to arouse the spirit of

religious intolerance and of commercial jealousy, refused the

application. The great development of industrial enterprise

which followed the long and prosperous administration of

Walpole naturally attracted Jews, who were then as now

preeminent in commercial matters, and many of them appear at

this time to have settled in England,"—among others, the

family of Disraeli. In 1753, the Pelhams attempted to legalise

the naturalisation of Jews; "not to naturalise all resident

Jews, but simply to enable Parliament to pass special Bills to

naturalise those who applied to it, although they had not

lived in the colonies or been engaged in the hemp or flax

manufacture. …

{1930}

The opponents of the ministry raised the cry that the Bill was

an unchristian one, and England was thrown into paroxysms of

excitement scarcely less intense than those which followed the

impeachment of Sacheverell. There is no page in the history of

the 18th century that shows more decisively how low was the

intellectual and political condition of English public

opinion. According to its opponents, the Jewish Naturalisation

Bill sold the birthright of Englishmen for nothing, it was a

distinct abandonment of Christianity, it would draw upon

England all the curses which Providence had attached to the

Jews. The commercial classes complained that it would fill

England with usurers. … The clergy all over England

denounced it." After fierce opposition, the bill was finally

passed; "but as the tide of popular indignation rose higher

and higher, the ministers in the next year brought forward and

carried its repeal."

W. E. H. Lecky,

History of England, 18th Century,

chapter 2 (volume 1).

JEWS: A. D. 1727-1880.

Persecutions and restrictions in Russia.

The Pale.

"The refugees from the Ukraine who had settled in Little

Russia were expelled in 1727. No Jews from without were

allowed to enter Russia upon any pretext. The few physicians

and other professional men of the excluded race who did manage

to remain in Russia were in continual jeopardy of insult and

expulsion. Over and over again Russian statesmen who were

anxious to develop the resources and trade possibilities of

their backward and barbarous land, hinted at the advisability

of bringing in some Jews. The Imperial will was resolutely

opposed. … When the broad-minded Catherine II ascended the

throne these efforts were renewed, but she too resisted them,

and says in her Memoirs, 'their admission into Russia might

have occasioned much injury to our small tradesmen.' She was

too deeply bitten with the Voltairean philosophy of her time

to have, or even assume, any religious fervour in the matter,

but though in 1786 she issued a high-sounding edict

'respecting the protection of the rights of Jews of Russia,'

the persecution on economic and social grounds continued

unabated. By this time it will be seen the laws did, however,

recognise the existence of Jews in Russia. The explanation is

that the first partition of Poland and the annexation of the

great Turkish territory lying between the Dnieper and the

Dniester had brought into the empire such a vast Hebraic

population that any thought of expulsion was hopeless. … The

rape of Poland and the looting of Turkey had brought two

millions of Jews under the sceptre of the Czar. The fact could

not be blinked. They were there—inside the Holy Empire, whose

boast for centuries had been that no circumcised dog could

find rest for his foot on its sanctified territory. To an

autocracy based so wholly on an orthodox religion as is that

of the Czars, this seemed a most trying and perplexing

problem. The solution they hit upon was to set aside one part

of the empire as a sort of lazar house, which should serve to

keep the rest of it from pollution. Hence we get the Pale.

Almost every decade since 1786, the date of Catherine's ukase,

has witnessed some alteration made in the dimensions and

boundaries of this Pale. Now it has been expanded, now sharply

contracted. … To trace these changes would be to

unnecessarily burden ourselves with details. It is enough to

keep in mind that the creation of the Pale was Russia's

solution of the Jewish problem in 1786, and is still the only

one it can think of. Side by side with this naïve notion that

Holy Russia could be kept an inviolate Christian land in the

eyes of Heaven by juggling the map, there grew up the more

worldly conception of turning the Jew to account as a kind of

milch cow. … In 1819 Jewish brandy distillers were allowed

to go into the interior and settle 'until,' as the ukase said,

'Russian master distillers shall have perfected themselves in

the art of distilling.' They availed themselves of this

permission in great numbers, and at the end of seven years

were all summarily driven out again, a new ukase explaining

that 'the number of Christian distillers was now sufficient.'

… The past century's history of the Jews in Russia is made

up of conflicts between these two impulses in the childlike

Slavonic brain—the one to drive the heretic Jew into the Pale

as into a kennel with kicks and stripes, the other guardedly

to entice him out and manage to extract some service or profit

from him. … In 1825 Nicholas ascended the throne. Within a

year he had earned from the Jews that sinister title of 'The

Second Haman,' by which Israel still recalls him. … With the

death of Nicholas [1855] and the advent of Alexander II a new

era dawned. Dr. Mackenzie Wallace has drawn a spirited and

comprehensive picture of the literal stampede all Russia made

to reform everything. … Almost the first thing the young

Czar did was to revive a commission to inquire into the

condition of the Jews, which Nicholas had decreed in 1840 and

then allowed to lapse. This commission sent out a list of

inquiries to all the Provincial Governors. These gentlemen

returned voluminous reports, all, without exception,

favourable to the Jews. … Upon the strength of these reports

were issued the ukases of 1859, 1861, and 1865, … by which

Jews of the first mercantile guild and Jewish artisans were

allowed to reside all over the Empire. It is just as well to

remember that even these beneficent concessions, which seem by

contrast with what had gone before to mark such a vast forward

step in Russo-Jewish history, were confessedly dictated by

utilitarian considerations. The shackles were stricken only

from the two categories of Jews whose freedom would bring

profit to Russia. … Still, the quarter century following

Alexander II's accession in 1855 fairly deserves its

appellation of the 'golden age' when what preceded it is

recalled."

H. Frederic,

The New Exodus,

chapters 4-5.

See, also, JEWS: 19TH CENTURY.

JEWS: A. D. 1740.

Rise of the modern Chasidim.

See CHASIDIM.

JEWS: A. D. 1791.

The French Revolutionary emancipation.

"It is to the French Revolution that the Jews owe their

improved position in the modern world. That prolific parent of

good and evil has at least deserved well of them. It was the

first to do justice, full and unequivocal, to those whom every

other great political movement passed over as too

insignificant or too contemptible to be taken into account.

Mirabeau and the Abbé Grégoire, the one in his desire to

secularise the State, the other in his policy of

Christianising the Revolution, as our historian Graetz puts

it, both urged on a movement which, in an incredibly short

space of time, succeeded in effecting the complete

emancipation of all the Jews under the rule of the Republic.

On the 17th September, 1791, the National Assembly decreed the

abolition of every exceptional enactment previously in force

against them, and thus made them by law what they had

previously been in heart, citizens of their country.

{1931}

He who started as the child, afterwards to become the master,

of the Revolution, proclaimed the same great principles of

religious equality wherever his victorious eagles penetrated.

Since that dawn of a better time, the light has spread more

and more, though even now [1890] it is only here and there

that it has shone forth unto the perfect day."

S. Singer,

Jews in their Relation to Other Races

(National Life and Thought, chapter 20).

JEWS: A. D. 1846-1858.

Removal of disabilities in England.

"In 1846 the Act of Parliament was formally repealed which

compelled Jews living in England to wear a distinctive dress.

The law had, however, been in abeyance for nearly two

centuries. About this time also the Jews were admitted to the

privileges of the naturalization laws; and in 1858 the House

of Commons by resolution altered the form of oath tendered to

all its members. As it had stood up to this time, Jews were

prevented from voting in the divisions, although a Jew could

take his seat in the House when sent there by a constituency."

E. Porritt,

The Englishman at Home,

chapter 9.

JEWS: 19th Century.

The Anti-Semite movement.

Later persecution of the Jews in Russia.

"Among the strange and unforeseen developments that have

characterized the fourth quarter of the nineteenth century,

few are likely to be regarded by the future historian with a

deeper or more melancholy interest than the anti-Semite

movement, which has swept with such a portentous rapidity over

a great part of Europe. It has produced in Russia by far the

most serious religious persecution of the century. It has

raged fiercely in Roumania, the other great centre of the

Oriental Jews. In enlightened Germany it has become a

considerable parliamentary force. In Austria it counts among

its adherents men of the highest social station. Even France,

which from the days of the Revolution has been specially

distinguished for its liberality to the Jews, has not escaped

the contagion. … It is this movement which has been the

occasion of the very valuable work of M. Anatole

Leroy-Beaulieu on 'Israel among the Nations.' The author, who

is universally recognized as one of the greatest of living

political writers, has special qualifications for his task.

With an exceedingly wide knowledge of the literature relating

to his subject he combines much personal knowledge of the Jews

in Palestine and in many other countries, and especially in

those countries where the persecution has most furiously

raged. That persecution, he justly says, unites in different

degrees three of the most powerful elements that can move

mankind—the spirit of religious intolerance; the spirit of

exclusive nationality; and the jealousy which springs from

trade or mercantile competition. Of these elements M.

Leroy-Beaulieu considers the first to be on the whole the

weakest. In that hideous Russian persecution which 'the New

Exodus' of Frederic has made familiar to the English reader,

the religious element certainly occupies a very leading place.

Pobedonosteff, who shares with his master the chief guilt and

infamy of this atrocious crime, belongs to the same type as

the Torquemadas of the past, and the spirit that animates him

has entered largely into the anti-Semite movement in other

lands. … Another element to which M. Leroy-Beaulieu attaches

considerable importance is the Kultur Kampf in Germany. When

the German Government was engaged in its fierce struggle with

the Catholics, these endeavored to effect a diversion and to

avenge themselves on papers, which were largely in the hands

of Jews, by raising a new cry. They declared that a Kultur

Kampf was indeed needed, but that it should be directed

against the alien people who were undermining the moral

foundations of Christian societies; who were the implacable

enemies of the Christian creed and of Christian ideals. The

cry was soon taken up by a large body of Evangelical

Protestants. … Still more powerful, in the opinion of our

author, has been the spirit of intense and exclusive

nationality which has in the present generation arisen in so

many countries and which seeks to expel all alien or

heterogeneous elements, and to mould the whole national being

into a single definite type. The movement has been still

further strengthened by the greater keenness of trade

competition. In the midst of many idle, drunken and ignorant

populations the shrewd, thrifty and sober Jew stands

conspicuous as the most successful trader. His rare power of

judging, influencing and managing men, his fertility of

resource, his indomitable perseverance and industry

continually force him into the foremost rank and he is

prominent in occupations which excite much animosity. The

tax-gatherer, the agent, the middleman, and the money-lender

are very commonly of Jewish race and great Jewish capitalists

largely control the money markets of Europe at a time when

capital is the special object of socialistic attacks."

W. E. H. Lecky,

Israel among the Nations

(The Forum, December, 1893).

"Until 1881 the lives and property of Jews had been respected.

Their liberties were restricted, not obsolete. In that year

all was changed. The Pale of Settlement, especially in the

South, became a centre of riot. Crimes were charged against,

and violence was offered to, those who had no means of

retaliation; and whose only defence was passive endurance. The

restlessness of the country, the low moral tone of the most

ignorant and unreasonable peasantry in the world, commercial

jealousy, and official intrigues were responsible for the

outbreak. The Jews had thriven; that was a crime. As the

Government had refused them the privileges of citizenship,

they had no right to rise above their neighbours. A rescript,

for which General Ignatieff was responsible, took cognisance,

not of the sufferings of the Jews, but of the condition of the

Christians. Commissioners … were appointed, in all towns

inhabited by Jews, to inquire

(1) into the manner of mal-practices by which the presence of

Jews became injurious to the Christian population;

(2) into the best methods of preventing Jews from evading old

restrictions;

(3) what new laws were required to stop the pernicious conduct

of Jews in business.

The inquiry resulted in the May Laws of 1882. These laws,

which were so severe that hesitation was felt in applying them

throughout the Pale, were supposed to be of only temporary

application. They were known as laws for the time, and only

came into full operation in 1890. … The May Laws define the

Jews' duties to the State. These consist of military service,

and pecuniary contributions.

{1932}

In common with all Russians, Jews are subject to the Law of

Conscription. Unlike Christians, they may not provide a

substitute. They may not follow any trade, or profession,

until they have produced evidence of registration in the

recruiting district. While subject to military service, Jews

cannot rise higher than the rank of non-commissioned officer.

… The journal of statistics gives the proportion of Jews to

the population as 3.95 per cent., whereas the percentage on

the conscription rolls is 5.80. Thus the Hebrew is ground

between the upper and nether millstone. … In December 1890

Russians were forbidden to sell, lease, or mortgage real

estate to Jews throughout the Empire, a measure hitherto

applied only to Poland. Where Jews have acquired such property

they will be compelled to dispose thereof. The Jewish

artisans, apothecaries' assistants, dentists, and midwives,

with all apprentices, are to be expelled from all places

outside the Pale. Exceptions to this are obtainable only by

special permission from the Minister of the Interior. Even

then the children of such must be removed to the Pale as soon

as they come of age, or marry an unprivileged Jew. This Pale

of Settlement, which stretches along the frontier, from the

Baltic to the Black Sea, is a hell of seething wretchedness.

Here five millions of Jews are compelled to live, and die, in

a Ghetto of filth and misery, mocked with a feast of Tantalus.

Beyond are lands where corn rots for lack of ingatherers; yet

they are cabined and confined. Inability to bribe a corrupt

mass of administrators has led to the expulsion of poor Jews

from villages within the Pale, into crowded towns, such as

Tchernizo, where the population has consequently risen from

5,000 to 20,000. … In September [1890] the Jews were

expelled from Trans-caspian territory; in October, Jews, not

having the right to live in St. Petersburg, were ordered to be

transferred, with their families, to their proper places of

abode; in January the Jews were ordered to be expelled from

the Terke region of the Caucasus; in February the Jews in

Novgorod were expelled. It has been declared expedient to

expel them from the Cossack Stanitzas of the Caucasus. Three

years ago the Jews were forbidden to live on Crown lands.

Eighty-seven families were recently ordered to leave Saraka

districts; because they had settled there after the passing of

the Ignatieff laws. Artisans are henceforth to be confined to

limits of residence within the Pale. It is the same with

millers; therefore mills are idle, and the price of corn has

declined. In Courland and Livonia, descendants of Jewish

families, which were established when those provinces were

incorporated into Russia, may remain; but no others may

settle. … Jews who have lived eight years in a village may

be interned therein, and may not move, even walking distance,

without leave. Jews leaving one village for another lose their

rights, and must go to the Ghetto of the nearest town. This is

practically a sentence of death. Executions are going on, not

upon scaffolds, but in dusky Ghettos, where the victims of

oppression pine without hope in the world."

C. N. Barham,

Persecution of the Jews in Russia

(Westminster Review, volume 136, 1891), pages 139-144.

ALSO IN:

Persecution of the Jews in Russia:

issued by the Russo-Jewish Committee;

D. F. Schloss,

Persecution of the Jews in Roumania.

----------JEWS: End----------

JEYPORE, OR JEYPOOR.

See RAJPOOTS.

JEZIREH, Al.

See MESOPOTAMIA.

JEZREEL, Battle of.

See MEGIDDO.

JINGIZ-KHAN, The conquests of.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227;

and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

JINGOES.

See TURKS: A. D. 1878 EXCITEMENT IN ENGLAND.

JIVARA, OR JIVARO, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

JOACHIM I.,

Elector of Brandenburg, A. D. 1499-1535.

Joachim II., Elector of Brandenburg, 1535-1571.

Joachim Frederick, Elector of Brandenburg, 1598-1608.

JOAN OF ARC, The mission of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

JOANNA,

Queen of Castile, A. D. 1504-1555.

Joanna I., Queen of Naples, 1343-1381.

Joanna II., Queen of Naples, 1414-1435.

JOGLARS.

See TROUBADOURS.

JOHN

(of Brienne), Latin Emperor at Constantinople

(Romania), A. D. 1228-1237.

John (of Luxemburg), King of Bohemia, A. D. 1310-1346.

John, King of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, 1481-1513.

John, King of England, 1199-1216.

John (Don) of Austria: His victories over the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571,

and 1572-1573.

In the Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577, and 1577-1581.

John, Elector of Brandenburg, 1486-1499.

John (called The Fearless), Duke of Burgundy, 1404-1418.

John I., King of Aragon, 1387-1395.

John I., King of Castile and Leon, 1379-1390.

John I., nominal King of France

(an infant who lived seven days), 1316.

John I., King of Navarre, 1441-1479;

John II., of Aragon, 1458-1479;

John I., of Sicily, 1458-1479.

John I., King of Portugal, 1383-1433.

John I., King of Sicily, 1458-1479.

John II. (Comnenus),

Emperor in the East (Byzantine or Greek), 1118-1143.

John II., King of Castile and Leon, 1407-1454.

John II. (called The Good), King of France, 1350-1364.

John II., King of Portugal, 1481-1495.

John III. (Vataces), Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1222-1255.

John III., King of Portugal, 1521-1557.

John III., King of Sweden, 1568-1592.

John IV., Pope, 640-642.

John IV. (Lascaris), Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1259-1260.

John IV., King of Portugal, 1640-1656.

John V., Pope, 685-686.

John V. (Cantacuzene),

Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1342-1355.

John V., King of Portugal, 1706-1750.

John VI., Pope, 701-705.

John VI. (Palæologus),

Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1355-1391.

John VI., King of Portugal, 1816-1826.

John VII., Pope, 705-707.

John VII.

(Palæologus), Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1425-1448.

John VIII., Pope, 872-882.

John IX., Pope, 898-900.

John X., Pope, 914-928.

John XI., Pope, 931-936.

John XII., Pope, 956-964.

John XIII., Pope, 965-972.

John XIV., Pope, 983-984.

John XV., Pope, 985-996.

John XVI., Antipope, 997-998.

John XVII., Pope, 1003, June to December.

John XVIII., Pope, 1003-1009.

John XIX., Pope, 1024-1033.

John XXI. (so styled, though 20th of the name),

Pope, 1276-1277.

John XXII., Pope, 1316-1334.

John XXIII., Pope, 1410-1410.

John Albert, King of Poland, 1493-1501.

John d'Albret and Catherine,

King and Queen of Navarre, 1503-1512.

John Balliol, King of Scotland, 1292-1296.

John Casimir, King of Poland, 1648-1668.

John Chrysostom and the Empress Eudoxia.

See ROME: A. D. 400-518.

John George, Elector of Brandenburg, 1571-1598.

John Sigismund, Elector of Brandenburg, 1608-1619.

John Sobieski, King of Poland, 1674-1697.

John Swerkerson, King of Sweden, 1216-1222.

John Zimisces, Emperor in the East

(Byzantine, or Greek), 969-976.

{1933}

JOHN COMPANY, The.

A name applied to the English East India Company.

See INDIA: A. D. 1858.

JOHNNIES.

See BOYS IN BLUE.

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1867.

JOHNSON, Andrew:

Military Governor of Tennessee.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MARCH-JUNE).

Election to the Vice Presidency.

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

Succession to the Presidency.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 15TH).

Reconstruction Policy.

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

to 1866-1867 (OCTOBER-MARCH).

Impeachment of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868 (MARCH-MAY).

JOHNSON, Sir William, and the Six Nations.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

JOHNSON-CLARENDON CONVENTION.

See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1869.

JOHNSTON, General Albert Sidney.

Command of Confederate forces in the west.

Battle of Shiloh.

Death.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862

(JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE),

and (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

JOHNSTON, General Joseph E.

At the first Battle of Bull Run.

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

Command in northern Virginia.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

Command on the Peninsula.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA),

to (MAY: VIRGINIA).

Command in the west.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

Command in Georgia.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863-1864

(DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

The Atlanta campaign.

Relieved of command.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864

(MAY: GEORGIA), and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

Command in the Carolinas.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865

(FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).

Surrender.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 26TH).

JOHNSTOWN FLOOD, The.

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

JOINT HIGH COMMISSION.

See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1869-1871.

JOLIET'S EXPLORATIONS.

See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

JOMSBORG.

Jomsborg, a stronghold at the mouth of the Oder, became, in

the later part of the 10th and early part of the 11th

centuries, a noted fastness of the piratical heathen Danes,

who found there "a secure refuge from the new religion and the

civilization it brought with it," which their country was then

submitting to. They founded at Jomsborg "a state to which no

man might belong save on proof of courage, where no woman

might enter within the walls, and where all booty was in

common."

J. R. Green,

The Conquest of England,

pages 366-367.

"The impregnable castle of a certain body corporate, or

'Sea-Robbery Association (limited),' which, for some

generations, held the Baltic in terror, and plundered far

beyond the Belt—in the ocean itself, in Flanders and the

opulent trading havens there,—above all, in opulent anarchic

England, which, for forty years from about this time, was the

pirates' Goshen; and yielded, regularly every summer, slaves,

danegelt, and miscellaneous plunder, like no other country

Jomsburg or the viking-world had ever known."

T. Carlyle,

Early Kings of Norway,

chapter 5.

The pirate-nest at Jomsborg was broken up, about the middle of

the tenth century, by Magnus the Good, of Norway.

JONES, John Paul, Naval exploits of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776;

and 1779 (SEPTEMBER).

JONESBORO', Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

JONGLEURS.

See TROUBADOURS.

JOPPA.

See JAFFA.

JOSEPH,

King of Portugal, A. D. 1750-1777.

Joseph I.,

King of Hungary, 1687-1711;

King of Bohemia and Germanic Emperor, 1705-1711.

Joseph II., King of Hungary and Bohemia,

and Germanic Emperor, 1765-1790.

Joseph Bonaparte,

King of Naples, 1806-1808;

King of Spain, 1808-1812.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER);

and SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER), to 1812-1814.

JOSEPHINE, Empress, Napoleon's divorce from.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.

JOTAPATA, Siege of.

The Jewish city of Jotapata, defended by the historian

Josephus, was besieged by Vespasian for forty-seven days, A.

D. 67, and taken.

Josephus,

Jewish War,

book 3, chapter 7-8.

JOUBERT, Campaigns of.

See FRANCE: A. D.1796-1797(OCTOBER-APRIL);

1798-1799; 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

JOURDAN, Campaigns of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793(JULY-DECEMBER);

1794 (MARCH-JULY); 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER);

1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER); 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

JOUST.

See TOURNEY.

JOVIAN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 363-364.

JOVIANS AND HERCULIANS.

See PRÆTORIAN GUARDS: A. D. 312.

JOYOUS ENTRY OF BRABANT, The.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D.1559-1562.

JUAN.

See JOHN.

JUAREZ, The Mexican government of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1848-1861, to 1867-1888.

JUBILEE, Papal institution of the.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

JUDAH, Kingdom of.

See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL, AND JUDAH, and after.

JUDAS MACCABÆUS.

See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

JUDGES OF ISRAEL.

See JEWS: ISRAEL UNDER THE JUDGES.

JUDGMENT OF GOD.

See ORDEAL; also, WAGER OF BATTLE.

{1934}

JUDICIAL COMBAT.

See WAGER OF BATTLE.

JUGANTES, The.

See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

JUGERUM.

"A Roman jugerum [of land] was somewhat less than two-thirds

of a statute acre."

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 2, chapter 7, footnote (volume 1).

JUGURTHINE WAR, The.

See NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.

JULIAN (called The Apostate),

Roman Emperor, A. D. 361-363.

Restorer of Paganism.

See ROME: A. D. 361-363.

JULIAN CALENDAR.

JULIAN ERA.

See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

JULIAN FAMILY, The.

"The Julian Family is that of the dictator Cæsar; his name was

transmitted, by adoption, out of the direct line, but always

within the circle of his kindred, to the five first heads of

the Roman empire; Augustus reigned from the year 30 B. C. to

the year 14 of our era; Tiberius, from 14 to 37 A. D.;

Caligula, from 37 to 41; Claudius, from 41 to 54; Nero, from

54 to 68."

J. C. L. Sismondi,

Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 2.

JULIAN LAW, The.

See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

JULIAN LAWS, The.

"Cæsar [during his year of consulship, B. C. 59, before he

went to Gaul] carried, with the help of the people, the body

of admirable laws which are known to jurists as the 'Leges

Juliæ,' and mark an epoch in Roman history. … There was a

law declaring the inviolability of the persons of magistrates

during their term of authority, reflecting back on the murder

of Saturninus, and touching by implication the killing of

Lentulus and his companions. There was a law for the

punishment of adultery, most disinterestedly singular if the

popular accounts of Cæsar's habits had any grain of truth in

them. There were laws for the protection of the subject from

violence, public or private; and laws disabling persons who

had laid hands illegally on Roman citizens from holding office

in the Commonwealth. There was a law, intended at last to be

effective, to deal with judges who allowed themselves to be

bribed. There were laws against defrauders of the revenue;

laws against debasing the coin; laws against sacrilege; laws

against corrupt State contracts; laws against bribery at

elections. Finally, there was a law, carefully framed, 'De

repetundis.' to exact retribution from pro-consuls or

pro-prætors of the type of Verres, who had plundered the

provinces."

J. A. Froude,

Cæsar,

chapter 13.

JULIAN LINE, The.

See ROME: A. D. 68-96.

JULIANUS.

See JULIAN.

Julianus, Didius, Roman Emperor, A. D. 193.

JÜLICH-CLEVE CONTEST, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618;

and FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

JULIOMAGUS.

Modern Angers.

See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

JULIUS II.,

Pope, A. D. 1503-1513.

Julius III., Pope, 1550-1555.

Julius Nepos, Roman Emperor (Western), 474-475.

JULY FIRST.

Dominion Day.

See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

JULY FOURTH, Independence Day.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).

JULY MONARCHY, The.

The reign of Louis Philippe, which was brought about by the

revolution of July, 1830 (see FRANCE: A.D. 1815-1830, and

1830-1840), is commonly known in France as the July Monarchy.

JUNIN, Battle of (1824).

See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

JUNIUS LETTERS, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1769-1772.

JUNONIA.

See CARTHAGE: B. C. 44.

JUNTA.

A Spanish word signifying council, assembly, association.

JUNTA, The Apostolic.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

JURISFIRMA, The process of.

See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

JUROIPACH, Fortress of.

A fortress in the pass of Derbend, between the last spurs of

the Caucasus and the Caspian, which the Persians and the

Romans undertook at one time to maintain jointly. "This

fortress, known as Juroipach or Biraparach, commanded the

usual passage by which the hordes of the north were accustomed

to issue from their vast arid steppes upon the rich and

populous regions of the south for the purpose of plundering

raids, if not of actual conquests. Their incursions threatened

almost equally Roman and Persian territory, and it was felt

that the two nations were alike interested in preventing them."

G. Rawlinson,

Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 19.

JURY, Trial by.

"The fabric of our judicial legislation commences with the

Assize of Clarendon.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

… In the provisions of this assize for the repression of

crime we find the origin of trial by jury, so often attributed

to earlier times. Twelve lawful men of each hundred, with four

from each township, were sworn to present those who were known

or reputed as criminals within their district for trial by

ordeal. The jurors were thus not merely witnesses, but sworn

to act as judges also in determining the value of the charge;

and it is this double character of Henry's [Henry II.] jurors

that has descended to our 'grand jury.' … Two later steps

brought the jury to its modern condition. Under Edward I.

witnesses acquainted with the particular fact in question were

added in each case to the general jury, and by the separation

of these two classes of jurors at a later time the last became

simply 'witnesses,' without any judicial power, while the

first ceased to be witnesses at all, and became our modern

jurors, who are only judges of the testimony given."

J. R. Green,

Short History of English People,

chapter 2, section 8.

See LAW.

ALSO IN:

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 13, section 164.

W. Forsyth,

History of Trial by Jury.

JUSTICIAR.

The chief minister of the Norman kings of England. At first

the Justiciar was the lieutenant or viceroy of the king during

the absence of the latter from the kingdom; afterward a

permanent minister of justice and finance.

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

volume 1, page 346.

JUSTIN I.,

Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 518-527.

Justin II., Roman Emperor (Eastern), 565-578.

JUSTINIAN I.,

Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 527-565.

Justinian II. (called Rhinotmetus),

Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 685-695, and 704-711.

JUSTINIAN, The Institutes, Pandects and Novels of.

See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

{1935}

JUSTIZA, OR JUSTICIARY, of Aragon.

See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

JÜTERBOGK, OR DENNEWITZ, Battle of.

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

JUTES, The.

See ANGLES AND JUTES;

also, ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

JUTHUNGI, The.

See ALEMANNI, FIRST APPEARANCE OF THE.

JUVAVIUM.

See SALZBURG.

JUVENAL IA, The.

This was a festival instituted by Nero, to commemorate his

attainment of the age of manhood. "His beard was clipped, and

the first tender down of his cheek and chin enclosed in a

golden casket and dedicated to Jupiter in the Capitol. This

ceremony was followed by music and acting," in which the

emperor, himself, performed.

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 53.

JUVERNA.

See IRELAND: THE NAME.

KAABA, OR CAABA, at Mecca, The.

See CAABA.

KABALA, OR CABALA, The.

See CABALA.

KABALA, Battle of.

See SICILY: B. C. 383.

KABELJAUWS.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1345-1354;

also, 1482-1493.

KABYLES, The.

See LIBYANS; also, AMORITES.

KADESH.

A strong fortress of the ancient Hittites on the Orontes. The

name signifies "the holy city."

KADESH-BARNEA.

An important locality in Biblical history. "It looms up as the

objective point of the Israelites in their movement from Sinai

to the Promised Land. It is the place of their testing, of

their failure, of their judging, and of their dispersion. It

is their rallying centre for the forty-years of their

wandering, and the place of their re-assembling for their

final move into the land of their longings."

H. C. Trumbull,

Kadesh-Barnea,

part 1.

Mr. Trumbull identifies the site with the oasis of Ayn Qadees,

in the Wilderness of Zin.

KADIASKERS.

See SUBLIME PORTE.

KADISIYEH, Battle of.

See CADESIA.

KADMEIA, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 383.

KADMEIANS, OR CADMEIANS.

See BŒOTIA.

KADMONITES, The.

See SARACENS.

KAFIRS.

KAFIR WARS.

See SOUTH AFRICA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS,

and A. D. 1811-1868;

also, AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

KAGHUL, Battle of (1770).

See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

KAH-KWAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.

KAINARDJI, OR

KUTSCHUK KAINARDJI, Treaty of (1774).

See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

KAIRWAN, The founding of.

Acbah, the first of the Moslem conquerors of Northern Africa

who penetrated as far westward as the domain of ancient

Carthage, but who did not take that city, secured his footing

in the region [A. D. 670-675] by founding a new city,

thirty-three leagues southeast of Carthage and twelve leagues

from the sea. The site chosen was a wild, thickly wooded

valley, in the midst of which the Arab leader is said to have

cleared a space, erected walls around it, and then, planting

his lance in the center, cried to his followers: "This is your

Caravan." Hence the name, Kairwan or Caerwan, or Cairoan.

Fixing his seat of government at Kairwan, building mosques and

opening markets, Acbah and his successors soon made the new

city a populous and important capital.

W. Irving,

Mahomet and his Successors,

volume 2, chapter 44.

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 51.

A. A. Boddy,

Kairwan the Holy.

KAISAR-I-HIND.

See INDIA: A. D. 1877.

KAISER, Origin of the title.

See CÆSAR, THE TITLE.

KAISERSLAUTERN, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

KALAPOOIAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KALAPOOIAN FAMILY.

KALB, Baron De, and the War of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

KALEVALA,

KALEWALA, The.

"To a certain class of modern philologists, no poem in the

world is more familiar than the Kalewala, the long epic, which

is to the mythology and traditional lore of the Finns what the

Iliad and Odyssey of Homer are to the heroic story of ancient

Greece. It is the source from which nearly all the information

connected with the religious creed, the moral notions, the

customs, and the domestic details of a most remarkable race is

to be obtained. If we would know how the Greeks of the heroic

age prayed, fought, eat, drank, sported, and clothed

themselves, we turn to the pages of Homer. If we would obtain

similar knowledge on the subject of the Finns, we consult the

Kalewala. Though the traditions of the Finnish heroes are

possibly as old as those of Achilles and Ajax, the arrangement

of them into a continuous poem is a work of very recent date.

No Wolfian controversy will arise respecting the construction

of the Kalewala, for it is not more than twenty-five years

since the Peisistratid who first put together the isolated

songs, or Runes, published the result of his labours.

Fragments of Finnish poetry, collected from the oral

traditions of the people, had already made their appearance,

though even the first important collection of these, which was

made by Dr. Zacharias Topelius, dates no further back than

1822. … But it is with Dr. Lönnrot that the existence of the

epic as an epic, with the title 'Kalewala,' begins. He

published it in thirty-two Runes,—that is to say, books or

cantos, for the word, which previously denoted an independent

poem, now sinks into little more than a sign of division,

though here and there, it must be confessed, an abrupt

transition occurs, to which a parallel would not be found in

the Iliad or the Odyssey. In 1849 a second edition of the

Kalewala was published, likewise under the superintendence of

Dr. Lönnrot, containing fifty cantos and nearly 23,000 lines."

J. Oxenford,

Kalewala

(Temple Bar, December, 1860).

{1936}

"Besides its fresh and simple beauty of style, its worth as a

storehouse of every kind of primitive folk-lore, being as it

is the production of an Urvolk, a nation that has undergone no

violent revolution in language or institutions—the Kalevala

has the peculiar interest of occupying a position between the

two kinds of primitive poetry, the ballad and the epic. …

Sixty years ago, it may be said, no one was aware that Finland

possessed a national poem at all. Her people—who claim

affinity with the Magyars of Hungary, but are possibly a

back-wave of an earlier tide of population—had remained

untouched by foreign influences since their conquest by

Sweden, and their somewhat lax and wholesale conversion to

Christianity: events which took place gradually between the

middle of the twelfth and the end of the thirteenth centuries.

… The annexation of Finland by Russia, in 1809, awakened

national feeling, and stimulated research into the songs and

customs which were the heirlooms of the people. … From the

north of Norway to the slopes of the Altai, ardent explorers

sought out the fragments of unwritten early poetry. These

runes, or runots, were sung chiefly by old men called Runoias,

to beguile the weariness of the long dark winters. The custom

was for two champions to engage in a contest of memory,

clasping each other's hands, and reciting in turn till he

whose memory first gave in slackened his hold. The Kalevala

contains an instance of this practice, where it is said that

no one was so hardy as to clasp hands with Wäinämöinen, who is

at once the Orpheus and the Prometheus of Finnish mythology.

These Runoias, or rhapsodists, complain, of course, of the

degeneracy of human memory; they notice how any foreign

influence, in religion or politics, is destructive to the

native songs of a race. 'As for the lays of old time, a

thousand have been scattered to the wind, a thousand buried in

the snow. … As for those which the Munks (the Teutonic

knights) swept away, and the prayer of the priest

over-whelmed, a thousand tongues were not able to recount

them.' In spite of the losses thus caused, and in spite of the

suspicious character of the Finns, which often made the task

of collection a dangerous one, enough materials remained to

furnish Dr. Lönnrot, the most noted explorer, with thirty-five

Runots, or cantos. These were published in 1835, but later

research produced the fifteen cantos which make up the

symmetrical fifty of the Kalevala. In the task of arranging

and uniting these, Dr. Lönnrot played the part generally

ascribed to Pisistratus in relation to the Iliad and Odyssey.

He is said to have handled with singular fidelity the

materials which now come before us as one poem, not without a

certain unity and continuous thread of narrative. It is this

unity which gives the Kalevala a claim to the title of epic,

although the element of permanence which is most obvious in

the Greek epics, and in the earliest Hebrew records, is here

conspicuously absent. … Among the Finns we find no trace of

an aristocracy; there is scarcely a mention of kings, or

priests; the heroes of the poem are really popular heroes,

fishers, smiths, husbandmen, 'medicine-men' or wizards;

exaggerated shadows of the people, pursuing on a heroic scale,

not war, but the common daily business of primitive and

peaceful men. In recording their adventures, the Kalevala,

like the shield of Achilles, reflects all the life of a race,

the feasts, the funerals, the rites of seed-time and harvest,

of marriage and death, the hymn, and the magical incantation.

Were this all, the epic would only have the value of an

exhaustive collection of the popular ballads which, as we have

seen, are a poetical record of all the intenser moments in the

existence of unsophisticated tribes. But it is distinguished

from such a collection, by presenting the ballads as they are

produced by the events of a continuous narrative, and thus it

takes a distinct place between the aristocratic epics of

Greece, or of the Franks, and the scattered songs which have

been collected in Scotland, Sweden, Denmark, Greece, and

Italy. Besides the interest of its unique position as a

popular epic, the Kalevala is very precious, both for its

literary beauties and for the confused mass of folk-lore which

it contains. … What is to be understood by the word

'Kalevala'? The affix 'la' signifies 'abode.' Thus, 'Tuonela'

is 'the abode of Tuoni,' the god of the lower world; and as

'kaleva' means 'heroic,' 'magnificent,' 'Kalevala' is 'The

Home of Heroes,' like the Indian 'Beerbhoom,' or 'Virbhûmi.'

The poem is the record of the adventures of the people of

Kalevala—of their strife with the men of Pohjola, the place

of the world's end."

A. Lang,

Kalevala

(Fraser's May, June, 1872).

A complete translation of the Kalevala into English verse, by

John Martin Crawford, was published in New York, in 1888.

Project Gutenberg

Kalevala: the Epic Poem of Finland—

Complete by Lönnrot and Crawford

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5186

KALISCH, Battle of (1706).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

KALISCH, OR CALISCH, Treaty of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.

KALMUKS, The.

See TARTARS.

KAMBALU, OR CAMBALU,

See CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.

KAMBULA, Battle of (1879),

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1879.

KAMI, OR KHEMI, OR KEM.

See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

KANAKAS.

See HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.

KANAWHA, Battle of the Great.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

KANAWHA, The proposed State of.

See WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

KANAWHAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

KANDHS, The.

See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

----------KANSAS: Start--------

KANSAS:

The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY,

and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

KANSAS: A. D. 1803.

Mostly embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

KANSAS: A. D. 1854.

Territorial organization.

The Kansas-Nebraska Bill.

Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.

KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

The battle-ground of the struggle against Slavery-extension.

Border-ruffians and Free State settlers.

"The attention of the whole country had now been turned to the

struggle provoked by the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and the repeal

of the Missouri Compromise. The fertile soil of Kansas had

been offered as a prize to be contended for by Free and Slave

States, and both had accepted the contest. The Slave State

settlers were first in the field. The slave-holders of Western

Missouri, which shut off Kansas from the Free States, had crossed

the border, preempted lands, and warned Free State immigrants

not to pass through Missouri.

{1937}

The first election of a delegate to Congress took place

November 29th, 1854, and was carried by organized bands of

Missourians, who moved over the border on election day, voted,

and returned at once to Missouri. The spring election of 1855,

for a Territorial Legislature, was carried in the same

fashion. In July, 1855, the Legislature, all Pro-Slavery, met

at Pawnee, and adopted a State Constitution. To save trouble

it adopted the laws of the State of Missouri entire, with a

series of original statutes denouncing the penalty of death

for nearly fifty offenses against Slavery. All through the

spring and summer of 1855 Kansas was the scene of almost

continuous conflict, the Border Ruffians of Missouri

endeavoring to drive out the Free State settlers by murder and

arson, and the Free State settlers retaliating. The cry of

'bleeding Kansas' went through the North. Emigration societies

were formed in the Free States to aid, arm, equip, and protect

intending settlers. These, prevented from passing through

Missouri, took a more Northern route through Iowa and

Nebraska, and moved into Kansas like an invading army. The

Southern states also sent parties of intending settlers. But

these were not generally slave-holders, but young men anxious

for excitement. They did not go to Kansas, as their opponents

did, to plow, sow, gather crops, and build up homes.

Therefore, though their first rapid and violent movements were

successful, their subsequent increase of resources and numbers

was not equal to that of the Free State settlers. The

Territory soon became practically divided into a Pro-Slavery

district, and a Free State district. Leavenworth in the

former, and Topeka and Lawrence in the latter, were the chief

towns. September 5th, 1855, a Free State Convention at Topeka

repudiated the Territorial Legislature and all its works, as

the acts and deeds of Missourians alone. It also resolved to

order a separate election for delegate to Congress, so as to

force that body to decide the question, and to form a State

government. January 15th, 1856, the Free State settlers

[having applied to Congress for admission as a State] elected

State officers under the Topeka Free State Constitution. The

Federal Executive now entered the field. January 24th, 1856,

the President [Franklin Pierce], in a Special Message to

Congress, endorsed the Pro-Slavery Legislature, and pronounced

the attempt to form a Free State government, without the

approval of the Federal authorities in the Territory, to be an

act of rebellion. He then issued a proclamation, warning all

persons engaged in disturbing the peace of Kansas to retire to

their homes, and placed United States troops at the orders of

Governor Shannon to enforce the (Pro-Slavery) laws of the

Territory. The population of Kansas was now so large that very

considerable armies were mustered on both sides, and a

desultory civil war was kept up until nearly the end of the

year. During its progress two Free State towns, Lawrence and

Ossawattomie, were sacked. July 4th, 1856, the Free State

Legislature attempted to assemble at Topeka, but was at once

dispersed by a body of United States troops, under orders from

Washington. September 9th, a new Governor, Geary, of

Pennsylvania, arrived and succeeded in keeping the peace to

some extent by a mixture of temporizing and decided measures.

By the end, of the year he even claimed to have established

order in the Territory. … January 6th, 1857, the Free State

Legislature again attempted to meet at Topeka, and was again

dispersed by Federal interference. Its presiding officer and

many of its members were arrested by a United States deputy

marshal. The Territorial, or Pro-Slavery, Legislature

quarreled with Governor Geary, who resigned, and Robert J.

Walker, of Mississippi, was appointed in his stead. A

resolution was passed by the House [in Congress] declaring the

Acts of the Territorial Legislature cruel, oppressive,

illegal, and void. It was tabled by the Senate." A new

Congress met December 7th, 1857, "with a Democratic majority

in both branches. In the House, James L. Orr, of South

Carolina, a Democrat, was chosen Speaker. The debates of this

Session were mainly upon the last scene in the Kansas

struggle. Governor Walker had succeeded in persuading the Free

State settlers to recognize the Territorial Legislature so far

as to take part in the election which it had ordered. The

result gave them control of the Legislature. But a previously

elected Pro-Slavery Convention, sitting at Lecompton, went on

to form a State Constitution. This was to be submitted to the

people, but only votes 'For the Constitution with Slavery,' or

'For the Constitution without Slavery,' were to be received.

Not being allowed in either event to vote against the

Constitution, the Free State settlers refused to vote at all,

and the Lecompton Constitution with Slavery received 6,000

majority. The new Territorial Legislature, however, ordered an

election at which the people could vote for or against the

Lecompton Constitution, and a majority of 10,000 was cast

against it. … The President's Message argued in favor of

receiving Kansas as a State under the Lecompton Constitution

with Slavery, on the ground that the delegates had been chosen

to form a State Constitution, and were not obligated to submit

it to the people at all. This view was supported by the

Southern members of Congress, and opposed by the Republicans

and by a part of the Democrats, headed by Senator Douglas, of

Illinois. The Senate passed a bill admitting Kansas as a

State, under the Lecompton Constitution. The House passed the

bill, with the proviso that the Constitution should again be

submitted to a popular vote. The Senate rejected the proviso.

A conference committee recommended that the bill of the House

should be adopted, with an additional proviso making large

grants of public lands to the new State, if the people of

Kansas should vote to adopt the Lecompton Constitution. In

this form the bill was passed by both Houses, and became a

law. … The proffered inducement of public lands was a

failure, and in August the Lecompton Constitution was rejected

by 10,000 majority. Kansas, therefore, still remained a

Territory. In 1859, at an election called by the Territorial

Legislature, the people decided in favor of another Convention

to form a State Constitution. This body met at Wyandot, in

July, 1859, and adopted a State Constitution prohibiting

Slavery. The Wyandot Constitution was submitted to the people

and received a majority of 4,000 in its favor;" but Congress

refused the admission to Kansas under this Constitution, the

Senate rejecting, though the House approved.

A. Johnston,

History of American Politics,

chapters 18-19.

ALSO IN:

D. W. Wilder,

Annals of Kansas (containing the text of the several

Constitutions, etc.).

E. E. Hale,

Kansas and Nebraska,

chapters 8-9.

S. T. L. Robinson,

Kansas

J. H. Gihon,

Governor Geary's Administration in Kansas.

F. B. Sanborn,

Life and Letters of John Brown,

chapters 7-11.

Reports of Select Committee,

(34th Congress, 1st Session, H. R. Report 200).

J. F. Rhodes,

History of the United States from 1850,

chapters 7-9 (volume 2).

C. Robinson,

The Kansas Conflict.

See, also, JAYHAWKERS.

{1938}

KANSAS: A. D. 1861.

Admission to the Union under the Wyandot Constitution.

"As soon as a sufficient number of Southern members of

Congress [from the seceding States] had withdrawn to give the

Republicans a majority in both Houses, Kansas was admitted as

a State [January 29, 1861] under the Wyandot Free State

Constitution."

A. Johnston,

History of American Politics,

2d edition, page 185.

KANSAS: A. D. 1863.

Quantrell's guerrilla raid.

The sacking of Lawrence.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (AUGUST: MISSOURI-KANSAS).

----------KANSAS: End----------

KANSAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

KAPOHN, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

KAPOLNA, Battle of (1849).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

KAPPEL, Battle of (1531).

The Kappeler Milchsuppe.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.

KARA GEORG, The career of.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:

14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

KARAISM.

KARAITES.

The Jewish sect of the Karaites originated in the teaching of

one Anan ben David, in the 8th century, whose radical doctrine

was the rejection of the Talmud and a return to the Bible "for

the ordering of religious life." Hence "the system of religion

which Anan founded received the name of the Religion of the

Text, or Karaism,"

H. Graetz,

History of the Jews,

volume 3, chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

H. H. Milman,

History of the Jews,

book 23.

KARAKORUM.

The early capital of the Mongol empire of Jingis Khan and his

successors was at Karakorum, believed to have been situated

near the river Orkhon, or Orgon. Ogotai built a great palace

there, in 1235, called Ordu Balik, or the city of the Ordu.

H. H. Howorth,

History of the Mongols,

volume 1. pages 155 and 182.

See, also,

MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

KARANKAWAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KARANKAWAN FAMILY.

KARIGAUM, Defense of (1817).

See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.

KARKAR, Battle of.

Fought B. C. 854, by Shalmaneser of Assyria, with the

confederate, kings of Damascus, Israel and their Syrian

neighbors; the latter defeated.

KARL.

See ETHEL.—ETHELING.

KARLINGS, OR CARLINGS.

See FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.

KARLOWITZ, OR CARLOWITZ, Peace of.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

KARLSBAD, OR CARLSBAD, Congress of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

KARMATHIANS, The.

See CARMATHIANS.

KARNATTAH.

The Moorish name of Granada, signifying "the cream of the

West."

See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.

KAROKS, OR CAHROCS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS, &c.

KAROLINGIA AND KAROLINGIANS.

See CAROLINGIA; and FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.

----------KARS: Start--------

KARS: A. D. 1854-1856.

Siege and capture by the Russians.

Restoration to Turkey.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1855 and 1854-1856.

KARS: A. D. 1877.

Siege and capture by the Russians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

KARS: A. D. 1878.

Cession to Russia.

See TURKS: A. D. 1878 THE TREATIES.

----------KARS: End--------

KASDIM, OR CASDIM.

See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.

----------KASHMERE: Start--------

KASHMERE: A. D. 1819-1820.

Conquest by Runjet Singh.

See SIKHS.

KASHMERE: A. D. 1846.

Taken from the Sikhs by the English and given as a kingdom to

Gholab Singh.

See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

----------KASHMERE: Start--------

----------KASKASKIA: Start--------

KASKASKIA, French settlement of.

See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1751.

KASKASKIA: A. D. 1778.

Taken by the Virginian General Clark.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1778-1779 CLARK'S CONQUEST.

----------KASKASKIA: End----------

KASKASKIAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

KASSOPIANS.

See EPIRUS.

KATABA, OR CATAWBAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY,

and, SIOUAN FAMILY.

KATANA, Naval Battle of.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.

KATZBACH, Battle of.

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

KAUS, OR KWOKWOOS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KUSAN FAMILY.

KAWS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

KAZAN, The Khanate of.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.

KEARNEYITES.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.

KEARNEY'S EXPEDITION AND CONQUEST OF NEW MEXICO.

See NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846.

KEDAR, Tribe of.

"The Arabs of the tribe of Kedar are often mentioned in the

Bible, especially with reference to the trade with Phœnicia.

They furnished the caravans across the desert of Dahna, to

convey the merchandise of Hadramaut, Marah, and Oman to Syria.

They inhabited the southern portion of Yemama, on the borders

of the desert."

F. Lenormant,

Manual of the Ancient History of the East,

book 7, chapter 1, section 7 (volume 2).

KEECHIES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

KEEHEETSAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

KEEWATIN, District of.

"In 1876 an act was passed by the Dominion Parliament [Canada]

erecting into a separate government under the name of the

District of Keewatin the portion of the North-West Territory

lying to the north of Manitoba. The district contains about

395,000 acres, and is principally occupied by Icelandic

colonists. The Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba is ex-officio

Lieutenant-Governor of Keewatin."

J. E. C. Munro,

The Constitution of Canada,

page 35.

{1939}

KEFT.

The ancient Egyptian name of Phœnicia.

----------KEHL: Start--------

KEHL: A. D. 1703.

Taken by the French.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

KEHL: A. D. 1733.

Taken by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

----------KEHL: End--------

KEITH, George, The schism and the controversies of.

See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.

KELLY'S FORD, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

KELTS, The.

See CELTS, THE.

KEM, OR KAMI, OR KHEMI.

See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

KENAI, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET,

and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

KENDALL, Amos, in the "Kitchen Cabinet" of President Jackson.

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

KENESAW MOUNTAIN, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

KENITES, The.

See AMALEKITES, THE.

KENT, Kingdom of.

Formed by the Jutes in the southeast corner of Britain. The

only other settlement of the Jutes in England was in the Isle

of Wight and on the neighboring coast of Hampshire.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

KENT, Weald of.

See ANDERIDA.

KENT'S HOLE.

One of the most noted of the caves which have been carefully

explored for relics of early man, coeval with extinct animals.

It is in Devonshire, England, near Torquay.

W. B. Dawkins,

Cave Hunting.

----------KENTUCKY: Start----------

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1748.

First English exploration from Virginia.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1765-1778.

Absence of Indian inhabitants.

Early exploration and settlement by the whites.

The colony of Transylvania.

In the wars that were waged between the Indian tribes of the

South, before the advent of white settlers, Kentucky became "a

sort of border-land such as separated the Scots and English in

their days of combat. … The Chickasaws alone held their

ground, being the most northern of the sedentary Southern

Indians. Their strongholds on the bluffs of the Mississippi

and the inaccessibility of this country on account of its

deep, sluggish, mud-bordered streams, seem to have given them

a sufficient measure of protection against their enemies, but

elsewhere in the State the Indians were rooted out by their

wars. The last tenants of the State, east of the Tennessee

River, were the Shawnees,—that combative folk who ravaged

this country with their ceaseless wars from the head-waters of

the Tennessee to the Mississippi, and from the Lakes to

Alabama. It was no small advantage to the early settlers of

Kentucky that they found this region without a resident Indian

population, for, bitter as was the struggle with the claimants

of the soil, it never had the danger that would have come from

a contest with the natives in closer proximity to their homes.

… As Kentucky was unoccupied by the Indians, it was

neglected by the French. … Thus the first settlers found

themselves, in the main, free from these dangers due to the

savages and their Gallic allies. The land lay more open to

their occupancy than any other part of this country ever did

to its first European comers. … In 1765 Colonel George

Croghan, who had previously visited the Ohio with Gist, made a

surveying journey down that stream from Pittsburg to the

Mississippi. … In 1766 a party of five persons, including a

mulatto slave, under the command of Captain James Smith,

explored a large part of what is now Tennessee, and probably

extended their journey through Southern Kentucky. Journeys to

Kentucky now became frequent. Every year sent one or more

parties of pioneers to one part or another of the country. In

1769 Daniel Boone and five companions, all from the Yadkin

settlements in North Carolina, came to Eastern Kentucky. One

of the party was killed, but Boone remained, while his

companions returned to their homes. Thus it will be seen that

Boone's first visit was relatively late in the history of

Kentucky explorations. Almost every part of its surface had

been traversed by other explorers before this man, who passes

in history as the typical pioneer, set foot upon its ground.

In the time between 1770 and 1772 George Washington, then a

land-surveyor, made two surveys in the region which is now the

northeast corner of Kentucky. … The first distinct effort to

found a colony was made by James Harrod and about forty

companions, who found their way down the Ohio near to where

Louisville now stands, and thence by land to what is now

Mercer County, in Central Kentucky, where they established, on

June 16, 1774, a village which they called, in honor of their

leader, Harrodsburg. Earlier attempts at settlement were made

at Louisville, but the fear of Indians caused the speedy

abandonment of this post. … In 1775 other and stronger

footholds were gained. Boone built a fort in what is now

Madison County, and Logan another at St. Asaphs, in Lincoln

County. The settlement of Kentucky was greatly favored by the

decisive victory gained by Lord Dunmore's troops over the

Indians from the north of the Ohio, at the mouth of the

Kanawha.

See OHIO VALLEY: A. D. 1774.

… That the process of possessing the land was going on with

speed may be seen from the fact that Henderson and Company,

land-agents at Boonesborough, issued from their office in the

new-built fort entry certificates of surveys for 560,000 acres

of land. The process of survey was of the rudest kind, but it

served the purpose of momentary definition of the areas, made

it possible to deal with the land as a commodity, and left the

tribulations concerning boundaries to the next generation.

These land deeds were given as of the 'colony of

Transylvania,' which was in fact the first appellation of

Kentucky, a name by which it was known for several years

before it received its present appellation. At this time, the

last year that the work of settling Kentucky was done under

the authority of his majesty King George III., there were

probably about 150 men who had placed themselves in

settlements that were intended to be permanent within the

bounds of what is now the Commonwealth of Kentucky. There may

have been as many more doing the endless exploring work which

preceded the choice of a site for their future homes. The men

at Boone's Station claimed, and seem to have been awarded, a

sort of hegemony among the settlements.

{1940}

On the 23d of May, at the call of Colonel Henderson, the

land-agent of the proprietors, delegates from these

settlements met at Boonesborough, and drew up a brief code of

nine laws for the government of the young Commonwealth. …

The Boonesborough parliament adjourned to meet in September,

but it never reassembled. The venture which led to its

institution fell altogether to ruin, and the name of

Transylvania has been almost entirely forgotten. … The

colony of Transylvania rested on a purchase of about

17,000,000 acres, or about one half the present area of

Kentucky, which was made by some people of North Carolina from

the Overhill Cherokee Indians, a part of the great tribe that

dwelt on the Holston River. For this land the unfortunate

adventurers paid the sum of £10,000 of English money. …

Immediately after the Boonesborough parliament the position of

the Transylvania company became very insecure; its own people

began to doubt the validity of the titles they had obtained

from the company, because, after a time, they learned from

various sources that the lands of this region of Kentucky had

been previously ceded to the English government by the Six

Nations, and were included in the Virginia charter. In the

latter part of 1775, eighty men of the Transylvania settlement

signed a memorial asking to be taken under the protection of

Virginia; or, if that colony thought it best, that their

petition might be referred to the General Congress. … The

proprietors of the colony made their answer to this rebellion

by sending a delegate to the Federal Congress at Philadelphia,

who was to request that the colony of Transylvania be added to

the number of the American colonies. … Nothing came of this

protest. Congress refused to seat their delegate, Patrick

Henry and Jefferson, then representing Virginia, opposing the

efforts of the proprietors. The Governor of North Carolina

issued a proclamation declaring their purchase illegal. The

colony gradually fell to pieces, though the State of Virginia

took no decided action with reference to it until, in 1778,

that Commonwealth declared the acts of the company void, but,

in a generous spirit, offered compensation to Colonel

Henderson and the other adventurers. The Transylvania company

received 200,000 acres of valuable lands, and their sales to

actual settlers were confirmed by an act of the Virginia

Assembly. Thus the strongest, though not the first, colony of

Kentucky, was a misadventure and quickly fell to pieces."

N. S. Shaler,

Kentucky,

chapters 5-7.

ALSO IN;

T. Roosevelt,

The Winning of the West,

volume 1, chapters 6 and 8-12.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1768.

The Treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix.

Pretended cession of the country south of the Ohio.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1774.

The western Territorial claims of Virginia.

Lord Dunmore's war with the Indians.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1775-1784.

A county of Virginia.

Indian warfare of the Revolution.

Aspirations towards State independence.

"In the winter of 1775 Kentucky was formed into a county of

Virginia. … About this time Harrodsburg, Boonesborough and

Logan's Fort were successively assailed by the Indians. They

withstood the furious attacks made upon them; not, however,

without great loss. During the succeeding summer they were

considerably reinforced by a number of men from North

Carolina, and about 100 under Colonel Bowman from Virginia. In

1778 Kentucky was invaded by an army of Indians and Canadians

under the command of Captain Duquesne; and the expedition of

Colonel George Rodgers Clark against the English post of

Vincennes and Kaskaskia took place this year. In February of

this year Boone, with about 30 men, was engaged in making salt

at the Lower Blue Licks, when he was surprised by about 200

Indians. The whole party surrendered upon terms of

capitulation. The Indians carried them to Detroit, and

delivered them all up to the commandant, except Boone, whom

they carried to Chilicothe. Boone soon effected his escape.

… After … some weeks … Captain Duquesne, with about 500

Indians and Canadians, made his appearance before

Boonesborough, and besieged the fort for the space of nine

days, but finally decamped with the loss of 30 men killed, and

a much greater number wounded. … About the first of April,

1779, Robert Patterson erected a block house, with some

adjacent defenses, where the city of Lexington now stands.

This year, the celebrated land law of Kentucky was passed by

the Legislature of Virginia, usually called the Occupying

Claimant Law. The great defect of this law was, that Virginia,

by this act, did not provide for the survey of the country at

the expense of the State. … Each one holding a warrant could

locate it where he pleased, and survey it at his own cost. …

The consequence of this law was … a flood of emigration

during the years 1780 and 1781. During this period the

emigrants were greatly annoyed by the frequent incursions of

the Indians, and their entire destruction sometimes seemed

almost inevitable. This law was a great feast for the lawyers

of that day. … In November, 1780, Kentucky was divided into

three counties, bearing the names of Fayette, Lincoln, and

Jefferson. … In 1782, Indian hostility was earlier, more

active and shocking than it had ever been in the country

before; a great battle was fought upon Hinkston's Fork of the

Licking, near where Mount Sterling now stands, in which the

Indians were victorious. In this battle, Estill, who commanded

the whites, and nearly all of his officers, were killed. Near

the Blue Licks another battle was soon afterwards fought with

Captain Holder, in which the whites were again defeated; in

both these last mentioned battles the contending foe were

Wyandottes. … Peace was made with Great Britain in 1783, and

hostilities ceased; hostilities with the Indians also for a

time seemed suspended, but were soon renewed with greater

violence than ever. During the cessation of hostilities with

the Indians, settlements in Kentucky advanced rapidly. … As

early as 1784 the people of Kentucky became strongly impressed

with the necessity of the organization of a regular

government, and gaining admission into the Union as a separate

and independent State; but their efforts were continually

perplexed and baffled for the space of eight years before

their desire was fully accomplished. And though they were

often tempted by Spain with the richest gifts of fortune if

she would declare herself an independent State, and although

the Congress of the Confederated States continually turned a

deaf ear to her reiterated complaints and grievances, and

repulsed her in every effort to obtain constitutional

independence, she maintained to the last the highest respect

for law and order, and the most unswerving affection for the

Government. … With the view to admission into the Union as

an independent State, there were elected and held nine

Conventions in Kentucky within the space of eight years."

W. B. Allen,

History of Kentucky,

chapters 2-3.

ALSO IN:

J. M. Brown,

Political Beginnings of Kentucky.

{1941}

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1778-1779.

Conquest of the Northwest by the Virginian General Clark, and

its annexation to the Kentucky District.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1778-1779 CLARK'S CONQUEST.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1781-1784.

Conflicting territorial claims of Virginia and New York and

their cession to the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1785-1800.

The question of the free navigation of the Mississippi.

Discontent of the settlers.

Intrigues of Wilkinson.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1789-1792.

Separation from Virginia and admission to the Union as a

State.

"In the last days of the Continental Congress, Virginia, after

some struggles, having reluctantly consented to her

organization on that condition as an independent state,

Kentucky had applied to that body for admission into the

confederacy. That application had been referred to the new

federal government about to be organized, a delay which had

made it necessary to recommence proceedings anew; for the

Virginia Assembly had fixed a limitation of time, which, being

over-past, drove back the separatists to the original

starting-point. On a new application to the Virginia

Legislature, a new act had authorized a new Convention, being

the third held on that subject: to take the question of

separating into consideration. But this act had imposed some

new terms not at all agreeable to the Kentuckians, of which

the principal was the assumption by the new state of a portion

of the Virginia debt, on the ground of expenses incurred by

recent expeditions against the Indians. The Convention which

met under this act proceeded no further than to vote a

memorial to the Virginia Legislature requesting the same terms

formerly offered. That request was granted, and a fourth

Convention was authorized again to consider the question of

separation, and, should that measure be still persisted in, to

fix the day when it should take place. Having met during the

last summer [1790], this Convention had voted unanimously in

favor of separation; had fixed the first day of June, 1792, as

the time; and had authorized the meeting of a fifth Convention

to frame a state Constitution. In anticipation of these

results, an act of Congress was, now passed [February 4, 1791]

admitting Kentucky into the Union from and after the day above

mentioned, not only without any inspection of the state

Constitution, but before any such Constitution had been

actually formed." In the Constitution subsequently framed for

the new state of Kentucky, by the Convention appointed as

above, an article on the subject of slavery "provided that the

Legislature should have no power to pass laws for the

emancipation of slaves without the consent of their owners,

nor without paying therefor, previous to such emancipation, a

full equivalent in money; nor laws to prevent immigrants from

bringing with them persons deemed slaves by the laws of anyone

of the United States, so long as any persons of like age and

description should be continued in slavery by the laws of

Kentucky. But laws might be passed prohibiting the

introduction of slaves for the purpose of sale, and also laws

to oblige the owners of slaves to treat them with humanity."

R. Hildreth,

History of the United States,

volume 4, chapters 3-4.

ALSO IN:

J. M. Brown,

The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1790-1795.

War with the Indian tribes of the Northwest.

Disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair, and Wayne's

decisive victory.

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

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1798.

The Nullifying resolutions.

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

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1861 (January-September).

The struggle with Secession and its defeat.

"Neutrality" ended.

"In the days when personal leadership was more than it can

ever be again, while South Carolina was listening to the

teachings of John C. Calhoun, which led her to try the

experiment of secession, Kentucky was following Henry Clay,

who, though a slave-holder, was a strong Unionist. The

practical effect was seen when the crisis came, after he had

been in his grave nine years. Governor Beriah Magoffin

convened the Legislature in January, 1861, and asked it to

organize the militia, buy muskets, and put the State in a

condition of armed neutrality; all of which it refused to do.

After the fall of Fort Sumter he called the Legislature

together again, evidently hoping that the popular excitement

would bring them over to his scheme. But the utmost that could

be accomplished was the passage of a resolution by the lower

house (May 16) declaring that Kentucky should occupy 'a

position of strict neutrality,' and approving his refusal to

furnish troops for the National army. Thereupon he issued a

proclamation (May 20) in which he 'notified and warned all

other States, separate or united, especially the United and

Confederate States, that I solemnly forbid any movement upon

Kentucky soil.' But two days later the Legislature repudiated

this interpretation of neutrality, and passed a series of acts

intended to prevent any scheme of secession that might be

formed. It appropriated $1,000,000 for arms and ammunition,

but placed the disbursement of the money and control of the

arms in the hands of Commissioners that were all Union men. It

amended the militia law so as to require the State Guards to

take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States,

and finally the Senate passed a resolution declaring that

'Kentucky will not sever connection with the National

Government, nor take up arms with either belligerent party.'

Lovell H. Rousseau (afterward a gallant General in the

National service), speaking in his place in the Senate, said:

'The politicians are having their day; the people will yet

have theirs. I have an abiding confidence in the right, and I

know that this secession movement is all wrong. There is not a

single substantial reason for it; our Government had never

oppressed us with a feather's weight.' The Rev. Robert J.

Breckinridge and other prominent citizens took a similar

stand, and a new Legislature, chosen in August, presented a

Union majority of three to one.

{1942}

As a last resort, Governor Magoffin addressed a letter to

President Lincoln, requesting that Kentucky's neutrality be

respected and the National forces removed from the State. Mr.

Lincoln, in refusing his request, courteously reminded him

that the force consisted exclusively of Kentuckians, and told

him that he had not met any Kentuckian except himself and the

messengers that brought his letter who wanted it removed. To

strengthen the first argument, Robert Anderson, of Fort Sumter

fame, who was a citizen of Kentucky, was made a General and

given the command in the State in September. Two months later,

a secession convention met at Russellville, in the southern

part of the State, organized a provisional government, and

sent a full delegation to the Confederate Congress at

Richmond, who found no difficulty in being admitted to seats

in that body. Being now firmly supported by the new

Legislature, the National Government began to arrest prominent

Kentuckians who still advocated secession, whereupon others,

including ex-Vice-President John C. Breckinridge, fled

southward and entered the service of the Confederacy. Kentucky

as a State was saved to the Union, but the line of separation

was drawn between her citizens, and she contributed to the

ranks of both the great contending armies."

R. Johnson,

Short History of the War of Secession,

chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

N. S. Shaler,

Kentucky,

chapter 15.

E. P. Thompson,

History of First Kentucky Brigade,

chapter 2.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1861 (April).

Governor Magoffin's reply to President Lincoln's call for

troops.

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

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1862 (January-February).

Expulsion of Confederate armies along the whole line.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862

(JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY—TENNESSEE).

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1862 (August-October).

Bragg's invasion.

Buell's pursuit.

Battle of Perryville.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1863 (July).

John Morgan's Raid.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).

----------KENTUCKY: End----------

KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS, The.

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

KENYER-MESÖ, Battle of (1479).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.

KERAÏT, The.

See PRESTER JOHN, THE KINGDOM OF.

KERAMEIKOS, The.

See CERAMICUS OF ATHENS.

KERBELA, The Moslem tragedy at.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 680.

KERESAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KERESAN FAMILY.

KERESTES, OR CERESTES, Battle of (1596).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.

KERMENT, Battle of (1664).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.

KERNE.

See RAPPAREES.

KERNSTOWN, Battles of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-APRIL: VIRGINIA);

and 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND).

KERTCH, Attack on (1855).

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

KERYKES, The.

See PHYLÆ.

KESSELSDORF, Battle of (1745).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

KEYNTON, OR EDGEHILL, Battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

KEYSERWERTH, Siege and storming of (1702).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

KHAJAR DYNASTY, The.

See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

KHALIF.

See CALIPH.

KHALSA, The.

See SIKHS;

also, INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845, and 1845-1849.

KHAN.

KHAGAN.

"'Khan' is the modern contracted form of the word which is

found in the middle ages as 'Khagan,' or 'Chagan,' and in the

Persian and Arabic writers as 'Khakan' or 'Khacan.' Its

original root is probably the 'Khak,' which meant King' in

ancient Susianian, in Ethiopic ('Tirhakah'), and in Egyptian

('Hyk-sos')."

G. Rawlinson,

The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 14, foot-note.

KHAR, OR KHARU, The.

"The term Khar in Egyptian texts appears to apply to the

inhabitants of that part of Syria generally known as Phœnicia,

and seems to be derived from the Semitic Akharu, 'the back' or

'west.'"

C. R. Conder,

Syrian Stone Lore,

chapter 1.

KHAREJITES, The.

A democratical party among the Mahometans, which first took

form during the Caliphate of Ali, A. D. 657. The name given to

the party, Kharejites, signified those who "go forth"—that is

in secession and rebellion. It was their political creed that,

"believers being absolutely equal, there should be no Caliph,

nor oath of allegiance sworn to any man; but that the

government should be in the hands of a Council of State

elected by the people." Ali attacked and dispersed the

Kharejites, in a battle at Nehrwan, A. D. 658; but they

continued for a long period to give trouble to succeeding

Caliphs.

Sir W. Muir,

Annals of the Early Caliphate,

chapters 40 and 42, with foot-note.

KHARTANI, Tragedy of the Cave of.

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

KHARTOUM, The Mahdi's siege of.

See EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.

KHAZARS, OR CHAZARS, OR KHOZARS, The.

"This important people, now heard of for the first time in

Persian history [late in the fifth century of the Christian

era], appears to have occupied, in the reign of Kobad, the

steppe country between the Wolga and the Don, whence they made

raids through the passes of the Caucasus into the fertile

provinces of Iberia, Albania, and Armenia. Whether they were

Turks, as is generally believed, or Circassians, as has been

ingeniously argued by a living writer [H. H. Howorth], is

doubtful; but we cannot be mistaken in regarding them as at

this time a race of fierce and terrible barbarians."

G. Rawlinson,

Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 18.

"After the fall of the Persian empire [see MAHOMETAN CONQUEST:

A. D. 632-651], they [the Khazars, or Chazars] crossed the

Caucasus, invaded Armenia, and conquered the Crimean

peninsula, which bore the name of Chazaria for some time. The

Byzantine emperors trembled at the name of the Chazars, and

flattered them, and paid them a tribute, in order to restrain

their lust after the booty of Constantinople. The Bulgarians,

and other tribes, were the vassals of the Chazars, and the

people of Kiev (Russians) on the Dnieper were obliged to

furnish them every year with a sword, and fine skins from

every fur hunt.

{1943}

With the Arabs, whose near neighbours they gradually became,

they carried on terrible wars. Like their neighbours, the

Bulgarians and the Russians, the Chazars professed a coarse

religion, which was combined with sensuality and lewdness. The

Chazars became acquainted with Islamism and Christianity

through the Arabs and Greeks. … There were also Jews in the

land of the Chazars; they were some of the fugitives who had

escaped (723) the mania for conversion which possessed the

Byzantine Emperor Leo. … As interpreters or merchants,

physicians or counsellors, the Jews were known and beloved by

the Chazarian court, and they inspired the warlike Bulan with

a love of Judaism. … It is possible that the circumstances

under which the Chazars embraced Judaism have been embellished

by legend, but the fact itself is too definitely proved on all

sides to allow of there being any doubt as to its reality.

Besides Bulan, the nobles of his kingdom, numbering nearly

4,000, adopted the Jewish religion. Little by little it made

its way among the people, so that most of the inhabitants of

the towns of the Chazarian kingdom were Jews. … A successor

of Bulan, who bore the Hebrew name of Obadiah, was the first

to occupy himself earnestly with the Jewish religion. He …

founded synagogues and schools. … After Obadiah came a long

series of Jewish Chagans, for according to a fundamental law

of the state only Jewish rulers were permitted to ascend the

throne."

H. Graetz,

History of the Jews,

volume 3, chapter 5.

KHEDIVE.

See EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.

KHEMI, OR KEM.

See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

KHITA, The.

See HITTITES, THE.

KHITAI.

KHITANS, The.

See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.

KHIVA.

See KHUAREZM.

KHODYA.

See SUBLIME PORTE.

KHOKAND,

Russian conquest of the Khanate of (1876).

See. RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

KHONDS, The.

See TURANIAN RACES.

----------KHORASSAN: Start--------

KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.

Conquest and destruction by the Mongols.

In the autumn of A. D. 1220, one division of the armies of

Jingis Khan, commanded by his son Tului, poured into

Khorassan. "Khorassan was then one of the richest and most

prosperous regions on the earth's surface; its towns were very

thickly inhabited, and it was the first and most powerful

province of Persia. The Mongol invasion altered all this, and

the fearful ravage and destruction then committed is almost

incredible." On the capture of the city of Nessa the

inhabitants were tied together with cords and then massacred

in a body—70,000 men, women and children together—by

shooting them with arrows. At Meru (modern Merv) the wholesale

massacre was repeated on a vastly larger scale, the corpses

numbering 700,000, according to one account, 1,300,000

according to another. Even this was exceeded at Nishapoor

("city of Sapor"), the ancient capital of Khorassan. "To

prevent the living hiding beneath the dead, Tului ordered

every head to be cut off, and separate heaps to be made of

men's, women's, and children's heads. The destruction of the

city occupied fifteen days; it was razed to the ground, and

its site was sown with barley; only 400 artisans escaped, and

they were transported into the north. According to Mirkhond

1,747,000 men lost their lives in this massacre." The

destroying army of demons and savages moved on to Herat, then

a beautiful city surrounded by villages and gardens. It

surrendered, and only 12,000 of its soldiers were slain at

that time; but a few months later, upon news of a defeat

suffered by the Mongols, Herat rebelled, and brought down upon

itself a most terrible doom. Captured once more, after a siege

of six months, the city experienced no mercy. "For a whole

week the Mongols ceased not to kill, burn, and destroy, and it

is said that 1,600,000 people were killed; the place was

entirely depopulated and made desert." At Bamian, in the Hindu

Kush, "every living creature, including animals and plants as

well as human beings, was destroyed; a heap of slain was piled

up like a mountain."

H. H. Howorth,

History of the Mongols,

part 1, pages 86-91.

KHORASSAN: A. D. 1380.

Conquest by Timour.

See TIMOUR.

----------KHORASSAN: End--------

KHOTZIM.

See CHOCZIM.

KHOULIKOF, Battle of (1383).

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

----------KHUAREZM: Start--------

KHUAREZM, OR CHORASMIA (modern Khiva).

"The extensive and fertile oasis in the midst of the sandy

deserts of Central Asia, known in these days as the Khanat of

Khiva, was called by the Greeks Chorasmia and by the Arabs

Khwarezm [or Khuarezm]. The Chorasmians were of the Aryan

race, and their contingent to the army of Xerxes was equipped

precisely in the Bactrian fashion. It is probable that

Chorasmia formed a portion of the short-lived Greco-Bactrian

monarchy, and it certainly passed under the domination of the

White Huns, from whom it was subsequently wrested by the

Toorks."

J. Hutton,

Central Asia,

chapter 10.

KHUAREZM: 12th Century.

The Khuarezmian, or Khahrezmian,

or Korasmian, or Carizmian Empire.

"The sovereigns of Persia were in the habit of purchasing

young Turks, who were captured by the various frontier tribes

in their mutual struggles, and employing them in their

service. They generally had a body guard formed of them, and

many of them were enfranchised and rose to posts of high

influence, and in many cases supplanted their masters. The

founder of the Khuarezmian power was such a slave, named

Nushtekin, in the service of the Seljuk Sultan Malik Shah. He

rose to the position of a Teshtedar or chamberlain, which

carried with it the government of the province of Khuarezm,

that is of the fertile valley of the Oxus and the wide steppes

on either side of it, bounded on the west by the Caspian and

on the east by Bukharia." The grandson of Nushtekin became

virtually independent of the Seljuk sultan, and the two next

succeeding princes began and completed the overthrow of the

Seljuk throne. The last Seljuk sultan, Togrul III., was slain

in battle, A. D. 1193, by Takish or Tokush, the Khuarezmian

ruler, who sent his head to the Caliph at Bagdad and was

formally invested by the Caliph with the sovereignty of

Khorassan, Irak Adjem and other parts of the Persian domain

not occupied by the Atabegs and the Assassins. Takish's son

extended his conquests in Transoxiana and Turkestan (A. D.

1209), and acquired Samarkand, which he made his capital. "He

controlled an army of 400,000 men, and his dominions, at the

invasion of the Mongols, stretched from the Jaxartes to the

Persian Gulf, and from the Indus to the Irak Arab and

Azerbaidjan."

H. Howorth,

History of the Mongols,

part 1, pages 7-8.

{1944}

KHUAREZM: A. D. 1220.

Destruction by the Mongols.

In May, 1220, the Mongol army of Jingis Khan marched upon

Urgendj, or Khuarezm—the original capital of the empire of

Khuarezm, to which it gave its name. That city, which is

represented by the modern Khiva, was "the capital of the rich

cluster of cities that then bordered the Oxus, a river very

like the Nile in forming a strip of green across two sandy

deserts which bound it on either hand." The Mongols were

commanded, at first, by the three elder sons of Jingis Khan:

but two of them quarreled, and the siege was protracted

through six months without much progress being made. Jingis

then placed the youngest son, Ogotai, in charge of operations,

and they were carried forward more vigorously. "The Mongols at

length assaulted the town, fired its buildings with naptha,

and after seven days of desperate street-fighting captured it.

This was probably in December, 1220. They sent the artisans

and skilled workmen into Tartary, set aside the young women

and children as slaves, and then made a general massacre of

the rest of the inhabitants. They destroyed the city, and then

submerged it by opening the dykes of the Oxus. The ruins are

probably those now known as Old Urgendj. Rasehid says that

over 100,000 artisans and craftsmen were sent into Mongolia."

H. H. Howorth,

History of the Mongols,

part 1, page 85.

ALSO IN:

J. Hutton,

Central Asia,

chapter 4.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

KHUAREZM: A. D. 1873.

Conquest by the Russians.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

----------KHUAREZM: End--------

KHUAREZMIANS IN JERUSALEM, The.

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1242.

KICHES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES, QUICHES, and MAYAS.

KICKAPOO INDIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

ALGONQUIAN FAMILY and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

KIEFT, Governor William, Administration of.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1638-1647.

KIEL, Peace of.

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

----------KIEV: Start--------

KIEV, OR KIEF: A. D. 882.

Capital of the Russian state.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 862.

KIEV, OR KIEF: A. D. 1240.

Destroyed by the Mongols.

In December, 1240, the Mongols, pursuing their devastating

march through Russia, reached Kiev. It was then a famous city,

known among the Russians as "the mother of cities,

magnificently placed on the high banks of the Dnieper, with

its white walls, its beautiful gardens, and its thirty

churches, with their gilded cupolas, which gave it its pretty

Tartar name, Altundash Khan (i. e., the court of the Golden

Heads): it was the metropolitan city of the old Russian

princes, the seat of the chief patriarch of all Russia. It had

latterly, namely, in 1204, suffered from the internal broils

of the Russian princes, and had been much plundered and burnt.

It was now to be for a while erased altogether." Kiev was

taken by storm and the inhabitants "slaughtered without mercy:

the very bones were torn from the tombs and trampled under the

horses' hoofs. … The magnificent city, with the ancient

Byzantine treasures which it contained, was destroyed." During

the 14th and 15th centuries Kiev seems to have remained in

ruins, and the modern city is said to be "but a shadow of its

former self."

H. H. Howorth,

History of the Mongols,

volume 1, pages 141-142. (1876)

----------KIEV: End--------

KILIDSCH.

See TIMAR.

KILIKIA.

See CILICIA.

KILKENNY, The Statute of.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1327-1367.

KILKENNY ARTICLES, The.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1652.

KILLIECRANKIE, Battle of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1689 (JULY).

KILPATRICK'S RAID TO RICHMOND.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

KILSYTH, Battle of (1645).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

KIMON, Peace of.

See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

KINBURN, Battle of (1787).

See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

KINDERGARTEN, The.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1816-1892.

KING, Origin of the word.

"Cyning, by contraction King, is closely connected with the

word 'Cyn' or 'Kin.' … I do not feel myself called upon to

decide whether Cyning is strictly the patronymic of 'cyn,' or

whether it comes immediately from a cognate adjective (see

Allen, Royal Prerogative, 176: Kemble, i. 153). It is enough

if the two words are of the same origin, as is shown by a

whole crowd of cognates, 'cynebarn,' 'cynecyn,' 'cynedom,'

'cynehelm,' 'cynehlaford.' … (I copy from Mr. Earle's

Glossarial Index.) In all these words 'cyn' has the meaning of

'royal.' The modern High-Dutch König is an odd corruption: but

the elder form is 'Chuninc.' The word has never had an English

feminine: Queen is simply 'Cwen,' woman, wife. … The notion

of the King being the 'canning' or 'cunning' man [is] an idea

which could have occurred only to a mind on which all Teutonic

philology was thrown away."

E. A. Freeman,

History of the Norman Conquest of England,

chapter 3, section 1, and note L (volume 1).

KING GEORGE'S WAR.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744: 1745: and 1745-1748.

KING MOVEMENT, The.

See NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1853-1883.

KING OF THE ROMANS.

See ROMANS, KING OF THE.

KING OF THE WOOD.

See ARICIAN GROVE.

KING PHILIP'S WAR.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675: 1675: and 1676-1678.

KING WILLIAM'S WAR.

The war in Europe, of "the Grand Alliance" against Louis XIV.

of France, frequently called "the War of the League of

Augsburg," extended to the American colonies of England and

France, and received in the former the name of King William's

War.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690;

CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690, and 1692-1697;

also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690;

and NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.

KING'S BENCH.

See CURIA REGIS.

{1945}

KING'S COLLEGE.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1746-1787.

KING'S HEAD CLUB.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.

KING'S MOUNTAIN, Battle of (1780).

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

KING'S PEACE, The.

"The peace, as it was called, the primitive alliance for

mutual good behaviour, for the performance and enforcement of

rights and duties, the voluntary restraint of free society in

its earliest form, was from the beginning of monarchy [in

early England] under the protection of the king. … But this

position is far from that of the fountain of justice and

source of jurisdiction. The king's guarantee was not the sole

safeguard of the peace; the hundred had its peace as well as

the king; the king too had a distinct peace which like that of

the church was not that of the country at large, a special

guarantee for those who were under special protection. …

When the king becomes the lord, patron and 'mundborh' of his

whole people, they pass from the ancient national peace of

which he is the guardian into the closer personal or

territorial relation of which he is the source. The peace is

now the king's peace. … The process by which the national

peace became the king's peace is almost imperceptible; and it

is very gradually that we arrive at the time at which all

peace and law are supposed to die with the old king, and rise

again at the proclamation of the new."

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 7, section 72 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

G. E. Howard,

On the Development of the King's Peace

(Nebraska University Studies, volume 1, number 3).

Sir F. Pollock,

Oxford Lectures, 3.

See, also, ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

----------KINGSTON, Canada: Start--------

KINGSTON, Canada: A. D. 1673.

The building of Fort Frontenac.

La Salle's seigniory.

In 1673, Count Frontenac, governor of Canada, personally

superintended the construction of a fort on the north shore of

Lake Ontario, at the mouth of the Cataraqui, where the city of

Kingston now stands, the site having been recommended by the

explorer La Salle. The following year this fort, with

surrounding lands to the extent of four leagues in front and

half a league in depth, was granted in seigniory to La Salle,

he agreeing to pay the cost of its construction and to

maintain it at his own charge. He named the post Frontenac.

F. Parkman,

La Salle,

chapter. 6.

KINGSTON, Canada: A. D. 1758.

Fort Frontenac taken by the English.

See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

----------KINGSTON, Canada: End--------

KINSALE, Battle of (1601).

See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.

KINSTON, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: NORTH CAROLINA).

KIOWAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KIOWAN FAMILY.

KIPCHAKS, The.

"The Kipchaks were called Comans by European writers. … The

name Coman is derived no doubt from the river Kuma, the

country about which was known to the Persians as Kumestan. …

A part of their old country on the Kuma is still called Desht

Kipchak, and the Kumuks, who have been pushed somewhat south

by the Nogays, are, I believe, their lineal descendants.

Others of their descendants no doubt remain also among the

Krim Tartars. To the early Arab writers the Kipchaks were

known as Gusses, a name by which we also meet with them in the

Byzantine annals. This shows that they belonged to the great

section of the Turks' known as the Gusses or Oghuz Turks. …

They first invaded the country west of the Volga at the end of

the ninth century, from which time till their final dispersal

by the Mongols in the thirteenth century they were very

persistent enemies of Russia. After the Mongol conquest it is

very probable that they became an important element in the

various tribes that made up the Golden Horde or Khanate of

Kipchak."

H. H. Howorth,

History of the Mongols,

part 1, page 17.

See, also, MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294;

and RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

KIRCH-DENKERN, OR WELLINGHAUSEN, Battle of (1761).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.

KIRGHIZ, Russian subjugation of the.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

KIRIRI, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

KIRK OF SCOTLAND.

See CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

KIRKE'S LAMBS.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).

KIRKI, Battle of (1817).

See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.

KIRKSVILLE, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

KIRRHA.

See DELPHI.

KISSIA.

See ELAM.

KIT KAT CLUB, The.

See CLUBS.

KITCHEN CABINET, President Jackson's.

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

KITCHEN-MIDDENS.

"Amongst the accumulations of Neolithic age which are thought

by many archæologists to be oldest are the well-known

'Kjökkenmödingr' or kitchen-middens of Denmark. These are

heaps and mounds composed principally of shells of edible

molluscs, of which the most abundant are oyster, cockle,

mussel, and periwinkle. Commingled with the shells occur bones

of mammals, birds, and fish in less or greater abundance, and

likewise many implements of stone, bone, and horn, together

with potsherds. The middens are met with generally near the

coast, and principally on the shores of the Lymfjord and the

Kattegat; they would appear, indeed, never to be found on the

borders of the North Sea. They form mounds or banks that vary

in height from 3 or 5 feet up to 10 feet, with a width of 150

to 200 feet, and a length of sometimes nearly 350 yards. …

The Danish savants (Forchhammer, Steenstrupp, and Worsaae),

who first examined these curious shell-mounds, came to the

conclusion that they were the refuse-heaps which had

accumulated round the dwellings of some ancient coast-tribe.

… Shell-mounds of similar character occur in other

countries."

J. Geikie,

Prehistoric Europe,

chapter 15.

KIT'S COTY HOUSE.

The popular name of a conspicuous Cromlech or stone burial

monument in Kent, England, near Addington.

KITTIM.

The Hebrew name of the island of Cyprus.

See, also, JAVAN.

KITUNAHAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KITUNAHAN FAMILY.

KJÖKKENMÖDINGR.

See KITCHEN-MIDDENS.

{1946}

KLAMATHS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS, &c.

KLEINE RATH, The.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

KLEISTHENES, Constitution of.

See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

KLEOMENIC WAR, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

KLERUCHS.

"Another consequence of some moment arose out of this victory

[of the Athenians over the citizens of Chalkis, or Chalcis, in

the island of Eubœa, B. C. 506—see ATHENS: B. C. 509-506].

The Athenians planted a body of 4,000 of their citizens as

Kleruchs (lot-holders) or settlers upon the lands of the

wealthy Chalkidian oligarchy called the Hippobotæ—proprietors

probably in the fertile plain of Lelantum between Chalkis and

Eretria. This is a system which we shall find hereafter

extensively followed out by the Athenians in the days of their

power; partly with the view of providing for their poorer

citizens—partly to serve as garrison among a population

either hostile or of doubtful fidelity. These Attic Kleruchs

(I can find no other name by which to speak of them) did not

lose their birthright as Athenian citizens. They were not

colonists in the Grecian sense, and they are known by a

totally different name—but they corresponded very nearly to

the colonies formerly planted out on the conquered lands by

Rome."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 31 (volume 4).

ALSO IN:

A. Boeckh,

Public Economy of Athens,

book 3, chapter 18.

See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

KLOSTER-SEVEN, Convention of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER); and 1758.

KNECHTE, The.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

KNIGHT-SERVICE.

See FEUDAL TENURES.

KNIGHTHOOD:

Orders of, and their modern imitations.

Alcantara.

See ALCANTARA.

KNIGHTHOOD:

American Knights.

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

KNIGHTHOOD:

Avis.

See AVIS.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Bath.

See BATH.

KNIGHTHOOD:

Black Eagle:

A Prussian Order instituted by Frederick III., Elector of

Brandenburg, in 1701.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Blue Ribbon.

See SERAPHIM.

KNIGHTHOOD:

Brethren of Dobrin.

See PRUSSIA: 13TH CENTURY.

KNIGHTHOOD:

Calatrava.

See CALATRAVA.

KNIGHTHOOD:

Christ: a Papal Order, instituted by Pope John XXII., in 1319;

also a Portuguese Order.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Crescent: instituted by René of Anjou, titular King of

Naples, in 1448, but suppressed by Pope Paul II., in 1464;

also a Turkish Order

See CRESCENT.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Ecu.

See BOURBON: THE HOUSE OF.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Elephant: a Danish Order, instituted in 1693, by King

Christian V.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Garter.

See GARTER.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Golden Circle.

See GOLDEN CIRCLE.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Golden Fleece.

See GOLDEN FLEECE.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Golden Horseshoe.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1710-1716.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Golden Spur: instituted by Pope Paul III., in 1550.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Guelphs of Hanover.

See GUELPHS OF HANOVER.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Holy Ghost.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

KNIGHTHOOD:

Hospitallers.

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Indian Empire: instituted by Queen Victoria, in 1878.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Iron Cross: a Prussian Order, instituted in 1815 by

Frederick William III.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Iron Crown.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Legion of Honor.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Lion and the Sun: a Persian Order, instituted in 1808.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Lone Star.

See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

KNIGHTHOOD:

Malta.

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

KNIGHTHOOD:

Maria Theresa.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).

KNIGHTHOOD:

La Merced.

See MERCED.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Mighty Host.

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

KNIGHTHOOD:

Our Lady of Montesa.

See OUR LADY, &c.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Polar Star: a Swedish Order, of uncertain origin.

KNIGHTHOOD:

Rhodes.

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Round Table.

See ARTHUR, KING.

KNIGHTHOOD:

St. Andrew: a Scotch Order

See ST. ANDREW;

also a Russian Order, instituted in 1698 by Peter the Great.

KNIGHTHOOD:

St. George: a Russian Order, founded by Catharine II.

KNIGHTHOOD:

St. Gregory: an Order instituted in 1831 by Pope Gregory XVI.

KNIGHTHOOD:

St. Jago or Santiago.

See CALATRAVA.

KNIGHTHOOD:

St. James of Compostella.

See CALATRAVA.

KNIGHTHOOD:

St. Januarius: instituted by Charles, King of the Two

Sicilies, in 1738.

KNIGHTHOOD:

St. John.

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

KNIGHTHOOD:

St. John of the Lateran: instituted in 1560, by Pope Pius IV.

KNIGHTHOOD:

St. Lazarus.

See ST. LAZARUS.

KNIGHTHOOD:

St. Louis.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).

KNIGHTHOOD:

St. Michael.

See ST. MICHAEL.

KNIGHTHOOD:

St. Michael and St. George.

See ST. MICHAEL, &c.

KNIGHTHOOD:

St. Patrick: instituted by George III. of England, in 1783.

KNIGHTHOOD:

St. Stephen.

See ST. STEPHEN.

KNIGHTHOOD:

St. Thomas of Acre.

See ST. THOMAS.

KNIGHTHOOD:

Santiago.

See CALATRAVA.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Seraphim.

See SERAPHIM.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Sons of Liberty.

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

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Southern Cross.

See SOUTHERN CROSS.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Star.

See STAR.

KNIGHTHOOD:

Star of India.

See STAR OF INDIA.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Starry Cross.

See STARRY CROSS.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Swan.

See SWAN.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Sword: a Swedish Order.

See SWORD;

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Sword: a German Order.

See LIVONIA: 12TH-13TH CENTURIES.

KNIGHTHOOD:

Templars.

See TEMPLARS.

KNIGHTHOOD:

Teutonic.

See TEUTONIC KNIGHTS.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Thistle: instituted by James V. of Scotland, in 1530.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The Tower and Sword.

See TOWER AND SWORD.

KNIGHTHOOD:

Victoria Cross.

See VICTORIA CROSS.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The White Camellia.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

KNIGHTHOOD:

The White Cross: an Order founded by the Grand Duke of

Tuscany, in 1814.

KNIGHTHOOD:

White Eagle: a Polish Order, instituted in 1325 by Ladislaus

IV., and revived by Augustus in 1705.

KNIGHTS.

See CHIVALRY;

also, COMITATUS.

KNIGHTS BACHELORS.

"The word 'bachelor,' from whence has come 'bachelier,' does

not signify 'bas chevalier,' but a knight who has not the

number of 'bachelles' of land requisite to display a banner:

that is to say, four 'bachelles.' The 'bachelle' was composed

of ten 'maz,' or 'meix' (farms or domains), each of which

contained a sufficiency of land for the work of two oxen

during a whole year."

J. Froissart,

Chronicles (translated by Johnes),

book 1, chapter 61, foot-note (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

Sir W. Scott,

Essay on Chivalry

R. T. Hampson,

Origines Patriciœ,

page 338.

{1947}

KNIGHTS BANNERETS.

"The name [banneret] imports the bearer of a small banner,

and, in this respect, he differed from the baron, who bore a

gonfanon or banner of war, and the simple knight, who bore a

penon. The banner, properly so called, was a square flag; the

penon, according to the illuminations of ancient manuscripts,

was a small square, having two long triangles attached to the

side opposite that which was fixed to the lance or spear.

These pendant portions resembling tails were so denominated.

Rastal defines a banneret to be a knight made upon the field

of battle, with the ceremony of cutting off the point of his

standard, and so making this like a banner. And such, he says,

are allowed to display their arms on a banner in the king's

army, like the barons. That was, no doubt, the mode of

creation; but it appears … that a knight, or an esquire of

four bacelles, or cow lands, and therefore, a bachelor, to

whom the king had presented a banner on his first battle,

became a banneret on the second; so that, in such cases, there

would be no such ceremony necessary."

R. T. Hampson.

Origines Patriciœ,

chapter 11.

KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.

During the thirteenth century there grew up in England the

practice of sending to the Great Council of the king a certain

number of knights from each shire to represent the "lesser

baronage." which had formerly possessed the privilege of

attending the council in person, but which had become more

neglectful of attendance as their numbers increased. In

theory, these knights of the shire, as they came to be called,

were representatives of that "lesser baronage" only. "But the

necessity of holding their election in the County Court

rendered any restriction of the electoral body physically

impossible. The court was composed of the whole body of

freeholders, and no sheriff could distinguish the 'aye, aye'

of the yeoman from the 'aye, aye' of the lesser baron. From

the first moment therefore of their attendance we find the

knights regarded not as mere representatives of the baronage,

but as knights of the shire, and by this silent revolution the

whole body of the rural freeholders were admitted to a share

in the government of the realm."

J. R. Green,

Short History of the English People,

chapter 4.

The history of the knights of the shire is the history of the

origin of county representation in the English Parliament. The

representation of boroughs, or towns, has a history quite

distinct. Of the leading part played by the knights of the

shire in the development and establishment of the English

Constitution Mr. Stubbs remarks ("Constitutional History of

England," chapter 17, section 272): "Both historical evidence

and the nature of the case lead to the conviction that the

victory of the constitution was won by the knights of the

shires; they were the leaders of parliamentary debate; they

were the link between the good peers and the good towns; they

were the indestructible element of the house of commons; they

were the representatives of those local divisions of the realm

which were coeval with the historical existence of the people

of England, and the interests of which were most directly

attacked by the abuses of royal prerogative."

See, also, PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH: EARLY

STAGES IN ITS EVOLUTION.

KNOW NOTHING PARTY, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.

KNOX, General Henry, in the Cabinet of President Washington.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

KNOX, John, and the Reformation in Scotland.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557, to 1558-1560.

----------KNOXVILLE: Start--------

KNOXVILLE: A. D. 1863 (September).

Evacuated by the Confederates and occupied by the Union

forces.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE).

KNOXVILLE: A. D. 1863 (November-December).

Longstreet's siege.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER; TENNESSEE).

----------KNOXVILLE: End--------

KNUT, OR CANUTE, ERICSSON, King of Sweden, A. D. 1167-1199.

KNYDUS, OR CNYDUS, Battle of (B. C. 394).

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

KOASSATI, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

KOLARIANS, The.

See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

KOLDING, Battle of (1849).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.

KOLIN, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).

KOLOMAN, King of Hungary, A. D. 1095-1114.

KOLUSCHAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KOLUSCHAN FAMILY.

KOMANS

COMANS

CUMANS, The.

See PATCHINAKS; KIPCHAKS; COSSACKS;

also, HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

KOMORN, Battle of (1849).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

KONDUR, OR CONDORE, Battle of (1758).

See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

KONIEH, Battle of (1832).

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

KÖNIGGRÄTZ, OR SADOWA, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

KONSAARBRUCK, Battle of (1675).

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

KOORDS

KURDS, The.

See CARDUCHI.

KORAN, The.

"The Koran, as Mr. Kingsley quaintly, but truly, says, 'after

all is not a book, but an irregular collection of Mohammed's

meditations and notes for sermons.' It is not a code, it is

not a journal, it is a mere gathering together of irregular

scraps, written on palm-leaves and bones of mutton, which

Abu-Bekr [the bosom friend of Mahomet and the first of the

Caliphs or successors of the Prophet] put together without the

slightest regard to chronological order, only putting the long

fragments at the beginning, and the short fragments at the

end. But so far from having the Koran of Mahomet, we have not

even the Koran of Abu-Bekr. Caliph Othman [the third Caliph],

we know, gave enormous scandal by burning all the existing

copies, which were extremely discordant, and putting forth his

own version as the 'textus ab omnibus receptus.' How much then

of the existing Koran is really Mahomet's; how much has been

lost, added, transposed, or perverted; when, where, and why

each fragment was delivered, it is often impossible even to

conjecture. And yet these baskets of fragments are positively

worshipped."

E. A. Freeman,

History and Conquests of the Saracens,

lecture 2.

ALSO IN:

S. Lane-Poole,

Studies in a Mosque,

chapter 4.

Sir W. Muir,

The Coran.

T. Nöldeke,

Sketches from Eastern History,

chapter 2.

The Koran;

translated by G. Sale.

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

KORASMIANS, The.

See KHUAREZM.

{1948}

KOREISH, The.

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

----------KORKYRA: Start--------

KORKYRA, OR CORCYRA.

The Greek island now known as Corfu, separated from the coast

of Epirus by a strait only two to seven miles in breadth, bore

in ancient times the name of Korkyra, or, rather, took that

name from its ruling city. "Korkyra [the city] was founded by

the Corinthians, at the same time (we are told) as Syracuse.

… The island was generally conceived in antiquity as the

residence of the Homeric Phæakians, and it is to this fact

that Thucydides ascribes in part the eminence of the Korkyræan

marine. According to another story, some Eretrians from Eubœa

had settled there, and were compelled to retire. A third

statement represents the Liburnians as the prior

inhabitants,—and this perhaps is the most probable, since the

Liburnians were an enterprising, maritime, piratical race, who

long continued to occupy the more northerly islands in the

Adriatic along the Illyrian and Dalmatian coast. … At the

time when the Corinthians were about to colonize Sicily, it

was natural that they should also wish to plant a settlement

at Korkyra, which was a post of great importance for

facilitating the voyage from Peloponnesus to Italy, and was

further convenient for traffic with Epirus, at that period

altogether non-Hellenic. Their choice of a site was fully

justified by the prosperity and power of the colony, which,

however, though sometimes in combination with the mother-city,

was more frequently alienated from her and hostile, and

continued so from an early period throughout most part of the

three centuries from 700-400 B. C. … Notwithstanding the

long-continued dissensions between Korkyra and Corinth, it

appears that four considerable settlements on this same line

of coast were formed by the joint enterprise of both,—Leukas

and Anaktorium to the south of the mouth of the Ambrakiotic

Gulf—and Apollonia and Epidamnus [afterwards called

Dyrrhachium], both in the territory of the Illyrians at some

distance to the north of the Akrokeraunian promontory [modern

Cape Glossa, on the Albanian coast]. … Leukas, Anaktorium

and Ambrakia are all referred to the agency of Kypselus the

Corinthian. … The six colonies just named—Korkyra,

Ambrakia, Anaktorium, Leukas [near the modern St. Maura],

Apollonia, and Epidamnus—form an aggregate lying apart from

the rest of the Hellenic name, and connected with each other,

though not always maintained in harmony, by analogy of race

and position, as well as by their common origin from Corinth."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 23.

See, also, IONIAN ISLANDS.

KORKYRA: B. C. 435-432.

Quarrel with Corinth.

Help from Athens.

Events leading to the Peloponnesian War.

See GREECE: B. C. 435-432.

KORKYRA: B. C. 432.

Great sea-fight with the Corinthians.

Athenian aid.

See GREECE: B. C. 432.

KORKYRA: Modern history.

See IONIAN ISLANDS;

and CORFU.

----------KORKYRA: End----------

KORONEA, OR CORONEA, Battle of (B. C. 394).

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

KOS.

See Cos.

KOSCIUSKO, and the Polish revolt.

See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.

KOSSÆANS, OR COSSÆANS, The.

A brave but predatory people in ancient times, occupying the

mountains between Media and Persia, who were hunted down by

Alexander the Great and the males among them exterminated.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 94.

KOSSOVA, Battle of (1389).

See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1360-1389.

KOSSUTH, Louis, and the Hungarian struggle for independence.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1815-1844, 1847-1849;

and AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

KOSSUTH: In America.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-'1851.

KOTZEBUE, Assassination of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1817-1820.

KOTZIM.

See CHOZIM.

KOULEVSCHA, Battle of (1829).

See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

KOYUNJIK.

See NINEVEH.

KRALE.

See CRAL.

KRANNON, OR CRANNON, Battle of (B. C. 322).

See GREECE: B. C. 323-322.

KRASNOE, Battle of.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER);

and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

KRETE.

See CRETE.

KRIM, The Khanate of.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.

KRIM TARTARY.

See CRIMEA.

KRIMESUS, The Battle of the.

See SYRACUSE, THE FALL OF THE DIONYSIAN TYRANNY AT.

KRISSA.

KRISSÆAN WAR.

See DELPHI.

KRONIUM, Battle of.

See SICILY: B. C. 383.

KROTON.

See SYBARIS.

KRYPTEIA, The.

A secret police and system of espionage maintained at Sparta

by the ephors.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 6.

KSHATRIYAS.

See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

KU KLUX KLAN, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

KUBLAI KHAN, The Empire of.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294;

and CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.

KUFA, The founding of.

See BUSSORAH AND KUFA.

KULANAPAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KULANAPAN FAMILY.

KULM, OR CULM, Battle of.

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

KULTURKAMPF, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.

KUNAXA, Battle of (B. C. 401).

See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.

KUNBIS.

See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

KUNERSDORF, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

KURDISTAN: A. D. 1514.

Annexed to the Ottoman Empire.

See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

KURDS, OR KOORDS.

See CARDUCHI, THE.

KUREEM KHAN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1759-1779.

KURFÜRST.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

KURUCS, Insurrection of the.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.

KUSAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KUSAN FAMILY.

{1949}

KUSH.

KUSHITES.

See CUSH.—CUSHITES.

KUTAYAH, Peace of (1833).

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

KUTCHINS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

KUTSCHUK KAINARDJI, Battle and Treaty of (1774).

See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

KYLON, Conspiracy of.

See ATHENS: B. C. 612-595.

KYMRY, OR CYMRY, The.

The name which the Britons of Wales and Cumberland gave to

themselves during their struggle with the Angles and Saxons,

meaning "Cym-bro (Combrox) or the compatriot, the native of

the country, the rightful owner of the soil. … From the

occupation by the English of the plain of the Dee and the

Mersey, the Kymry dwelt in two lands, known in quasi-Latin as

Cambria, in Welsh Cymru, which denotes the Principality of

Wales, and Cumbria, or the kingdom of Cumberland. … Kambria

was regularly used for Wales by such writers as Giraldus in

the twelfth century, … but the fashion was not yet

established of distinguishing between Cambria and Cumbria as

we do."

J. Rhys,

Celtic Britain,

chapter 4.

The term Cymry or Kymry is sometimes used in a larger sense to

denote the whole Brythonic branch of the Celtic race, as

distinguished from the Goidelic, or Gaelic; but that use of it

does not seem to be justified. On the question whether the

name Kymry, or Cymry, bears any relation to that of the

ancient Cimbri.

See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES.

KYNOSSEMA, Battle of.

See CYNOSSEMA.

KYNURIANS, OR CYNURIANS, The.

One of the three races of people who inhabited the

Peloponnesian peninsula of Greece before the Dorian

conquest,—the other two races being the Arcadians and the

Achæans. "They were never (so far as history knows them) an

independent population. They occupied the larger portion of

the territory of Argolis, from Orneæ, near the northern or

Phliasian border, to Thyrea and the Thyreatis, on the Laconian

border: and though belonging originally (as Herodotus imagines

rather than asserts) to the Ionic race—they had been so long

subjects of Argos in his time that almost all evidence of

their ante-Dorian condition had vanished."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 4.

KYRENE.

See CYRENAICA.

KYZICUS.

See CYZICUS.

LABARUM, The.

"The chief banner of the Christian emperors [Roman] was the

so-called 'labarum.' Eusebius describes it as a long lance

with a cross-piece; to the latter a square silk flag was

attached, into which the images of the reigning emperor and

his children were woven. To the point of the lance was

fastened a golden crown enclosing the monogram of Christ and

the sign of the cross."

E. Guhl and W. Koner,

Life of the Greeks and Romans,

section 107.

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 20.

See CHRISTIANITY: A.D. 312-337.

LA BICOQUE, Battle of (1522).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

LABOR ORGANIZATION.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.

LABRADOR, The Name.

"Labrador—Laboratoris Terra—is so called from the

circumstance that Cortereal in the year 1500 stole thence a

cargo of Indians for slaves."

F. Parkman,

Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,

chapter 1, foot-note.

LABYRINTHS.

MAZES.

"The Labyrinths of the classical age and the quaint devices of

later times, the Mazes, of which they were the prototypes,

present to the archaeologist a subject of investigation which

hitherto has not received that degree of attention of which it

appears so well deserving. … Labyrinths may be divided into

several distinct classes, comprising complicated ranges of

caverns, architectural labyrinths or sepulchral buildings,

tortuous devices indicated by coloured marbles or cut in turf,

and topiary labyrinths or mazes formed by clipped hedges. …

Of the first class we may instance the labyrinth near Nauplia

in Argolis, termed that of the Cyclops, and described by

Strabo; also the celebrated Cretan example, which from the

observations of modern travellers is supposed to have

consisted of a series of caves, resembling in some degree the

catacombs of Rome or Paris. It has been questioned, however,

whether such a labyrinth actually existed. … Of

architectural labyrinths, the most extraordinary specimen was

without doubt that at the southern end of the lake Mœris in

Egypt, and about thirty miles from Arsinoe. Herodotus, who

describes it very distinctly, says that … it consisted of

twelve covered courts, 1,500 subterranean chambers, in which

the bodies of the Egyptian princes and the sacred crocodiles

were interred, and of as many chambers above ground, which

last only he was permitted to enter."

E. Trollope,

Notices of Ancient and Mediaeval Labyrinths

(Archaeological Journal, volume 15).

ALSO IN:

Herodotus,

History,

book 2, chapter 148.

LA CADIE,

ACADIA.

See NOVA SCOTIA.

LACEDÆMON.

See SPARTA: THE CITY.

LACEDÆMONIAN EMPIRE, The.

See SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.

LACONIA.

See SPARTA: THE CITY.

LACONIA, the American Province.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

LACUSTRINE HABITATIONS.

See LAKE DWELLINGS.

LADE, Naval Battle of (B. C. 495).

See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

LADIES' PEACE, The.

See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

LADISLAS, King of Naples, A. D. 1386-1414.

LADISLAUS I. (called Saint),

King of Hungary, A. D. 1077-1095.

Ladislaus II., King of Hungary, 1162.

Ladislaus III., King of Hungary, 1204-1205.

Ladislaus IV. (called The Cuman),

King of Hungary, 1272-1290.

Ladislaus V. (called The Posthumous),

King, of Hungary and Bohemia, 1439-1457.

Ladislaus VI. (Jagellon),

King of Hungary, 1440-1444;

King of Poland, 1434-1444.

{1950}

LADOCEA, OR LADOKEIA, Battle of.

Fought in what was called the Cleomenic War, between

Cleomenes, king of Sparta, and the Achæan League, B. C. 226.

The battle was fought near the city of Megalopolis, in

Arcadia, which belonged to the League and which was threatened

by Cleomenes. The latter won a complete victory, and Lydiades,

of Megalopolis, one of the noblest of the later Greeks, was

slain.

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 62.

LADY, Original use of the title.

"Hlæfdige," the Saxon word from which our modern English word

"lady" comes, was the highest female title among the

West-Saxons, being reserved for the king's wife.

E. A. Freeman,

History of the Norman Conquest of England,

volume 1, note F.

LADY OF THE ENGLISH.

By the custom of the West Saxons, the king's wife was called

Lady, not Queen, and when the Wessex kingdom widened to cover

England, its queen was known as the Lady of the English.

LÆNLAND.

"Either book land or folkland could be leased out by its

holders [in early England]; and, under the name of 'lænland,'

held by free cultivators."

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 5, section 36 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

J. M. Kemble,

The Saxons in England,

book 1, chapter 11.

LÆTI.

LÆT.

LAZZI.

"Families of the conquered tribes of Germany, who were

forcibly settled within the 'limes' of the Roman provinces, in

order that they might repeople desolated districts, or replace

the otherwise dwindling provincial population—in order that

they might bear the public burdens and minister to the public

needs, i. e., till the public land, pay the public tribute,

and also provide for the defence of the empire. They formed a

semi-servile class, partly agricultural and partly military;

they furnished corn for the granaries and soldiers for the

cohorts of the empire, and were generally known in later times

by the name of Læti or Liti."

F. Seebohm,

English Village Community,

chapter 8.

"There seems to be no reason for questioning that the eorl,

ceorl and læt of the earliest English laws, those of

Ethelbert, answer exactly to the edhiling, the friling and the

lazzus of the old Saxons. Whether the Kentish læts were of

German origin has been questioned. Lappenberg thinks they were

'unfree of kindred race.' K. Maurer thinks them a relic of

ancient British population who came between the free wealh and

the slave. … The name (lazzus= slow or lazy) signifies

condition, not nationality. … The wer-gild of the Kentish

læt was 40, 60, or 80 shillings, according to rank, that of

the ceorl being 200."

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 4, section 31, foot-note (volume 1).

LA FAVORITA, Battle of (1797).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

LAFAYETTE IN THE WAR OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1778 (JUNE), (JULY-NOVEMBER);

1780 (JULY); 1781 (JANUARY-MAY),

and (MAY-OCTOBER).

LAFAYETTE:

And the French Revolution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JULY), to 1792 (AUGUST).

LA FÈRE, Siege and capture by Henry IV. of France (1596).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

LA FÈRE-CHAMPENOISE, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

LAGIDE PRINCES.

The Egyptian dynasty founded by Ptolemy Soter, the Macedonian

general, is sometimes called the Lagide dynasty and its

princes the Lagide princes, with reference to the reputed

father of Ptolemy, who bore the name of Lagus.

LAGOS, Naval Battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

LAGTHING.

See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

LA HOGUE, Naval Battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.

LAKE DWELLINGS.

"Among the most interesting relics of antiquity which have yet

been discovered are the famous lake-dwellings of Switzerland,

described by Dr. Keller and others. … Dr. Keller … has

arranged them in three groups, according to the character of

their substructure.

[1] Those of the first group, the Pile Dwellings, are, he

tells us, by far the most numerous in the lakes of Switzerland

and Upper Italy. In these the substructure consists of piles

of various kinds of wood, sharpened sometimes by fire,

sometimes by stone hatchets or celts, and in later times by

tools of bronze, and probably of iron, the piles being driven

into the bottom of the lake at various distances from the

shore. …

[2] The Frame Pile-Dwellings are very rare. 'The distinction

between this form and the regular pile-settlement consists in

the fact that the piles, instead of having been driven into

the mud of the lake, had been fixed by a mortise-and-tenon

arrangement into split trunks, lying horizontally on the bed

of the lake.' …

[3] In the Fascine Dwellings, as Dr. Keller terms his third

group of lake-habitations, the substructure consisted of

successive layers of sticks or small stems of trees built up

from the bottom of the lake till they reached above the

lake-level. …

Lake-dwellings have been met with in many other regions of

Europe besides Switzerland and Italy, as in Bavaria, Austria,

Hungary, Mecklenburg, Pomerania, France, Wales, Ireland, and

Scotland. The 'Crannoges' of Ireland and Scotland were rather

artificial islands than dwellings like those described above."

J. Geikie,

Prehistoric Europe,

pages 369-372.

ALSO IN:

F. Keller,

Lake Dwellings.

R. Munro,

Ancient Scottish Lake Dwellings.

E. P. S.,

Crannoges (in Archaeological Journal, volume 3).

LAKE GEORGE, Battle of.

See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER).

LAMARTINE, and the French Government of 1848.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1848 (FEBRUARY-MAY),

and (APRIL-DECEMBER).

LAMAS.

LAMAISM.

"The development of the Buddhist doctrine which has taken

place in the Panjab, Nepal, and Tibet … has resulted at last

in the complete establishment of Lamaism, a religion not only

in many points different from, but actually antagonistic to,

the primitive system of Buddhism; and this not only in its

doctrine, but also in its church organization." Tibet is "the

only country where the Order has become a hierarchy, and

acquired temporal power. Here, as in so many other countries,

civilization entered and history began with Buddhism. When the

first missionaries went there is not, however, accurately

known; but Nepal was becoming Buddhist in the 6th century, and

the first Buddhist king of Tibet sent to India for the holy

scriptures in 632 A. D. A century afterwards an adherent of

the native devil-worship drove the monks away, destroyed the

monasteries, and burnt the holy books; but the blood of the

martyrs was the seed of the church—it returned triumphant

after his death, and rapidly gained in wealth and influence.

…

{1951}

As the Order became wealthy, rival abbots had contended for

supremacy, and the chiefs had first tried to use the church as

a means of binding the people to themselves, and then,

startled at its progress, had to fight against it for their

own privilege and power. When, in the long run, the crozier

proved stronger than the sword, the Dalai Lama became in 1419

sole temporal sovereign of Tibet."

T. W. Rhys Davids,

Buddhism,

chapters 8-9.

"Up to the moment of its conversion to Buddhism, a profound

darkness had rested on [Tibet]. The inhabitants were ignorant

and uncultivated, and their indigenous religion, sometimes

called Bon, consisted chiefly of magic based on a kind of

Shamanism. … The word is said to be of Tungusic origin, and

to be used as a name for the earliest religion of Mongolia,

Siberia and other Northern countries. … It is easy to

understand that the chief function of the Shamans, or

wizard-priests, was to exorcise evil demons, or to propitiate

them by sacrifices and various magical practices. … The

various gradations of the Tibetan hierarchy are not easily

described, and only a general idea of them can be given. …

First and lowest in rank comes the novice or junior monk,

called Gethsul (Getzul). … Secondly and higher in rank we

have the rull monk, called Gelong (or Gelon). … Thirdly we

have the superior Gelong or Khanpo (strictly mKhan po), who

has a real right to the further title Lama. … As the chief

monk in a monastery he may be compared to the European Abbot.

… Some of the higher Khanpo Lamas are supposed to be living

re-incarnations or re-embodiments of certain canonized saints

and Bodhi-sattvas who differ in rank. These are called Avatara

Lamas, and of such there are three degrees. … There is also

a whole class of mendicant Lamas. … Examples of the highest

Avataras are the two quasi-Popes, or spiritual Kings, who are

supreme Lamas of the Yellow sect—the one residing at Lhassa,

and the other at Tashi Lunpo (Krashi Lunpo), about 100 miles

distant. … The Grand Lama at Lhassa is the Dalai Lama, that

is, 'the Ocean-Lama, or one whose power and learning are as

great as the ocean. … The other Grand Lama, who resides in

the monastery of Tashi Lunpo, is known in Europe under the

names of the Tashi Lama."

Sir M. Monier-Williams,

Buddhism,

lecture 11.

"Kublai-Khan, after subduing China [see CHINA: A. D.

1259-1294], adopted the Buddhist doctrines, which had made

considerable progress among the Tartars. In the year 1261 he

raised a Buddhist priest named Mati to the dignity of head of

the Faith in the empire. This priest is better known under the

name of Pakbo Lama, or supreme Lama: he was a native of

Thibet, and had gained the good graces and confidence of

Kublai, who, at the same time that he conferred on him the

supreme sacerdotal office, invested him with the temporal

power in Thibet, with the titles of 'King of the Great and

Precious Law,' and 'Institutor of the Empire.' Such was the

origin of the Grand Lamas of Thibet, and it is not impossible

that the Tartar Emperor, who had had frequent communications

with the Christian missionaries, may have wished to create a

religious organisation after the model of the Romish

hierarchy."

Abbé Huc,

Christianity in China, Tartary and Thibet,

volume 2, page 10.

ALSO IN:

Abbé Huc,

Journey through Tartary, Thibet and China,

volume 2.

W. W. Rockhill,

The Land of the Lamas.

LAMBALLE, Madame de, The death of.

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

LAMBETH, Treaty of.

A treaty of September 11, A. D. 1217, which was, in a certain

sense, the sequel of Magna Carta. The barons who extorted the

Great Charter from King John in 1215 were driven subsequently

to a renewal of war with him. They renounced their allegiance

and offered the crown to a French prince, Louis, husband of

Blanche of Castile, who was John's niece. The pretensions of

Louis were maintained after John's death, against his young

son, Henry III. The cause of the latter triumphed in a

decisive battle fought at Lincoln, May 20, 1217, and the

contest was ended by the treaty named above. "The treaty of

Lambeth is, in practical importance, scarcely inferior to the

Charter itself.

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 14, section 170 (volume 2).

LAMEGO, The Cortes of.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

LAMIAN WAR, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 323-322.

LAMONE, Battle of (1425).

See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

LAMPADARCHY, The.

See LITURGIES.

LANCASTER, Chancellorship of the Duchy of.

"The Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster is an office

more remarkable for its antiquity than for its present

usefulness. It dates from the time of Henry the Fourth, when

the County of Lancashire was under a government distinct from

the rest of the Kingdom. About the only duty now associated

with the office is the appointment of magistrates for the

county of Lancashire. In the other English and Welsh counties,

these appointments are made by the Lord High Chancellor, who

is the head of the Judicial system. The duties of the

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are thus exceedingly

light. The holder of the office is often spoken of as 'the

maid of all work to the Cabinet,' from the fact that he is

accorded a place in the Cabinet without being assigned any

special duties likely to occupy the whole of his time. Usually

the office is bestowed upon some statesman whom it is

desirable for special reasons to have in the Cabinet, but for

whom no other office of equal rank or importance is

available."

E. Porritt,

The Englishman at Home,

chapter 8.

LANCASTER, House of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1399-1471.

LANCASTRIANS.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

LANCES, Free.

With Sir John Hawkwood and his "free company" of English

mercenaries, "came first into Italy [about 1360] the use of

the term 'lances,' as applied to hired troops; each 'lance'

being understood to consist of three men; of whom one carried

a lance, and the others were bowmen. … They mostly fought on

foot, having between each two archers a lance, which was held

as men hold their hunting-spears in a boar-hunt."

T. A. Trollope,

History of the Commonwealth of Florence,

volume 2, page 144.

LAND GRANTS FOR SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA:

A. D. 1785-1800; 1862; and 1862-1886.

{1952}

LAND LEAGUE, The.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879; and 1881-1882.

LAND QUESTION AND LAND LAWS, The Irish.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1870-1894.

LANDAMMANN.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

----------LANDAU: Start--------

LANDAU: A. D. 1648.

Cession to France.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

LANDAU: A. D. 1702-1703.

Taken by the Imperialists and retaken by the French.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1702; and 1703.

LANDAU: A. D. 1704.

Taken by the Allies.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

LANDAU: A. D. 1713.

Taken and retained by France.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

----------LANDAU: End--------

LANDEN, OR NEERWINDEN, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).

LANDFRIEDE.

FEHDERECHT.

THE SWABIAN LEAGUE.

"Landfriede—Peace of the Land.

The expression, Public Peace, which, in deference to numerous

and high authorities I have generally used in the text, is

liable to important objections. 'A breach of the public peace'

means, in England, any open disorder or outrage. But [in

mediæval Germany] the Landfriede (Pax publica) was a special

act or provision directed against the abuse of an ancient and

established institution,—the Fehderecht (jus diffidationis,

or right of private warfare). The attempts to restrain this

abuse were, for a long time, local and temporary. … The

first energetic measure of the general government to put down

private wars was that of the diet of Nürnberg (1466). … The

Fehde is a middle term between duel and war. Every affront or

injury led, after certain formalities, to the declaration,

addressed to the offending party, that the aggrieved party

would be his foe, and that of his helpers and

helpers'-helpers. … I shall not go into an elaborate

description of the evils attendant on the right of diffidation

or private warfare (Fehderecht); they were probably not so

great as is commonly imagined."

L. Ranke,

History of the Reformation in Germany,

volume 1, pages 77 (foot-note), 71, and 81.

"The right of diffidation, or of private warfare, had been the

immemorial privilege of the Germanic nobles—a privilege as

clear as it was ancient, which no diet attempted to abolish,

but which, from the mischiefs attending its exercise, almost

everyone had endeavoured to restrain. … Not only state,

could declare war against state, prince against prince, noble

against noble, but any noble could legally defy the emperor

himself." In the reign of Frederick III. (1440-1493) efforts

were made to institute a tribunal—an imperial chamber—which

should have powers that would operate to restrain these

private wars; but the emperor and the college of princes could

not agree as to the constitution of the court proposed. To

attain somewhat the same end, the emperor then "established a

league both of the princes and of the imperial cities, which

was destined to be better observed than most preceding

confederations. Its object was to punish all who, during ten

years, should, by the right of diffidation, violate the public

tranquillity. He commenced with Swabia, which had ever been

regarded as the imperial domain; and which, having no elector,

no governing duke, no actual head other than the emperor

himself, and, consequently, no other acknowledged protector,

was sufficiently disposed to his views. In its origin the

Swabian league consisted only of six cities, four prelates,

three counts, sixteen knights; but by promises, or reasoning,

or threats, Frederic soon augmented it. The number of towns

was raised to 22, of prelates to 13, of counts to 12, of

knights or inferior nobles to 350. It derived additional

strength from the adhesion of princes and cities beyond the

confines of Swabia; and additional splendour from the names of

two electors, three margraves, and other reigning princes. It

maintained constantly on foot 10,000 infantry and 1,000

cavalry,—a force generally sufficient for the preservation of

tranquillity. Of its salutary effects some notion may be

formed from the fact that, in a very short period,

one-and-forty bandit dens were stormed, and that two powerful

offenders, George duke of Bavaria, and duke Albert of Munich,

were compelled by an armed force to make satisfaction for

their infraction of the public peace."

S. A. Dunham,

History of the Germanic Empire,

volume 2, pages 281-283.

The final suppression of the Fehderecht was brought about in

the succeeding reign, of Maximilian, by the institution of the

Imperial Chamber and the organization of the Circles to

enforce its decrees.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

LANDO, Pope, A. D. 913-914.

----------LANDRECIES: Start--------

LANDRECIES: A. D. 1647.

Spanish siege and capture.

See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1647-1648.

LANDRECIES: A. D. 1655.

Siege and capture by Turenne.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.

LANDRECIES: A. D. 1659.

Ceded to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

LANDRECIES: A. D. 1794.

Siege and capture by the Allies.

Recovery by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

----------LANDRECIES: End--------

LANDRIANO, Battle of (1529).

See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

LANDSHUT, Battle of (1760).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1760.

LANDSHUT, Battle of (1809.)

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

LANDSQUENETS.

"After the accession of Maximilian I. [Emperor, A. D.

1493-1519], the troops so celebrated in history under the name

of 'Landsquenets' began to be known in Europe. They were

native Germans, and soon rose to a high degree of military

estimation. That Emperor, who had studied the art of war, and

who conducted it on principles of Tactics, armed them with

long lances; divided them into regiments, composed of ensigns

and squads; compelled them to submit to a rigorous discipline,

and retained them under their standards after the conclusion

of the wars in which he was engaged. … Pikes were

substituted in the place of their long lances, under Charles

V."

Sir N. W. Wraxall,

History of France, 1574-1610,

volume 2, page 183.

LANDSTING.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES

(DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874;

and CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

LANDWEHR, The.

See FYRD.

LANGENSALZA, Battle at (1075).

See SAXONY: A. D. 1073-1075.

LANGENSALZA, Battle at (1866.)

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

LANGOBARDI, The.

See LOMBARDS.

LANGPORT, Battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

{1953}

LANG'S NEK, Battle of (1881).

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

LANGSIDE, Battle of (1568).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

LANGUE D'OC.

"It is well known that French is in the main a descendant from

the Latin, not the Latin of Rome, but the corrupter Latin

which was spoken in Gaul. Now these Latin-speaking Gauls did

not, for some reason, say 'est,' 'it is,' for 'yes,' as the

Romans did; but they used a pronoun, either 'ille,' 'he,' or

'hoc,' 'this.' When, therefore, a Gaul desired to say 'yes,'

he nodded, and said 'he' or else 'this,' meaning 'He is so,'

or 'This is so.' As it happens the Gauls of the north said

'ille,' and those of the south said 'hoc,' and these words

gradually got corrupted into two meaningless words, 'oui' and

'oc.' It is well known that the people in the south of France

were especially distinguished by using the word 'oc' instead

of 'oui' for 'yes,' so that their 'dialect' got to be called

the 'langue d'oc,' and this word Langue-doc gave the name to a

province of France."

C. F. Keary,

Dawn of History,

chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

F. Hueffer,

The Troubadours,

chapter 1.

Sir G. C. Lewis,

The Romance Languages,

page 52, and after.

LANGUEDOC.

When, as a consequence of the Albigensian wars, the dominions

of the Counts of Toulouse were broken up and absorbed for the

most part in the domain of the French crown, the country which

had been chiefly ravaged in those wars, including Septimania

and much of the old county of Toulouse, acquired the name by

which its language was known—Languedoc. The 'langue d'oc'

was spoken likewise in Provence and in Aquitaine; but it gave

a definite geographical name only to the region between the

Rhone and the Garonne.

See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229;

also, PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.

LANNES, Marshal, Campaigns of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY);

GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER);

SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER),

1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH), 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY);

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

LANSDOWNE, Lord, The Indian administration of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1880-1893.

----------LAON: Start--------

LAON:

The last capital of the Carolingian kings.

The rock-lifted castle and stronghold of Laon, situated in the

modern department of Aisne, about 74 miles northeast from

Paris, was the last refuge and capital—sometimes the sole

dominion—of the Carolingian kings, in their final struggle

with the new dynasty sprung from the Dukes of France. The

"King of Laon" and the "King of St. Denis," as the contestants

are sometimes called, disputed with one another for a monarchy

which was small when the sovereignty of the two had been

united in one. In 991 the "King of Laon" was betrayed to his

rival, Hugh Capet, and died in prison. "Laon ceased to be a

capital, and became a quiet country town; the castle, relic of

those days, stood till 1832, when it was rased to the ground."

G. W. Kitchin,

History of France,

volume 1, book 3, chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

Sir F. Palgrave,

History of Normandy and England,

book 1, part 2, chapter 4,

parts 1-2 (volume 2).

See, also,

FRANCE: A. D. 877-987.

LAON: A. D. 1594.

Siege and capture by Henry IV.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

LAON, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

----------LAON: End--------

LAPITHÆ, The.

A race which occupied in early times the valley of the Peneus,

in Thessaly; "a race which derived its origin from Almopia in

Macedonia, and was at least very nearly connected with the

Minyans and Æolians of Ephyra."

C. O. Müller,

History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,

book 1, chapter 1.

LA PLATA, Provinces of.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.

LA PUERTA, Battle of (1814).

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1821.

LARGS, Battle of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1263.

LARISSA.

There were several ancient cities in Greece and Asia Minor

called Larissa.

See ARGOS, and PERRHÆBIANS.

LAROCHEJACQUELIN, Henri de, and the insurrection in La Vendée.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-APRIL); (JUNE);

and (JULY-DECEMBER).

LA ROCHELLE.

See ROCHELLE.

LA ROTHIERÈ, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

LA SALLE'S EXPLORATIONS.

See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

LAS CASAS, The humane labors of.

See SLAVERY: MODERN: OF THE INDIANS.

LAS CRUCES, Battle of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.

LASSI,

LAZZI, The.

See LÆTI.

LASWARI, Battle of (1803).

See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

LATERAN, The.

"The Lateran derives its name from a rich patrician family,

whose estates were confiscated by Nero. … It afterwards

became an imperial residence, and a portion of it … was

given by Constantine to Pope Melchiades in 312,—a donation

which was confirmed to St. Sylvester, in whose reign the first

basilica was built here. … The ancient Palace of the Lateran

was the residence of the popes for nearly 1,000 years. … The

modern Palace of the Lateran was built from designs of Fontana

by Sixtus V. In 1693 Innocent XII. turned it into a

hospital,—in 1438 Gregory XVI. appropriated it as a museum."

A. J. C. Hare,

Walks in Rome,

chapter 13.

LATHES OF KENT.

"The county of Kent [England] is divided into six 'lathes,' of

nearly equal size, having the jurisdiction of the hundreds in

other shires. The lathe may be derived from the Jutish

'lething' (in modern Danish 'leding')—a military levy."

T. P. Taswell-Langmead,

English Constitutional History,

chapter 1, foot-note.

LATHOM HOUSE, Siege of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (JANUARY).

LATIFUNDIA.

The great slave-tilled estates of the Romans, which swallowed

up the properties of the small land-holders of earlier times,

were called Latifundia.

LATIN CHURCH, The.

The Roman Catholic Church (see PAPACY) is often referred to as

the Latin Church, in distinction from the Greek or Orthodox

Church of the East.

LATIN EMPIRE AT CONSTANTINOPLE.

See ROMANIA, THE EMPIRE OF.

LATIN LANGUAGE IN THE MIDDLE AGES.

See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.

{1954}

"LATIN NAME," The.

"We must … explain what was meant in the sixth century of

Rome [third century B. C.] by the 'Latin name.' … The Latin

name was now extended far beyond its old geographical limits,

and was represented by a multitude of flourishing cities

scattered over the whole of Italy, from the frontier of

Cisalpine Gaul to the southern extremity of Apulia. … Not

that they were Latins in their origin, or connected with the

cities of the old Latium: on the contrary they were by

extraction Romans; they were colonies founded by the Roman

people, and consisting of Roman Citizens: but the Roman

government had resolved that, in their political relations,

they should be considered, not as Romans, but as Latins; and

the Roman settlers, in consideration of the advantages which

they enjoyed as colonists, were content to descend politically

to a lower condition than that which they had received as

their birthright. The states of the Latin name, whether cities

of old Latium or Roman colonies, all enjoyed their own laws

and municipal government, like the other allies; and all were,

like the other allies, subject to the sovereign dominion of

the Romans. They were also so much regarded as foreigners that

they could not buy or inherit land from Roman citizens; nor

had they generally the right of intermarriage with Romans. But

they had two peculiar privileges: one, that any Latin who left

behind him a son in his own city, to perpetuate his family

there, might remove to Rome, and acquire the Roman franchise;

the other, that every person who had held any magistracy or

distinguished office in a Latin state, might become at once a

Roman citizen."

T. Arnold,

History of Rome,

chapter 41.

LATINS, Subjugation of, by the Romans.

See ROME: B. C. 339-338.

LATIUM.

THE OLD LATINS.

"The plain of Latium must have been in primeval times the

scene of the grandest conflicts of nature, while the slowly

formative agency of water deposited, and the eruptions of

mighty volcanoes upheaved, the successive strata of that soil

on which was to be decided the question to what people the

sovereignty of the world should belong. Latium is bounded on

the east by the mountains of the Sabines and Aequi, which form

part of the Apennines; and on the south by the Volscian range

rising to the height of 4,000 feet, which is separated from

the main chain of the Apennines by the ancient territory of

the Hernici, the table-land of the Sacco (Trerus, a tributary

of the Liris), and stretching in a westerly direction

terminates in the promontory of Terracina. On the west its

boundary is the sea, which on this part of the coast forms but

few and indifferent harbours. On the north it imperceptibly

merges into the broad highlands of Etruria. The region thus

enclosed forms a magnificent plain traversed by the Tiber, the

'mountain-stream' which issues from the Umbrian, and by the

Anio, which rises in the Sabine mountains. Hills here and

there emerge, like islands, from the plain; some of them steep

limestone cliffs, such as that of Soracte in the north-east,

and that of the Circeian promontory on the south-west, as well

as the similar though lower height of the Janiculum near Rome;

others volcanic elevations, whose extinct craters had become

converted into lakes which in some cases still exist; the most

important of these is the Alban range, which, free on every

side, stands forth from the plain between the Volscian chain

and the river Tiber. Here settled the stock which is known to

history under the name of the Latins, or, as they were

subsequently called by way of distinction from the Latin

communities beyond the bounds of Latium, the 'Old Latins'

('prisci Latini'). But the territory occupied by them, the

district of Latium, was only a small portion of the central

plain of Italy. All the country north of the Tiber was to the

Latins a foreign and even hostile domain, with whose

inhabitants no lasting alliance, no public peace, was

possible, and such armistices as were concluded appear always

to have been for a limited period. The Tiber formed the

northern boundary from early times. … We find, at the time

when our history begins, the flat and marshy tracts to the

south of the Alban range in the hands of Umbro-Sabellian

stocks, the Rutuli and Volsci; Ardea and Velitrae are no

longer in the number of originally Latin towns. Only the

central portion of that region between the Tiber, the spurs of

the Apennines, the Alban Mount, and the sea—a district of

about 700 square miles, not much larger than the present

canton of Zurich—was Latium proper, the 'plain,' as it

appears to the eye of the observer from the heights of Monte

Cavo. Though the country is a plain, it is not monotonously

flat. With the exception of the sea-beach which is sandy and

formed in part by the accumulations of the Tiber, the level is

everywhere broken by hills of tufa moderate in height, though

often somewhat steep, and by deep fissures of the ground.

These alternating elevations and depressions of the surface

lead to the formation of lakes in winter; and the exhalations

proceeding in the heat of summer from the putrescent organic

substances which they contain engender that noxious

fever-laden atmosphere, which in ancient times tainted the

district as it taints it at the present day."

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 1, chapter 3.

See, also, ITALY, ANCIENT.

LATT, OR LIDUS, The.

See SLAVERY: MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

LATTER DAY SAINTS, Church of.

See MORMONISM: A. D. 1805-1830.

LAUD, Archbishop, Church tyranny of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1633-1640.

LAUDER BRIDGE.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1482-1488.

LAUDERDALE, Duke of.

His oppression in Scotland.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1669-1679.

LAUFFENBURG, Captured by Duke Bernhard (1637).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

LAURAS.

"The institution of Lauras was the connecting link between the

hermitage and the monastery, in the later and more ordinary

use of that word. … A Laura was an aggregation of separate

cells, under the not very strongly defined control of a

superior, the inmates meeting together only on the first and

last days, the old and new Sabbaths, of each week, for their

common meal in the refectory and for common worship. … The

origin of the word 'Laura' is uncertain. … Probably it is

another form of 'labra,' the popular term in Alexandria for an

alley or narrow court."

I. G. Smith,

Christian Monasticism,

pages 38-39.

{1955}

LAUREATE, English Poets.

"From the appointment of Chaucer about five hundred years have

elapsed, and during that period a long line of poets have held

the title of Laureate. For the first two hundred years they

were somewhat irregularly appointed, but from the creation of

Richard Edwards in 1561, they come down to the present time

without interruption. The selection of the Laureate has not

always been a wise one, but the list contains the names of a

few of our greatest authors, and the honour was certainly

worthily bestowed upon Edmund Spenser, Ben Jonson, John

Dryden, Robert Southey, William Wordsworth, and Alfred

Tennyson. As the custom of crowning successful poets appears

to have been in use since the origin of poetry itself, the

office of Poet Laureate can certainly boast of considerable

antiquity, and the laurel wreath of the Greeks and Romans was

an envied trophy long before our Druidical forefathers held

aloft the mistletoe bough in their mystic rites. From what

foreign nation we first borrowed the idea of a King of the

Poets is doubtful."

W. Hamilton, Origin of the Office of Poet Laureate

(Royal Historical Society, Transactions, volume 8).

The following is a list of the Poets Laureate of England, with

the dates of their appointment:

Geoffrey Chaucer, 1368;

Sir John Gower, 1400;

Henry Scogan;

John Kay;

Andrew Bernard, 1486;

John Skelton, 1489;

Robert Whittington, 1512;

Richard Edwards, 1561;

Edmund Spenser, 1590;

Samuel Daniel, 1598;

Ben Jonson, 1616;

Sir William Davenant, 1638;

John Dryden, 1670;

Thomas Shadwell, 1688;

Nahum Tate, 1692;

Nicholas Rowe, 1715;

Rev. Laurence Eusden, 1718;

Colley Cibber, 1730;

William Whitehead, 1757;

Thomas Warton, 1785;

Henry James Pye, 1790;

Robert Southey, 1813;

William Wordsworth, 1843;

Alfred Tennyson, 1850.

W. Hamilton,

The Poets Laureate of England.

LAURIUM, Silver Mines of.

These mines, in Attica, were owned and worked at an early time

by the Athenian state, and seem to have yielded a large

revenue, more or less of which was divided among the citizens.

It was by persuading the Athenians to forego that division

that Themistocles secured money to build the fleet which made

Athens a great naval power. The mines were situated in the

southern part of Attica, in a district of low hills, not far

from the promontory of Sunium.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 39.

LAUSITZ.

See BRANDENBURG.

LAUTULÆ, Battle of.

See ROME: B. C. 343-290.

LAW, John, and his Mississippi Scheme.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720;

and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.

----------LAW: Start----------

LAW. [Prepared for this work by Austin Abbott, Dean of the

New York University Law School.]

The subject is here treated with reference to the history of

the rights of persons and property, and that of procedure,

rather than in its political and economic aspects, which are

discussed under other heads. And those parts of the history of

law thus considered which enter into our present systems are

given the preference in space,—purely historical matters,

such as the Roman Law, being treated elsewhere, as indicated

in the references placed at the end of this article:

----------ADMIRALTY LAW: Start----------

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1183.

Law as to Shipwrecks.

"The Emperor Constantine, or Antonine (for there is some doubt

as to which it was), had the honour of being the first to

renounce the claim to shipwrecked property in favor of the

rightful owner. But the inhuman customs on this subject were

too deeply rooted to be eradicated by the wisdom and vigilance

of the Roman law givers. The legislation in favor of the

unfortunate was disregarded by succeeding emperors, and when

the empire itself was overturned by the northern barbarians,

the laws of humanity were swept away in the tempest, and the

continual depredations of the Saxons and Normans induced the

inhabitants of the western coasts of Europe to treat all

navigators who were thrown by the perils of the sea upon their

shores as pirates, and to punish them as such, without inquiry

or discrimination. The Emperor Andronicus Comnenus, who

reigned at Constantinople in 1183, made great efforts to

repress this inhuman practice. His edict was worthy of the

highest praise, but it ceased to be put in execution after his

death. … Valin says, it was reserved to the ordinances of

Lewis XIV. to put the finishing stroke towards the extinction

of this species of piracy, by declaring that shipwrecked

persons and property were placed under the special protection

and safe guard of the crown, and the punishment of death

without hope of pardon, was pronounced against the guilty."

James Kent,

International Law,

edited by J. T. Abdy, page 31.

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1537.

Jurisdiction.

The Act of 28 Henry VIII., c. 15, granted jurisdiction to the

Lord High Admiral of England.

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1575.

Jurisdiction.

"The Request of the Judge of the Admiralty, to the Lord Chief

Justice of her Majesty's Bench, and his Colleagues, and the

Judges' Agreement 7th May 1575,"—by which the long

controversy between these Courts as to their relative

jurisdiction was terminated, will be found in full in

Benedict's American Admiralty,

3d edition, page 41.

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1664.

Tide-mark.

The space between high and low water mark is to be taken as

part of the sea, when the tide is in.

Erastus C. Benedict,

American Admiralty, 3d edition,

by Robert D. Benedict, page 35,

citing Sir John Constable's Case,

Anderson's Rep. 89.

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1789.

United States Judiciary Act.

The Act of 1789 declared admiralty jurisdiction to extend to

all cases "where the seizures are made on waters which are

navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons

burthen."

Judiciary Act,

United States Stat. at Large,

volume 1, page 76.

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1798.

Lord Stowell and Admiralty Law.

"Lord Mansfield, at a very early period of his judicial life,

introduced to the notice of the English bar the Rhodian laws,

the Consolato del mare, the laws of Oleron, the treatises of

Roccus, the laws of Wisbuy, and, above all, the marine

ordinances of Louis XIV., and the commentary of Valin. These

authorities were cited by him in Luke v. Lyde [2 Burr. 882],

and from that time a new direction was given to English

studies, and new vigor, and more liberal and enlarged views,

communicated to forensic investigations.

{1956}

Since the year 1798, the decisions of Sir William Scott (now

Lord Stowell) on the admiralty side of Westminster Hall, have

been read and admired in every region of the republic of

letters, as models of the most cultivated and the most

enlightened human reason. … The doctrines are there reasoned

out at large, and practically applied. The arguments at the

bar, and the opinions from the bench, are intermingled with

the greatest reflections, … the soundest policy, and a

thorough acquaintance with all the various topics which

concern the great social interests of mankind."

James Kent,

Commentaries,

part 5, lecture 42.

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1841-1842.

Jurisdiction.

The act 3 and 4 Vic., c. 65, restored to the English Admiralty

some jurisdiction of which it had been deprived by the Common

Law Courts.

Benedict's Am. Admiralty,

page 56.

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1845.

Extension of Admiralty Jurisdiction.

"It took the Supreme Court of the United States more than

fifty years to reject the antiquated doctrine of the English

courts, that admiralty jurisdiction was confined to salt

water, or water where the tide ebbed and flowed. Congress in

1845 passed an act extending the admiralty jurisdiction of the

Federal courts to certain cases upon the great lakes, and the

navigable waters connecting the same. The constitutionality of

this act was seriously questioned, and it was not till 1851

that the Supreme Court, by a divided court, in the case of the

Genesee Chief, which collided with another vessel on Lake

Ontario, sustained the constitutionality of the act, and

repudiated the absurd doctrine that tides had anything to do

with the admiralty jurisdiction conferred by the constitution

upon Federal courts."

Lyman Trumbull,

Precedent versus Justice, American Law Review,

volume 27, page 324.

See, also

Act of 1845, 5 U. S. Stat. at L. 726.

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1873.

Division of Loss in case of Collision

settled by Judicature Act.

"The rule that where both ships are at fault for a collision

each shall recover half his loss from the other, contradicts

the old rule of the common law that a plaintiff who is guilty

of contributory negligence can recover nothing. This conflict

between the common law and the law of the Admiralty was put an

end to in 1873 by the Judicature Act of that year, which (s.

25, subs. 9) provides that 'if both ships shall be found to

have been in fault' the Admiralty rule shall prevail. …

There can be no doubt that in some instances it works positive

injustice; as where it prevents the innocent cargo-owner from

recovering more than half his loss from one of the two

wrong-doing shipowners. And recent cases show that it works in

an arbitrary and uncertain manner when combined with the

enactments limiting the shipowner's liability for damage done

by his ship. The fact, however, remains, that it has been in

operation with the approval of the shipping community for at

least two centuries, and probably for a much longer period;

and an attempt to abolish it at the time of the passing of the

Judicature Acts met with no success. The true reason of its

very general acceptance is probably this—that it gives effect

to the principle of distributing losses at sea, which is

widely prevalent in maritime affairs. Insurance, limitation of

shipowner's liability, and general average contribution are

all connected, more or less directly, with this principle."

R. G. Marsden,

Two Points of Admiralty Law,

Law Quarterly Review,

volume 2, pages 357-362.

For an enumeration of the various Maritime codes with their

dates,

See

Benedict's Am. Admiralty,

pages 91-97,      and

Davis' Outlines of International Law,

pages 5, 6, &c.

----------ADMIRALTY LAW: End----------

----------COMMON LAW: Start----------

Common Law. [Including legislation in modification of It.]

COMMON LAW: A. D. 449-1066.

Trial by Jury unknown to Anglo-Saxons.

"It may be confidently asserted that trial by jury was unknown

to our Anglo-Saxon ancestors; and the idea of its existence in

their legal system has arisen from a want of attention to the

radical distinction between the members or judges composing a

court, and a body of men apart from that court, but summoned

to attend it in order to determine conclusively the facts of

the case in dispute. This is the principle on which is founded

the intervention of a jury; and no trace whatever can be found

of such an institution in Anglo-Saxon times."

W. Forsyth,

Trial by Jury,

page 45.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 630.

The first Written Body of English Law.

"The first written body of English Law is said to have been

promulgated in the Heptarchy by Ethelbert, about the year 630,

and enacted with the consent of the states of his kingdom."

Joseph Parke,

History of Chancery,

page 14.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 871-1066.

The King's Peace.

1. The technical use of "the king's peace" is, I suspect,

connected with the very ancient rule that a breach of the

peace in a house must be atoned for in proportion to the

householder's rank. If it was in the king's dwelling, the

offender's life was in the king's hand. This peculiar sanctity

of the king's house was gradually extended to all persons who

were about his business, or specially under his protection;

but when the Crown undertook to keep the peace everywhere, the

king's peace became coincident with the general peace of the

kingdom, and his especial protection was deemed to be extended

to all peaceable subjects. In substance, the term marks the

establishment of the conception of public justice, exercised

on behalf of the whole commonwealth, as something apart from

and above the right of private vengeance,—a right which the

party offended might pursue or not, or accept composition for,

as he thought fit. The private blood feud, it is true,

formally and finally disappeared from English jurisprudence

only in the present century; but in its legalized historical

shape of the wager of battle it was not a native English

institution.

Sir Frederick Pollock,

Essays in Jurisprudence and Ethics,

page 205.

See, also, KING'S PEACE.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1066.

Inquisition, parent of Modern Jury.

"When the Normans came into England they brought with them,

not only a far more vigorous and searching kingly power than

had been known there, but also a certain product of the

exercise of this power by the Frankish kings and the Norman

dukes; namely, the use of the inquisition in public

administration, i. e., the practice of ascertaining facts by

summoning together by public authority a number of people most

likely, as being neighbors, to know and tell the truth, and

calling for their answer under oath. This was the parent of

the modern jury. …

{1957}

With the Normans came also another novelty, the judicial

duel—one of the chief methods for determining controversies

in the royal courts; and it was largely the cost, danger, and

unpopularity of the last of these institutions which fed the

wonderful growth of the other."

J. B. Thayer,

The Older Modes of Trial

(Harvard Law Review, volume 5, page 45).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1066-1154.

Trial by Jury unknown to Anglo-Normans.

"The same remark which has already been made, with reference

to the absence of all mention of the form of jury trial in the

Anglo-Saxon Laws, applies equally to the first hundred years

after the Conquest. It is incredible that so important a

feature of our jurisprudence, if it had been known, would not

have been alluded to in the various compilations of law which

were made in the reigns of the early Norman kings. …

Although the form of the jury did not then exist, the

rudiments of that mode of trial may be distinctly traced, in

the selection from the neighborhood where the dispute arose,

of a certain number of persons, who after being duly sworn

testified to the truth of the facts within their own

knowledge. This is what distinguishes the proceeding from what

took place among the Anglo-Saxons—namely, the choosing a

limited number of probi homines to represent the community,

and give testimony for them."

W. Forsyth,

Trial by Jury,

pages 82-90.

See, also, JURY: TRIAL BY.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1066-1154.

The Curia Regis.

"As a legal tribunal the jurisdiction of the Curia was both

civil and criminal, original and appellate. As a primary court

it heard all causes in which the king's interests were

concerned, as well as all causes between the tenants-in-chief

of the crown, who were too great to submit to the local

tribunals of the shire and the hundred. As an appellate court

it was resorted to in those cases in which the powers of the

local courts had been exhausted or had failed to do justice.

By virtue of special writs, and as a special favor, the king

could at his pleasure call up causes from the local courts to

be heard in his own court according to such new methods as his

advisers might invent. Through the issuance of these special

writs the king became practically the fountain of justice, and

through their agency the new system of royal law, which finds

its source in the person of the king, was brought in to remedy

the defects of the old, unelastic system of customary law

which prevailed in the provincial courts of the people. The

curia followed the person of the king, or the justiciar in the

king's absence."

Hannis Taylor,

Origin and Growth of the English Constitution,

part 1, pages 245-246.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1066-1215.

Purchasing Writs.

"The course of application to the curia regis was of this

nature. The party suing paid, or undertook to pay, to the king

a fine to have justitiam et rectam in his court: and thereupon

he obtained a writ or precept, by means of which he commenced

his suit; and the justices were authorized to hear and

determine his claim."

Reeves' (Finlason's) History English Law,

volume 1, page 267.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1077.

Trial by Battle.

"The earliest reference to the battle, I believe, in any

account of a trial in England, is at the end of the case of

Bishop Wulfstan v. Abbot Walter, in 1077. The controversy was

settled, and we read: 'Thereof there are lawful witnesses …

who said and heard this, ready to prove it by oath and

battle.' This is an allusion to a common practice in the

Middle Ages, that of challenging an adversary's witness, or

perhaps to one method of disposing of cases where witnesses

were allowed on opposite sides and contradicted each other.

… Thus, as among nations still, so then in the popular

courts and between contending private parties, the battle was

often the ultima ratio, in cases where their rude and

unrational methods of trial yielded no results. It was mainly

in order to displace this dangerous … mode of proof that the

recognitions—that is to say, the first organized form of the

jury—were introduced. These were regarded as a special boon

to the poor man, who was oppressed in many ways by the duel.

It was by enactment of Henry II. that this reform was brought

about, first in his Norman dominions (in 1150-52), before

reaching the English throne, and afterwards in England,

sometime after he became king, in 1154."

J. B. Thayer,

The Older Modes of Trial

(Harvard Law Review, volume 5, pages 66-67).

See, also: WAGER OF BATTLE.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1100 (circa).

Origin of Statutes of Limitation.

"Our ancestors, instead of fixing a given number of years as

the period within which legal proceedings to recover real

property must be resorted to, had recourse to the singular

expedient of making the period of limitation run from

particular events or dates. From the time of Henry I. to that

of Henry III., on a writ of right, the time within which a

descent must be shown was the time of King Henry I. (Co. Litt.

114b). In the twentieth year of Henry III., by the Statute of

Merton (c. 8) the date was altered to the time of Henry II.

Writs of 'mort d'ancestor' were limited to the time of the

last return of King John into England; writs of novel

disseisin to the time of the king's first crossing the sea

into Gascony. In the previous reign, according to Glanville

(lib. 13, c. 33), the disseisin must have been since the last

voyage of King Henry II. into Normandy. So that the time

necessary to bar a claim varied materially at different

epochs. Thus matters remained until the 3 Edw. I. (Stat. West.

1, c. 39), when, as all lawyers are aware, the time within

which a writ of right might be brought was limited to cases in

which the seisin of the ancestor was since the time of King

Richard I., which was construed to mean the beginning of that

king's reign (2 Inst. 238), a period of not less than

eighty-six years. The legislature having thus adopted the

reign of Richard I. as the date from which the limitation in a

real action was to run, the courts of law adopted it as the

period to which, in all matters of prescription or custom,

legal memory, which till then had been confined to the time to

which living memory could go back, should thenceforth be

required to extend. Thus the law remained for two centuries

and a half, by which time the limitation imposed in respect of

actions to recover real property having long become

inoperative to bar claims which had their origin posterior to

the time of Richard I., and having therefore ceased

practically to afford any protection against antiquated

claims, the legislature, in 32d of Henry VIII. (c. 2), again

interfered, and on this occasion, instead of dating the period

of limitation from some particular event or date, took the

wiser course of prescribing a fixed number of years as the

limit within which a suit should be entertained. …

{1958}

It was of course impossible that as time went on the adoption

of a fixed epoch, as the time from which legal memory was to

run, should not be attended by grievous inconvenience and

hardship. Possession, however long, enjoyment, however

interrupted, afforded no protection against stale and obsolete

claims, or the assertion of long abandoned rights. And as

parliament failed to intervene to amend the law, the judges

set their ingenuity to work, by fictions and presumptions, to

atone for the supineness of the legislature. … They first

laid down the somewhat startling rule that from the usage of a

lifetime the presumption arose that a similar usage had

existed from a remote antiquity. Next, as it could not but

happen that, in the case of many private rights, especially in

that of easements, which had a more recent origin, such a

presumption was impossible, judicial astuteness to support

possession and enjoyment, which the law ought to have invested

with the character of rights, had recourse to the questionable

theory of lost grants. Juries were first told that from user,

during living memory, or even during twenty years, they might

presume a lost grant or deed; next they were recommended to

make such presumption; and lastly, as the final consummation

of judicial legislation, it was held that a jury should be

told, not only that they might, but also that they were bound

to presume the existence of such a lost grant, although

neither judge nor jury, nor anyone else, had the shadow of a

belief that any such instrument had ever really existed. …

When the doctrine of presumptions had proceeded far towards

its development, the legislature at length interfered, and in

respect of real property and of certain specified easements,

fixed certain periods of possession or enjoyment as

establishing presumptive rights."

C. J. Cockburn,

in Bryant v. Foot,

L. R. 2 Q. B., 161;

s. c. (Thayer's Cases on Evidence, 94).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1110 (circa).

The King's Peace superior to the Peace of the Subject.

"We find in the so-called laws of Henry I, that wherever men

meet for drinking, selling, or like occasions, the peace of

God and of the lord of the house is to be declared between

them. The amount payable to the host is only one shilling, the

king taking twelve, and the injured party, in case of insult,

six. Thus the king is already concerned, and more concerned

than anyone else; but the private right of the householder is

distinctly though not largely acknowledged. We have the same

feeling well marked in our modern law by the adage that every

man's house is his castle, and the rule that forcible entry

may not be made for the execution of ordinary civil process

against the occupier: though for contempt of Court arising in

a civil cause, it may, as not long ago the Sheriff of Kent had

to learn in a sufficiently curious form. The theoretical

stringency of our law of trespass goes back, probably, to the

same origin. And in a quite recent American textbook we read,

on the authority of several modern cases in various States of

the Union, that 'a man assaulted in his dwelling is not

obliged to retreat, but may defend his possession to the last

extremity.'"

F. Pollock,

The King's Peace

(Law Quarterly Review, volume 1, pages 40-41).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1135.

Abeyance of the King's Peace.

"The King's Peace is proclaimed in general terms at his

accession. But, though generalized in its application, it

still was subject to a strange and inconvenient limit in time.

The fiction that the king is everywhere present, though not

formulated, was tacitly adopted; the protection once confined

to his household was extended to the whole kingdom. The

fiction that the king never dies was yet to come. It was not

the peace of the Crown, an authority having continuous and

perpetual succession, that was proclaimed, but the peace of

William or Henry. When William or Henry died, all authorities

derived from him were determined or suspended; and among other

consequences, his peace died with him. What this abeyance of

the King's Peace practically meant is best told in the words

of the Chronicle, which says upon the death of Henry I. (anno

1135): 'Then there was tribulation soon in the land, for every

man that could forthwith robbed another.' Order was taken in

this matter (as our English fashion is) only when the

inconvenience became flagrant in a particular case. At the

time of Henry III.'s death his son Edward was in Palestine. It

was intolerable that there should be no way of enforcing the

King's Peace till the king had come back to be crowned; and

the great men of the realm, by a wise audacity, took upon them

to issue a proclamation of the peace in the new king's name

forthwith. This good precedent being once made, the doctrine

of the King's Peace being in suspense was never afterwards

heard of."

F. Pollock,

The King's Peace

(Law Quarterly Review, volume 1, pages 48-49).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1154-1189.

Origin of Unanimity of Jury.

"The origin of the rule as to unanimity may, I think, be

explained as follows: In the assise as instituted in the reign

of Henry II. it was necessary that twelve jurors should agree

in order to determine the question of disseisin; but this

unanimity was not then secured by any process which tended to

make the agreement compulsory. The mode adopted was called,

indeed, an afforcement of the jury; but this term did not

imply that any violence was done to the conscientious opinions

of the minority. It merely meant that a sufficient number were

to be added to the panel until twelve were at last found to

agree in the same conclusion; and this became the verdict of

the assise. … The civil law required two witnesses at least,

and in some cases a greater number, to establish a fact in

dispute; as, for instance, where a debt was secured by a

written instrument, five witnesses were necessary to prove

payment. These would have been called by our ancestors a

jurata of five. At the present day, with us no will is valid

which is not attested by at least two witnesses. In all

countries the policy of the law determines what it will accept

as the minimum of proof. Bearing then in mind that the jury

system was in its inception nothing but the testimony of

witnesses informing the court of facts supposed to lie within

their own knowledge, we see at once that to require that

twelve men should be unanimous was simply to fix the amount of

evidence which the law deemed to be conclusive of a matter in

dispute."

W. Forsyth,

History of Trial by Jury,

chapter 11, section 1.

{1959}

A. D. 1154-1189.

Reign of Law initiated.

"The reign of Henry II. initiates the rule of law. The

administrative machinery, which had been regulated by routine

under Henry I., is now made a part of the constitution,

enunciated in laws, and perfected by a steady series of

reforms: The mind of Henry II. was that of a lawyer and man of

business. He set to work from the very beginning of the reign

to place order on a permanent basis, and, recurring to the men

and measures of his grandfather, to complete an organization

which should make a return to feudalism impossible."

W. Stubbs,

Select Charters of English Constitutional History,

page 21.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1164-1176.

Trial by Assize.

"The first mention of the trial by assise in our existing

statutes occurs in the Constitutions of Clarendon, A. D. 1164

[see ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170], where it was provided that if

any dispute arose between a layman and a clerk as to whether a

particular tenement was the property of the Church or belonged

to a lay fief, this was to be determined before the chief

justiciary of the kingdom, by the verdict of twelve lawful

men. … This was followed by the Statute of Northampton, A.

D. 1176, which directs the justices, in case a lord should

refuse to give to the heir the seisin of his deceased

ancestor, 'to cause a recognition to be made by means of

twelve lawful men as to what seisin the deceased had on the

day of his death;' and also orders them to inquire in the same

manner in cases of novel disseisin."

W. Forsyth,

Trial by Jury,

chapter 6, section 3.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1165 (circa).

Justice bought and sold.

"The king's justice was one great source of his revenue, and

he sold it very dear. Observe that this buying and selling was

not in itself corruption, though it is hard to believe that

corruption did not get mixed up with it. Suitors paid heavily

not to have causes decided in their favour in the king's

court, but to have them heard there at all. The king's justice

was not a matter of right, but of exceptional favour; and this

was especially the case when he undertook, as he sometimes

did, to review and overrule the actual decisions of local

courts, or even reverse, on better information, his own

previous commands. And not only was the king's writ sold, but

it was sold at arbitrary and varying prices, the only

explanation of which appears to be that in every case the

king's officers took as much as they could get. Now we are in

a position to understand that famous clause of the Great

Charter: 'To no man will we sell, nor to none deny or delay,

right or justice.' The Great Charter comes about half a

century after the time of which we have been speaking; so in

that time, you see, the great advance had been made of

regarding the king's justice as a matter not of favour but of

right. And besides this clause there is another which provides

for the regular sending of the king's judges into the

counties. Thus we may date from Magna Carta the regular

administration of a uniform system of law throughout England.

What is more, we may almost say that Magna Carta gave England

a capital. For the king's court had till then no fixed seat;

it would be now at Oxford, now at Westminster, now at

Winchester, sometimes at places which by this time are quite

obscure. But the Charter provided that causes between subject

and subject which had to be tried by the king's judges should

be tried not where the king's court happened to be, but in

some certain place; and so the principal seat of the courts of

justice, and ultimately the political capital of the realm,

became established at Westminster."

Sir F. Pollock,

Essays in Jurisprudence and Ethics,

page 209.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1166.

Assize of Clarendon.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1176.

Justices in Eyre.

"It has been generally supposed that justices in Eyre

(justitiarii itinerantes) were first established in 1176, by

Henry II., for we find it recorded that in that year, in a

great counsel held at Northampton, the king divided the realm

into six parts, and appointed three traveling justices to go

each circuit, so that the number was eighteen in all. … But

although the formal division of the kingdom into separate

circuits may have been first made by Henry II., yet there is

no doubt that single justiciars were appointed by William I.,

a few years after the Conquest, who visited the different

shires to administer justice in the king's name, and thus

represented the curia regis as distinct from the hundred and

county courts."

W. Forsyth,

Trial by Jury,

pages 81-82.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1189.

Legal Memory.

Its effect.

"No doubt usage for the last fifty or sixty years would be

some evidence of usage 700 years ago, but if the question is

to be considered as an ordinary question of fact, I certainly

for one would very seldom find a verdict in support of the

right as in fact so ancient. I can hardly believe, for

instance, that the same fees in courts of justice which were

till recently received by the officers as ancient fees

attached to their ancient offices were in fact received 700

years ago; or that the city of London took before the time of

Richard I. the same payments for measuring corn and coals and

oysters that they do now. I have no doubt the city of Bristol

did levy dues in the Avon before the time of legal memory, and

that the mayor, as head of that corporation, got some fees at

that time; but I can hardly bring myself to believe that the

mayor of Bristol at that time received 5s. a year from every

ship above sixty tons burthen which entered the Avon; yet the

claim of the city of Bristol to their ancient mayor's dues, of

which this is one, was established before Lord Tenterden, in

1828. I think the only way in which verdicts in support of

such claims, and there are many such, could have properly been

found, is by supposing that the jury were advised that, in

favor of the long continued user, a presumption arose that it

was legal, on which they ought to find that the user was

immemorial, if that was necessary to legalize it, unless the

contrary was proved; that presumption not being one purely of

fact, and to be acted on only when the jury really entertained

the opinion that in fact the legal origin existed. This was

stated by Parke B., on the first trial of Jenkins v. Harvey, 1

C. M. & R. 894, as being his practice, and what he considered

the correct mode of leaving the question to the jury; and that

was the view of the majority of the judges in the Court of

Exchequer Chamber in Shephard v. Payne, 16 C. B. (N. S.) 132;

33 L. J. (C. P.) 158. This is by no means a modern doctrine;

it is as ancient as the time of Littleton, who, in his

Tenures, § 170, says that all are agreed that usage since the

time of Richard I. is a title; some, he says, have thought it

the only title of prescription, but that others have said

'that there is also another title of prescription that was at

the common law before any statute of limitation of writs, &c.,

and that it was where a custom or usage or other thing hath

been used for time whereof mind of man runneth not to the

contrary.

{1960}

And they have said that this is proved by the pleading where a

man will plead a title of prescription of custom. He shall say

that such a custom hath been used from time whereof the memory

of men runneth not to the contrary, that is as much as to say,

when such a matter is pleaded, that no man then alive hath

heard any proof of the contrary, nor hath no knowledge to the

contrary; and insomuch that such title of prescription was at

the common law, and not put out by any statute, ergo, it

abideth as it was at the common law; and the rather that the

said limitation of a writ of right is of so long time past.

'Ideo quaere de hoc.' It is practically the same thing whether

we say that usage as far back as proof extends is a title,

though it does not go so far back as the year 1189; or that

such usage is to be taken in the absence of proof to the

contrary to establish that the usage began before that year;

and certainly the lapse of 400 years since Littleton wrote has

added force to the remark, 'the rather that the limitation of

a writ of right is of so long time past.' But either way,

proof that the origin of the usage was since that date, puts

an end to the title by prescription; and the question comes

round to be whether the amount of the fee, viz. 13s., is by

itself sufficient proof that it must have originated since."

J. Blackburn,

in Bryant v. Foot, L. R. 2 Q. B., 161,. s. c.

(Thayer's Cases on Evidence, page 88).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1194.

English Law Repositories.

"The extant English judicial records do not begin until 1194

(Mich. 6 Rich. I.). We have a series of such records from 1384

(6 Rich. II.). The first law treatise by Glanvill was not

written before 1187. The law reports begin in 1292. The

knowledge of the laws of England prior to the twelfth century

is in many points obscure and uncertain. From that time,

however, the growth and development of these laws can be

traced in the parliamentary and official records, treatises,

and law reports."

John F. Dillon,

The Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America,

pages 28-29.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1199.

Earliest instance of Action for Trespass.

"A case of the year 1199 (2 Rot. Cur. Reg. 34) seems to be the

earliest reported instance of an action of trespass in the

royal courts. Only a few cases are recorded during the next

fifty years. But about 1250 the action came suddenly into

great popularity. In the 'Abbreviatio Placitorum,' twenty-five

cases are given of the single year 1252-1253. We may infer

that the writ, which had before been granted as a special

favor, became at that time a writ of course. In Britton (f.

49), pleaders are advised to sue in trespass rather than by

appeal, in order to avoid 'la perilouse aventure de batayles.'

Trespass in the popular courts of the hundred and county was

doubtless of far greater antiquity than the same action in the

Curia Regis. Several cases of the reign of Henry I, are

collected in Bigelow, Placita Anglo-Normannica, 89, 98, 102,

127."

J. B. Ames,

The Disseisin of Chattels

(Harvard Law Review, volume 3, page 29, note).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1208.

Evidence: Attesting Witnesses.

"From the beginning of our records, we find cases, in a

dispute over the genuineness of a deed, where the jury are

combined with the witnesses to the deed. This goes back to the

Franks; and their custom of requiring the witness to a

document to defend it by battle also crossed the channel, and

is found in Glanville (lib. X., c. 12). … In these cases the

jury and the witnesses named in the deed were summoned

together, and all went out and conferred privately as if

composing one body; the witnesses did not regularly testify in

open court. Cases of this kind are found very early, e. g. in

1208-1209 (Pl. Ab. 63, col. 1, Berk.). … In the earlier

cases these witnesses appear, sometimes, to have been

conceived of as a constituent part of the jury; it was a

combination of business-witnesses and community-witnesses who

tried the case,—the former supplying to the others their

more exact information, just as the hundreders, or those from

another county, did in the cases before noticed. But in time

the jury and the witnesses came to be sharply discriminated.

Two or three cases in the reign of Edward III. show this. In

1337, 1338 and 1349, we are told that they are charged

differently; the charge to the jury is to tell the truth (a

lour ascient) to the best of their knowledge, while that to

the witnesses is to tell the truth and loyally inform the

inquest, without saying anything about their knowledge (sans

lour scient); 'for the witnesses,' says Thorpe, C. J., in

1349, 'should say nothing but what they know as certain, i.

e., what they see and hear.' … By the Statute of York (12

Edw. II. c. 2), in 1318, it was provided that while process

should still issue to the witnesses as before, yet the taking

of the inquest should not be delayed by their absence. In this

shape the matter ran on for a century or two. By 1472 (Y. B.

12 Edw. IV. 4, 9), we find a change. It is said, with the

assent of all the judges, that process for the witnesses will

not issue unless asked for. As late, certainly, as 1489 (Y. B.

5 H. VII. 8), we find witnesses to deeds still summoned with

the jury. I know of no later case. In 1549-1550 Brooke,

afterwards Chief Justice of the Common Bench, argues as if

this practice was still known: 'When the witnesses … are

joined to the inquest,' etc.; and I do not observe anything in

his Abridgment, published in 1568, ten years after his death,

to indicate that it was not a recognized part of the law

during all his time. It may, however, well have been long

obsolescent. Coke (Inst. 6 b.) says of it, early in the

seventeenth century, 'and such process against witnesses is

vanished;' but when or how he does not say. We may reasonably

surmise, if it did not become infrequent as the practice grew,

in the fifteenth century, of calling witnesses to testify to

the jury in open court, that, at any rate, it must have soon

disappeared when that practice came to be attended with the

right, recognized, if not first granted, in the statute of

1562-1563 (5 Eliz. c. 9, s. 6), to have legal process against

all sorts of witnesses."

James B. Thayer,

in Harvard Law Review,

volume 5, pages 302-5,

also in Sel. Cas. Ev.

pages 771-773.

"After the period reached in the passage above quoted, the old

strictness as to the summoning of attesting witnesses still

continued under the new system. As the history of the matter

was forgotten, new reasons were invented, and the rule was

extended to all sorts of writings."

J. B. Thayer,

Select Cases on Evidence,

page 773.

{1961}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1215 (ante).

Courts following the King.

"Another point which ought not to be forgotten in relation to

the King's Court is its migratory character. The early kings

of England were the greatest landowners in the country, and

besides their landed estates they had rights over nearly every

important town in England, which could be exercised only on

the spot. They were continually travelling about from place to

place, either to consume in kind part of their revenues, or to

hunt or to fight. Wherever they went the great officers of

their court, and in particular the chancellor with his clerks,

and the various justices had to follow them. The pleas, so the

phrase went, 'followed the person of the king,' and the

machinery of justice went with them."

Sir J. F. Stephen,

History of the Criminal Law of England,

volume 1, page 87.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1215.

Magna Charta.

"With regard to the administration of justice, besides

prohibiting all denials or delays of it, it fixed the court of

Common Pleas at Westminster, that the suitors might no longer

be harassed with following the King's person in all his

progresses; and at the same time brought the trial of issues

borne to the very doors of the freeholders by directing

assizes to be taken in the proper counties, and establishing

annual circuits. It also corrected some abuses then incident

to the trials by wager of law and of battle; directing the

regular awarding of inquest for life or member; prohibited the

King's inferior ministers from holding pleas of the crown, or

trying any criminal charge, whereby many forfeitures might

otherwise have unjustly accrued to the exchequer: and

regulated the time and place of holding the inferior tribunals

of justice, the county court, sheriff's tourn, and court leet.

… And, lastly (which alone would have merited the title that

it bears, of the great charter,) it protected every individual

of the nation in the free enjoyment of his life, his liberty

and his property, unless declared to be forfeited by the

judgment of his peers, or the law of the land."

Owen Flintoff,

Laws of England,

page 184.

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1215.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1216.

Distinction between Common and Statute Law now begins.

"The Chancellors, during this reign [John 1199-1216], did

nothing to be entitled to the gratitude of posterity, and were

not unworthy of the master whom they served. The guardians of

law were the feudal barons, assisted by some enlightened

churchmen, and by their efforts the doctrine of resistance to

lawless tyranny was fully established in England, and the

rights of all classes of the people were defined and

consolidated. We here reach a remarkable era in our

constitutional history: National councils had met from the

most remote times; but to the end of this reign their acts not

being preserved are supposed to form a part of the lex non

scripta, or common law. Now begins the distinction between

common and statute law, and henceforth we can distinctly trace

the changes which our juridical system has undergone. These

changes were generally introduced by the Chancellor for the

time being."

Lord Campbell,

Lives of the Chancellors,

volume 1, page 115.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1216-1272.

Henry de Bracton.

"It is curious that, in the most disturbed period of this

turbulent reign, when ignorance seemed to be thickening and

the human intellect to decline, there was written and given to

the world the best treatise upon law of which England could

boast, till the publication of Blackstone's Commentaries, in

the middle of the eighteenth century. It would have been very

gratifying to me if this work could have been ascribed with

certainty to any of the Chancellors whose lives have been

noticed. The author, usually styled Henry de Bracton, has gone

by the name of Brycton, Britton, Briton, Breton, and Brets;

and some have doubted whether all these names are not

imaginary. From the elegance of his style, and the familiar

knowledge he displays of the Roman law, I cannot doubt that he

was an ecclesiastic who had addicted himself to the study of

jurisprudence; and as he was likely to gain advancement from

his extraordinary proficiency, he may have been one of those

whom I have commemorated, although I must confess that he

rather speaks the language likely to come from a disappointed

practitioner rather than of a Chancellor who had been himself

in the habit of making Judges. For comprehensiveness, for

lucid arrangement, for logical precision, this author was

unrivalled during many ages. Littleton's work on Tenures,

which illustrated the reign of Edward IV., approaches Bracton;

but how barbarous are, in comparison, the commentaries of Lord

Coke, and the law treatises of Hale and of Hawkins!"

Lord Campbell,

Lives of the Chancellors,

volume 1, page 139.

For opposite view

See 9 American Bar Association Report, p. 193.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1217.

Dower.

"The additional provision made in the edition of 1217 to the

provisions of the earlier issues of the Charter in respect of

widow's rights fixed the law of dower on the basis on which it

still rests. The general rule of law still is that the widow

is entitled for her life to a third part of the lands of which

her husband was seized for an estate of inheritance at any

time during the marriage. At the present day there are means

provided which are almost universally adopted, of barring or

defeating the widow's claim. The general rule of law, however,

remains the same. The history of the law of dower deserves a

short notice, which may conveniently find a place here. It

seems to be in outline as follows. Tacitus noticed the

contrast of Teutonic custom and Roman law, in that it was not

the wife who conferred a dowry on the husband, but the husband

on the wife. By early Teutonic custom, besides the

bride-price, or price paid by the intending husband to the

family of the bride, it seems to have been usual for the

husband to make gifts of lands or chattels to the bride

herself. These appear to have taken two forms. In some cases

the husband or his father executed before marriage an

instrument called 'libellum dotis,' specifying the nature and

extent of the property to be given to the wife. … Another

and apparently among the Anglo-Saxons a commoner form of dower

is the 'morning gift.' This was the gift which on the morning

following the wedding the husband gave to the wife, and might

consist either of land or chattels. … By the law as stated

by Glanvil the man was bound to endow the woman 'tempore

desponsationis ad ostium ecclesiae.' The dower might be

specified or not. If not specified it was the third part of

the freehold which the husband possessed at the time of

betrothal. If more than a third part was named, the dower was

after the husband's death cut down to a third. A gift of less

would however be a satisfaction of dower. It was sometimes

permitted to increase the dower when the freehold available at

the time of betrothal was small, by giving the wife a third

part or less of subsequent acquisitions. This however must

have been expressly granted at the time of betrothal.

{1962}

A woman could never claim more than had been granted 'ad

ostium ecclesiae.' Dower too might be granted to a woman out

of chattels personal, and in this case she would be entitled

to a third part. In process of time however, this species of

dower ceased to be regarded as legal, and was expressly denied

to be law in the time of Henry IV. A trace of it still remains

in the expression in the marriage service, 'with all my

worldly goods I thee endow.'"

Kenelm E. Digby,

History of the Law of Real Property,

pages 126-128 (4th edition).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1258.

Provisions of Oxford; no Writs except de Cursu.

"The writ had originally no connection whatever with the

relief sought, it had been a general direction to do right to

the plaintiff, or as the case might be, but, long before the

time now referred to, this had been changed. … It appears

that even after the writ obtained by the plaintiff had come to

be connected with the remedy sought for, … a writ to suit

each case was framed and issued, but the Provisions of Oxford

(1258) expressly forbade the Chancellor to frame new writs

without the consent of the King and his Council. It followed

that there were certain writs, each applicable to a particular

state of circumstances and leading to a particular judgment,

which could be purchased by an intending plaintiff. These

writs were described as writs 'de cursu,' and additions to

their number were made from time to time by direction of the

King, of his Council or of Parliament."

D. M. Kerly,

History of Equity,

page 9.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1258.

Sale of Judicial Offices.

"The Norman Kings, who were ingenious adepts in realizing

profit in every opportunity, commenced the sale of Judicial

Offices. The Plantagenets followed their example. In Madox,

chap. II., and in the 'Cottoni Posthuma, may be found

innumerable instances of the purchase of the Chancellorship,

and accurate details of the amount of the consideration

monies. … What was bought must, of course, be sold, and

justice became henceforth a marketable commodity. … The

Courts of Law became a huckster's shop; every sort of produce,

in the absence of money, was bartered for 'justice.'"

J. Parke,

History of English Chancery,

page 23.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1265.

Disappearance of the Office of Chief Justiciary.

"Towards the end of this reign [Henry III.] the office of

Chief Justiciary, which had often been found so dangerous to

the Crown, fell into disuse. Hugh le Despenser, in the 49th of

Henry III., was the last who bore the title. The hearing of

common actions being fixed at Westminster by Magna Charta, the

Aula Regia was gradually subdivided and certain Judges were

assigned to hear criminal cases before the King himself,

wheresoever he might be, in England. These formed the Court of

King's Bench. They were called 'Justitiarii ad placita coram

Rege,' and the one who was to preside 'Capitalis

Justiciarius.' He was inferior in rank to the Chancellor, and

had a salary of only one hundred marks a year, while the

Chancellor had generally 500. Henceforth the Chancellor, in

rank, power, and emolument, was the first magistrate under the

Crown, and looked up to as the great head of the profession of

the law."

Lord Campbell,

Lives of the Chancellors,

volume 1, pages 139-140.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1275.

Statute of Westminster the First;

Improvement of the Law.

"He [Robert Burnel] presided at the Parliament which met in

May, 1275, and passed the 'Statute of Westminster the First,'

deserving the name of a Code rather than an Act of Parliament.

From this chiefly, Edward I. has obtained the name of 'the

English Justinian'—absurdly enough, as the Roman Emperor

merely caused a compilation to be made of existing

laws,—whereas the object now was to correct abuses, to supply

defects, and to remodel the administration of justice. Edward

deserves infinite praise for the sanction he gave to the

undertaking; and from the observations he had made in France,

Sicily, and the East, he may, like Napoleon, have been

personally useful in the consultations for the formation of

the new Code,—but the execution of the plan must have been

left to others professionally skilled in jurisprudence, and

the chief merit of it may safely be ascribed to Lord

Chancellor Burnel, who brought it forward in Parliament. The

statute is methodically divided into fifty-one chapters. …

It provides for freedom of popular elections, then a mutter of

much moment, as sheriffs, coroners, and conservators of the

peace were still chosen by the free holders in the county

court, and attempts had been made unduly to influence the

elections of knights of the shire, almost from the time when

the order was instituted. … It amends the criminal law,

putting the crime of rape on the footing to which it has been

lately restored, as a most grievous but not a capital offence.

It embraces the subject of 'Procedure' both in civil and

criminal matters, introducing many regulations with a view to

render it cheaper, more simple, and more expeditious. … As

long as Burnel continued in office the improvement of the law

rapidly advanced,—there having been passed in the sixth year

of the King's reign the 'Statute of Gloucester;' in the

seventh year of the King's reign the 'Statute of Mortmain;' in

the thirteenth year of the King's reign the 'Statute of

Westminster the Second,' the 'Statute of Winchester,' and the

'Statute of Circumspecte agatis;' and in the eighteenth year

of the King's reign the 'Statute of Quo Warranto,' and the

'Statute of Quia Emptores.' With the exception of the

establishment of estates tail, which proved such an obstacle

to the alienation of land till defeated by the fiction of

Fines and Common Recoveries,—these laws were in a spirit of

enlightened legislation, and admirably accommodated the law to

the changed circumstances of the social system,—which ought

to be the object of every wise legislation."

Lord Campbell,

Lives of the Chancellors,

volume 1, pages 143-146.

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1275-1295, and 1279.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1278.

Foundation of Costs at Common Law.

"The Statute of Gloucester, 6 Edw. I c. i, is the foundation

of the common law jurisdiction as to costs, and by that

statute it was enacted that in any action where the plaintiff

recovered damages, he should also recover costs. … By the

Judicature Act, 1875, O. L. V., the Legislature gave a direct

authority to all the judges of the Courts constituted under

the Judicature Act, and vested in them a discretion which was

to guide and determine them, according to the circumstances of

each case, in the disposition of costs."

Sydney Hastings,

Treatise on Torts,

page 379.

{1963}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1285.

Statute of Westminster II.;

Writs in Consimili Casu.

"The inadequacy of the common form writs to meet every case

was, to some extent, remedied by the 24th Chapter of the

Statute of Westminster II., which, after providing for one or

two particular cases to meet which no writ existed, provides

further that 'whensoever from henceforth it shall fortune in

Chancery that in one case a writ is found, and, in like case

falling under like law is found none, the clerks of the

Chancery shall agree in making a writ or shall adjourn the

Plaintiffs until the next Parliament, and the cases shall be

written in which they cannot agree, and be referred until the

next Parliament; and, by consent of the men learned in the Law

a writ shall be made, that it may not happen, that the King's

Court should fail in ministering justice unto Complainants.'

… The words of the statute give no power to make a

completely new departure; writs are to be framed to fit cases

similar to, but not identical with, cases falling within

existing writs, and the examples given in the statute itself

are cases of extension of remedies against a successor in

title of the raiser of a nuisance, and for the successor in

title of a person who had been disseised of his common.

Moreover the form of the writ was debated upon before, and its

sufficiency determined by the judges, not by its framers, and

they were, as English judges have always been, devoted

adherents to precedent. In the course of centuries, by taking

certain writs as starting points, and accumulating successive

variations upon them, the judges added great areas to our

common law, and many of its most famous branches, assumpsit,

and trover and conversion for instance, were developed in this

way, but the expansion of the Common Law was the work of the

15th and subsequent centuries, when, under the stress of eager

rivalry with the growing equitable jurisdiction of the

Chancery, the judges strove, not only by admitting and

developing actions upon the case, but also by the use of

fictitious actions, following the example of the Roman

Praetor, to supply the deficiencies of their system."

D. M. Kerly,

History of Equity,

pages 10-11.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1285.

Writ of Elegit.

The Writ of Elegit "is a judicial writ given by the statute

Westm. 2, 13 Edw. I., c. 18, either upon a judgment for a

debt, or damages; or upon the forfeiture of a recognizance

taken in the king's court. By the common law a man could only

have satisfaction of goods, chattels, and the present profits

of lands, by the … writs of 'fieri facias,' or 'levari

facias;' but not the possession of the lands themselves; which

was a natural consequence of the feudal principles, which

prohibited the alienation, and of course the encumbering of

the fief with the debts of the owner. … The statute

therefore granted this writ (called an 'elegit,' because it is

in the choice or the election of the plaintiff whether he will

sue out this writ or one of the former), by which the

defendant's goods and chattels are not sold, but only

appraised; and all of them (except oxen and beasts of the

plough) are delivered to the plaintiff, at such reasonable

appraisement and price, in part of satisfaction of his debt.

If the goods are not sufficient, then the moiety or one-half

of his freehold lands, which he had at the time of the

judgment given, whether held in his own name, or by any other

in trust for him, are also to be delivered to the plaintiff;

to hold, till out of the rents and profits thereof the debt be

levied, or till the defendant's interest be expired; as till

the death of the defendant, if he be tenant for life or in

tail."

Wm. Blackstone,

Commentaries,

book 3, chapter 27.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1290.

Progress of the Common Law Right of Alienation.

"The statute of Quia Emptores, 18 Edw. I., finally and

permanently established the free right of alienation by the

sub-vassal, without the lord's consent; … and it declared,

that the grantee should not hold the land of his immediate

feoffor, but of the chief lord of the fee, of whom the grantor

himself held it. … The power of involuntary alienation, by

rendering the land answerable by attachment for debt, was

created by the statute of Westm. 2, 13 Edw. I, c. 18, which

granted the elegit; and by the statutes merchant or staple, of

13 Edw. I., and 27 Edw. III., which gave the extent. These

provisions were called for by the growing commercial spirit of

the nation. To these we may add the statute of 1 Edw. III.,

taking away the forfeiture or alienation by the king's tenants

in capite, and substituting a reasonable fine in its place;

… and this gives us a condensed view of the progress of the

common law right of alienation from a state of servitude to

freedom."

J. Kent,

Commentaries,

part 6, lecture 67.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1292.

Fleta.

"Fleta, so called from its composition in the Fleet prison by

one of the justices imprisoned by Edward I., is believed to

have been written about the year 1292, and is nothing but an

abbreviation of Bracton, and the work called 'Britton,' which

was composed between the years 1290 and 1300, is of the same

character, except that it is written in the vernacular

language, French, while Granvil, Bracton and Fleta are written

in Latin."

Thomas J. Semmes,

9 American Bar Association Report,

page 193.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1300 (circa).

The King's Peace a Common Right.

"By the end of the thirteenth century, a time when so much

else of our institutions was newly and strongly fashioned for

larger uses, the King's Peace had fully grown from an

occasional privilege into a common right. Much, however,

remained to be done before the king's subjects had the full

benefit of this. … A beginning of this was made as early as

1195 by the assignment of knights to take an oath of all men

in the kingdom that they would keep the King's Peace to the

best of their power. Like functions were assigned first to the

old conservators of the peace, then to the justices who

superseded them, and to whose office a huge array of powers

and duties of the most miscellaneous kind have been added by

later statutes. … Then the writ 'de securitate pacis' made

it clear beyond cavil that the king's peace was now, by the

common law, the right of every lawful man."

F. Pollock,

The King's Peace,

(Law Quarterly Review,

volume 1, page 49).

A. D. 1307-1509.

The Year Books.

"The oldest reports extant on the English law, are the Year

Books … , written in law French, and extend from the

beginning of the reign of Edward II, to the latter end of the

reign of Henry VIII, a period of about two hundred years. …

The Year Books were very much occupied with discussions

touching the forms of writs, and the pleadings and practice in

real actions, which have gone entirely out of use."

J. Kent,

Commentaries,

part 3, lecture 21.

{1964}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1316.

Election of Sheriffs abolished.

"Until the time of Edward II. the sheriff was elected by the

inhabitants of the several counties; but a statute of the 9th

year of that reign abolished election, and ever since, with

few exceptions, the sheriff has been appointed, upon

nomination by the king's councillors and the judges of certain

ranks, by the approval of the crown. … The office of sheriff

is still in England one of eminent honor, and is conferred on

the wealthiest and most notable commoners in the counties."

New American Cyclopædia,

volume 14, page 585.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1326-1377.

Jurors cease to be Witnesses.

"The verdict of … the assize was founded on the personal

knowledge of the jurors themselves respecting the matter in

dispute, without hearing the evidence of witnesses in court.

But there was an exception in the case of deeds which came

into controversy, and in which persons had been named as

witnessing the grant or other matter testified by the deed.

… This seems to have paved the way for the important change

whereby the jury ceasing to be witnesses themselves, gave

their verdict upon the evidence brought before them at the

trials. … Since the jurors themselves were originally mere

witnesses, there was no distinction in principle between them

and the attesting witnesses; so that it is by no means

improbable that the latter were at first associated with them

in the discharge of the same function, namely, the delivery of

a verdict, and that gradually, in the course of years, a

separation took place. This separation, at all events, existed

in the reign of Edward III.; for although we find in the Year

Books of that period the expression, 'the witnesses were

joined to the assize,' a clear distinction is,

notwithstanding, drawn between them."

W. Forsyth,

Trial by Jury,

pages 124 and 128.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1362.

Pleading in the English tongue.

Enrollment in Latin.

"The Statute 36 Edward III., c. 15, A. D. 1362, enacted that

in future all pleas should be 'pleaded, shewed, defended,

answered, debated, and judged in the English tongue:' the

lawyers, on the alert, appended a proviso that they should be

'entered and enrolled' in Latin, and the old customary terms

and forms retained."

J. Parke,

History of Chancery,

page 43.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1368.

Jury System in Civil Trials.

"As it was an essential principle of the jury trial from the

earliest times, that the jurors should be summoned from the

hundred where the cause of action arose, the court, in order

to procure their attendance, issued in the first instance a

writ called a venire facias, commanding the sheriff or other

officer to whom it was directed, to have twelve good and

lawful men for the neighborhood in court upon a day therein

specified, to try the issue joined between the parties. And

this was accordingly done, and the sheriff had his jury ready

at the place which the court had appointed for its sitting.

But when the Court of Common Pleas was severed from the Curia

Regis, and became stationary at Westminster (a change which

took place in the reign of King John, and was the subject of

one of the provisions of Magna Charta), it was found to be

very inconvenient to be obliged to take juries there from all

parts of the country. And as justices were already in the

habit of making periodical circuits for the purpose of holding

the assize in pleas of land, it was thought advisable to

substitute them for the full court in banc at Westminster, in

other cases also. The statute 13 Edw. I. c. 30, was therefore

passed, which enacted that these justices should try other

issues: 'wherein small examination was required,' or where

both parties desired it, and return the inquests into the

court above. This led to an alteration in the form of the

venire: and instead of the sheriff being simply ordered to

bring the jurors to the courts at Westminster on a day named,

he was now required to bring them there on a certain day,

'nisi prius,' that is, unless before that day the justices of

assize came into his county, in which case the statute

directed him to return the jury, not to the court, but before

the justices of assize."

W. Forsyth,

History of Trial by Jury,

pages 139-140.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1382.

Peaceable Entry.

"This remedy by entry must be pursued according to statute 5

Rich. II., st. I., c. 8, in a peaceable and easy manner; and

not with force or strong hand. For, if one turns or keeps

another out of possession forcibly, this is an injury of both

a civil and a criminal nature. The civil is remedied by an

immediate restitution; which puts the ancient possessor in

statu quo: the criminal injury, or public wrong, by breach of

the king's peace, is punished by fine to the King."

W. Blackstone,

Commentaries,

book 3, page 179.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1383-1403.

Venue to be laid in proper Counties.

"The statutes 6 Rich. II., c. 2, and 4 Hen. IV., c. 18, having

ordered all writs to be laid in their proper counties, this,

as the judges conceived, empowered them to change the venue,

if required, and not to insist rigidly on abating the writ:

which practice began in the reign of James the First. And this

power is discretionally exercised, so as to prevent, and not

to cause, a defect of justice. … And it will sometimes

remove the venue from the proper jurisdiction, … upon a

suggestion, duly supported, that a fair and impartial trial

cannot be had therein."

W. Blackstone,

Commentaries,

book 3, page 294.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1388.

Prohibition against Citation of Roman Law

in Common-law Tribunals.

"In the reign of Edward III. the exactions of the court of

Rome had become odious to the king and the people. Edward,

supported by his Parliament, resisted the payment of the

tribute which his predecessors from the Conquest downwards,

but more particularly from the time of John, had been

accustomed to pay to the court of Rome; … the name of the

Roman Law, which in the reigns of Henry II. and III., and of

Edward I., had been in considerable favor at court, and even

… with the judges, became the object of aversion. In the

reign of Richard II. the barons protested that they would

never suffer the kingdom to be governed by the Roman law, and

the judges prohibited it from being any longer cited in the

common law tribunals."

G. Spence,

Equity Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery,

volume 1, page 346.

{1965}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1436.

Act to prevent interference with Common Law Process.

"In 1436, an act was passed with the concurrence of the

Chancellor, to check the wanton filing of bills in Chancery in

disturbance of common law process. The Commons, after reciting

the prevailing grievance, prayed 'that every person from this

time forward vexed in Chancery for matter determinable by the

common law, have action against him that so vexed him, and

recover his damages.' The King answered, 'that no writ of

subpoena be granted hereafter till security be found to

satisfy the party so vexed and grieved for his damages and

expenses, if it so be that the matter may not be made good

which is contained in the bill.'"

Lord Campbell,

Lives of the Chancellors,

volume I, page 272.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1450 (circa).

Evidence.

Number of Witnesses.

"It is then abundantly plain that by this time [the middle of

the 15th century] witnesses could testify in open court to the

jury. That this was by no means freely done seems also plain.

Furthermore, it is pretty certain that this feature of a jury

trial, in our day so conspicuous and indispensable, was then

but little considered and of small importance."

J. B. Thayer,

Select Cases on Evidence,

page 1071.

ALSO IN:

J. B. Thayer,

The Jury and its Development

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 5, page 360).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1456.

Demurrers to Evidence.

"Very soon, as it seems, after the general practice began of

allowing witnesses to testify to the jury, an interesting

contrivance for eliminating the jury came into existence, the

demurrer upon evidence. Such demurrers, like others, were

demurrers in law; but they had the effect to withdraw from the

jury all consideration of the facts, and, in their pure form,

to submit to the court two questions, of which only the second

was, in strictness, a question of law: (1) Whether a verdict

for the party who gave the evidence could be given, as a

matter of legitimate inference and interpretation from the

evidence; (2) As a matter of law. Of this expedient, I do not

observe any mention earlier than the year 1456, and it is

interesting to notice that we do not trace the full use of

witnesses to the jury much earlier than this."

J. B. Thayer,

Law and Fact in Jury Trials

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 4, page 162).

ALSO IN:

J. B. Thayer,

Select Cases on Evidence,

page 149.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1470.

Evidence.

Competency of Witnesses.

"Fortescue (De Laud. c. 26), who has the earliest account

(about 1470) of witnesses testifying regularly to the jury,

gives no information as to any ground for challenging them.

But Coke, a century and a third later, makes certain

qualifications of the assertion of the older judges, that

'they had not seen witnesses challenged.' He mentions as

grounds of exclusion, legal infamy, being an 'infidel,' of

non-sane memory, 'not of discretion,' a party interested, 'or

the like.' And he says that 'it hath been resolved by the

justices [in 1612] that a wife cannot be produced either

against or for her husband, quia sunt duae animae in carne

una.' He also points out that 'he that challengeth a right in

the thing in demand cannot be a witness.' Here are the

outlines of the subsequent tests for the competency of

witnesses. They were much refined upon, particularly the

excluding ground of interest; and great inconveniences

resulted. At last in the fourth and fifth decades of the

present century, in England, nearly all objections to

competency were abolished, or turned into matters of

privilege."

J. B. Thayer,

Select Cases on Evidence,

p. 1070.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1473.

Barring Entails.

Taltarum's Case.

"The common-law judges at this time were very bold men, having

of their own authority repealed the statute De Donis, passed

in the reign of Edward I., which authorized the perpetual

entail of land,—by deciding in Taltarum's Case, that the

entail might be barred through a fictitious proceeding in the

Court of Common Pleas, called a 'Common Recovery;'—the

estate being adjudged to a sham claimant,—a sham equivalent

being given to those who ought to succeed to it,—and the

tenant in tail being enabled to dispose of it as he pleases,

in spite of the will of the donor."

Lord Campbell,

Lives of the Chancellors,

volume 1, pages 309-310.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1481-1505.

Development of Actions of Assumpsit.

"It is probable that the willingness of equity to give

pecuniary relief upon parol promises hastened the development

of the action of assumpsit. Fairfax, J., in 1481, advised

pleaders to pay more attention to actions on the case, and

thereby diminish the resort to chancery; and Fineux, C. J.,

remarked, in 1505, after that advice had been followed and

sanctioned by the courts, that it was no longer necessary to

sue a subpoena in such cases. Brooke, in his 'Abridgment,'

adds to this remark of Fineux, C. J.: 'But note that he shall

have only damages by this [action on the case], but by

subpoena the chancellor may compel him to execute the estate

or imprison him ut dicitur.'"

J. B. Ames,

Specific Performance of Contracts

(The Green Bag,

volume 1, page 26).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1484.

Statutes to be in English.

"In opening the volumes of our laws, as printed by authority

'from original records and authentic manuscripts,' we are

struck with a change upon the face of these Statutes of

Richard III., which indicates as true a regard for the liberty

of the subjects as the laws themselves. For the first time the

laws to be obeyed by the English people are enacted in the

English tongue."

Charles Knight,

History of England,

volume 2, page 200.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1499 (circa).

Copyright.

"From about the period of the introduction of printing into

this country, that is to say, towards the end of the fifteenth

century, English authors had, in accordance with the opinion

of the best legal authorities, a right to the Copyright in

their works, according to the Common Law of the Realm, or a

right to their 'copy' as it was anciently called, but there is

no direct evidence of the right until 1558. The Charter of the

Stationers' Company, which to this day is charged with the

Registration of Copyright, was granted by Philip and Mary in

1556. The avowed object of this corporation was to prevent the

spread of the Reformation. Then there followed the despotic

jurisdiction of the Star Chamber over the publication of

books, and the Ordinances and the Licensing Act of Charles II.

At the commencement of the 18th century there was no statutory

protection of Copyright. Unrestricted piracy was rife. The

existing remedies of a bill in equity and an action at law

were too cumbrous and expensive to protect the authors' Common

Law rights, and authors petitioned Parliament for speedier and

more effectual remedies. In consequence, the 8 Anne, c. 19,

the first English Statute providing for the protection of

Copyright, was passed in 1710. This Act gave to the author the

sole liberty of publication for 14 years, with a further term

of fourteen years, provided the author was living at the

expiration of the first term, and enacted provisions for the

forfeiture of piratical copies and for the imposition of

penalties in cases of piracy.

{1966}

But in obtaining this Act, the authors placed themselves very

much in the position of the dog in the fable, who dropped the

substance in snatching at the shadow, for, while on the one

hand they obtained the remedial measures they desired, on the

other, the Perpetual Copyright to which they were entitled at

the Common Law was reduced to the fixed maximum term already

mentioned, through the combined operation of the statute and

the judicial decisions to be presently referred to. But

notwithstanding the statute, the Courts continued for some

time to recognise the rights of authors at Common Law, and

numerous injunctions were granted to protect the Copyright in

books, in which the term of protection granted by the statute

of Anne had expired, and which injunctions therefore could

only have been granted on the basis of the Common Law right.

In 1769 judgment was pronounced in the great Copyright case of

Millar v. Taylor. The book in controversy was Thomson's

'Seasons,' in which work the period of Copyright granted by

the statute of Anne had expired, and the question was directly

raised, whether a Perpetual Copyright according to Common Law,

and independent of that statute, remained in the author after

publication. Lord Mansfield, one of the greatest lawyers of

all times, maintained in his judgment that Copyright was

founded on the Common Law, and that it had not been taken away

by the statute of Anne, which was intended merely to give for

a term of years a more complete protection. But, in 1774 this

decision was overruled by the House of Lords in the equally

celebrated pendent case of Donaldson v. Beckett, in which the

Judges consulted were equally divided on the same point, Lord

Mansfield and Sir William Blackstone being amongst those who

were of opinion that the Common Law right had not been taken

away by the statute of Anne. But owing to a point of

etiquette, namely that of being peer as well as one of the

Judges, Lord Mansfield did not express his opinion, and in

consequence, the House of Lords, influenced by a specious

oration from Lord Camden, held (contrary to the opinion of the

above-mentioned illustrious Jurists), that the statute had

taken away all Common Law rights after publication, and hence

that in a published book there was no Copyright except that

given by the statute. This judgment caused great alarm amongst

those who supposed that their Copyright was perpetual. Acts of

Parliament were applied for, and in 1775 the Universities

obtained one protecting their literary property."

T. A. Romer,

Copyright Law Reform

(Law Magazine & Review,

4th ser., volume 12, page 231).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1499.

Action of Ejectment.

"The writ of 'ejectione firmæ' … , out of which the modern

action of ejectment has gradually grown into its present form,

is not of any great antiquity. … The Court of Common Pleas

had exclusive jurisdiction of real actions while ejectment

could be brought in all three of the great common law courts.

… The practitioners in the King's Bench also encouraged

ejectment, for it enabled them to share in the lucrative

practice of the Common Pleas. … In the action of 'ejectione

firmæ,' the plaintiff first only recovered damages, as in any

other action of trespass. … The courts, consequently

following, it is said, in the footsteps of the courts of

equity, … introduced into this action a species of relief

not warranted by the original writ, … viz., a judgment to

recover the term, and a writ of possession thereupon. Possibly

the change was inspired by jealousy of the chancery courts. It

cannot be stated precisely when this change took place. In

1383 it was conceded by the full court that in 'ejectione

firmæ' the plaintiff could no more recover his term than in

trespass he could recover damages for a trespass to be done.

… But in 1468 it was agreed by opposing counsel that the

term could be recovered, as well as damages. The earliest

reported decision to this effect was in 1499, and is referred

to by Mr. Reeves as the most important adjudication rendered

during the reign of Henry VII., for it changed the whole

system of remedies for the trial of controverted titles to

land, and the recovery of real property."

Sedgwick and Wait,

Trial of Title to Land (2nd edition),

sections 12-25.

"Ejectment is the form of action now retained in use in

England under the Statute of 3 and 4 Wm. IV., c. 7, § 36,

which abolished all other forms of real actions except dower.

It is in general use in some form in this country, and by it

the plaintiff recovers, if at all, upon the strength of his

own title, and not upon the weakness of that of the tenant,

since possession is deemed conclusive evidence of title as to

all persons except such as can show a better one."

Washburn,

Real Property (5th edition),

volume 1, page 465.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1504-1542.

Consideration in Contracts.

"To the present writer it seems impossible to refer

consideration to a single source. At the present day it is

doubtless just and expedient to resolve every consideration

into a detriment to the promisee incurred at the request of

the promisor. But this definition of consideration would not

have covered the cases of the 16th century. There were then

two distinct forms of consideration: (1) detriment; (2) a

precedent debt. Of these detriment was the more ancient,

having become established in substance, as early as 1504. On

the other hand no case has been found recognizing the validity

of a promise to pay a precedent debt before 1542. These two

species of consideration, so different in their nature, are,

as would be surmised, of distinct origin. The history of

detriment is bound up with the history of special assumpsit,

whereas the consideration based upon a precedent debt must be

studied in the development of 'indebitatus assumpsit.'"

J. B. Ames,

History of Assumpsit

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 2, pages 1-2).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1520.

The Law of Parol Guaranty.

"It was decided in 1520, that one who sold goods to a third

person on the faith of the defendant's promise that the price

should be paid, might have an action on the case upon the

promise. This decision introduced the whole law of parol

guaranty. Cases in which the plaintiff gave his time or labor

were as much within the principle of the new action as those

in which he parted with property. And this fact was speedily

recognized. In Saint-Germain's book, published in 1531, the

student of law thus defines the liability of a promisor: 'If

he to whom the promise is made have a charge by reason of the

promise, … he shall have an action for that thing that was

promised, though he that made the promise have no worldly

profit by it.' From that day to this a detriment has always

been deemed a valid consideration for a promise if incurred at

the promisor's request."

J. B. Ames,

History of Assumpsit

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 2, page 14).

{1967}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1535.

Statute of Uses.

"Before the passing of the Statute of Uses in the

twenty-seventh year of Henry VIII, attempts had been made to

protect by legislation the interests of creditors, of the

king, and of the lords, which were affected injuriously by

feoffments to uses. … The object of that Statute was by

joining the possession or seisen to the use and interest (or,

in other words, by providing that all the estate which would

by the common law have passed to the grantee to uses should

instantly be taken out of him and vested in 'cestui que use'),

to annihilate altogether the distinction between the legal and

beneficial ownership, to make the ostensible tenant, in every

case also the legal tenant, liable to his lord for feudal dues

and services,—wardship, marriage, and the rest. … By

converting the use into the legal interest the Statute did

away with the power of disposing of interests in lands by

will, which had been one of the most important results of the

introduction of uses. Probably these were the chief results

aimed at by the Statute of Uses. A strange combination of

circumstances—the force of usage by which practices had

arisen too strong even for legislation to do away with,

coupled with an almost superstitious adherence on the part of

the courts to the letter of the statute—produced the curious

result, that the effect of the Statute of Uses was directly

the reverse of its purpose, that by means of it secret

conveyances of the legal estate were introduced, while by a

strained interpretation of its terms the old distinction

between beneficial or equitable and legal ownership was

revived. What may be called the modern law of Real Property

and the highly technical and intricate system of conveyancing

which still prevails, dates from the legislation of Henry

VIII."

Kenelm E. Digby,

History of the Law of Real Property (4th edition),

pages 343-345.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1540-1542.

Testamentary Power.

"The power of disposing by will of land and goods has been of

slow growth in England. The peculiar theories of the English

land system prevented the existence of a testamentary power

over land until it was created by the Statute of Wills (32 &

34 Hen. VIII.) extended by later statutes, and although a

testamentary power over personal property is very ancient in

this country, it was limited at common law by the claims of

the testator's widow and children to their 'reasonable parts'

of his goods. The widow was entitled to one third, or if there

were no children to one half of her husband's personal estate;

and the children to one third, or if there was no widow to one

half of their father's personal estate, and the testator could

only dispose by his will of what remained. Whether the

superior claims of the widow and children existed all over

England or only in some counties by custom is doubted; but …

by Statutes of William and Mary, Will. III. and Geo. I.,

followed by the Wills Act (1 Vict. c. 26), the customs have

been abolished, and a testator's testamentary power now

extends to all his real and personal property."

Stuart C. Macaskie,

The Law of Executors and Administrators,

page 1.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1542.

Liability in Indebitatus Assumpsit on an Express Promise.

"The origin of indebitatus assumpsit may be explained in a few

words: Slade's case [4 Rep., 92a], decided in 1603, is

commonly thought to be the source of this action. But this is

a misapprehension. 'Indebitatus assumpsit' upon an express

promise is at least sixty years older than Slade's case. The

evidence of its existence throughout the last half of the

sixteenth century is conclusive. There is a note by Brooke,

who died in 1558, as follows: 'where one is indebted to me,

and he promises to pay before Michaelmas, I may have an action

of debt on the contract, or an action on the case on the

promise.'"

J. B. Ames,

History of Assumpsit

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 2, page 16).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1557.

Statute of Uses Rendered Nugatory.

"Twenty-two years after the passing of this statute (Mich.

Term 4 & 5 Ph. & M.) the judges by a decision practically

rendered the Statute nugatory by holding that the Statute will

not execute more than one use, and that if there be a second

use declared the Statute will not operate upon it. The effect

of this was to bring again into full operation the equitable

doctrine as to uses in lands."

A. H. Marsh,

History of the Court of Chancery,

pages 122-123.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1580.

Equal Distribution of Property.

"In Holland, all property, both real and personal, of persons

dying intestate, except land held by feudal tenure, was

equally divided among the children, under the provisions of an

act passed by the States in 1580. This act also contained a

further enlightened provision, copied from Rome, and since

adopted in other Continental Countries, which prohibited

parents from disinheriting their children except for certain

specified offences. Under this legal system, it became

customary for parents to divide their property by will equally

among their children, just as the custom of leaving all the

property to the eldest son grew up under the laws of England.

The Puritans who settled New England adopted the idea of the

equal distribution of property, in case there was no

will—giving to the eldest son, however, in some of the

colonies a double portion, according to the Old Testament

injunction,—and thence it has spread over the whole United

States."

D. Campbell,

The Puritan in Holland, England and America,

volume 2, page 452.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1589.

Earliest notice of Contract of Insurance.

"The first notice of the contract of insurance that appears in

the English reports, is a case cited in Coke's Reports [6

Coke's Rep., 47b], and decided in the 31st of Elizabeth; and

the commercial spirit of that age gave birth to the statute of

43rd Elizabeth, passed to give facility to the contract, and

which created the court of policies of assurance, and shows by

its preamble that the business of marine insurance had been in

immemorial use, and actively followed. But the law of

insurance received very little study and cultivation for ages

afterwards; and Mr. Park informs us that there were not forty

cases upon matters of insurance prior to the year 1756, and

even those cases were generally loose nisi prius notes,

containing very little information or claim to authority."

J. Kent,

Commentaries,

part 5, lecture 48.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1592.

A Highwayman as a Chief-Justice.

"In 1592, Elizabeth appointed to the office of Chief-Justice

of England a lawyer, John Popham, who is said to have

occasionally been a highwayman until the age of thirty. At

first blush this seems incredible, but only because such false

notions generally prevail regarding the character of the time.

The fact is that neither piracy nor robbery was considered

particularly discreditable at the court of Elizabeth.

{1968}

The queen knighted Francis Drake for his exploits as a pirate,

and a law on the statute-books, passed in the middle of the

century, gave benefit of clergy to peers of the realm when

convicted of highway robbery. Men may doubt, if they choose,

the stories about Popham, but the testimony of this statute

cannot be disputed."

D. Campbell,

The Puritan in Holland, England and America,

volume 1. page 366.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1650-1700.

Evidence.

"Best Evidence Rule."

"This phrase is an old one. During the latter part of the

seventeenth century and the whole of the eighteenth, while

rules of evidence were forming, the judges and text writers

were in the habit of laying down two principles; namely, (1)

that one must bring the best evidence that he can, and (2)

that if he does this, it is enough. These principles were the

beginning, in the endeavor to give consistency to the system

of evidence before juries. They were never literally

enforced,—they were principles and not exact rules; but for a

long time they afforded a valuable test. As rules of evidence

and exceptions to the rules became more definite, the field

for the application of the general principle of the 'Best

Evidence' was narrower. But it was often resorted to as a

definite rule and test in a manner which was very misleading.

This is still occasionally done, as when we are told in

McKinnon v. Bliss, 21 N. Y, p. 218, that 'it is a universal

rule founded on necessity, that the best evidence of which the

nature of the case admits is always receivable.' Greenleaf's

treatment of this topic (followed by Taylor) is perplexing and

antiquated. A juster conception of it is found in Best, Evid.

s. 88. Always the chief example of the 'Best Evidence'

principle was the rule about proving the contents of a

writing. But the origin of this rule about writings was older

than the 'Best Evidence' principle; and that principle may

well have been a generalization from this rule, which appears

to be traceable to the doctrine of profert. That doctrine

required the actual production of the instrument which was set

up in pleading. In like manner, it was said, in dealing with

the jury, that a jury could not specifically find the contents

of a deed unless it had been exhibited to them in evidence.

And afterwards when the jury came to hear testimony from

witnesses, it was said that witnesses could not undertake to

speak to the contents of a deed without the production of the

deed itself. … Our earliest records show the practice of

exhibiting charters and other writings to the jury."

J. B. Thayer,

Select Cases on Evidence,

page 726.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1600.

Mortgagee's Right to Possession.

"When this country was colonized, about A. D. 1600, the law of

mortgage was perfectly well settled in England. It was

established there that a mortgage, whether by deed upon

condition, by trust deed, or by deed and defeasance, vested

the fee, at law, in the mortgagee, and that the mortgagee,

unless the deed reserved possession to the mortgagor, was

entitled to immediate possession. Theoretically our ancestors

brought this law to America with them. Things ran on until the

Revolution. Mortgages were given in the English form, by deed

on condition, by deed and defeasance, or by trust deed. It was

not customary in Plymouth or Massachusetts Bay, and it is

probable that it was not customary elsewhere, to insert a

provision that the mortgagor, until default in payment, should

retain possession. Theoretically, during the one hundred and

fifty years from the first settlement to the Revolution, the

English rules of law governed all these transactions, and, as

matter of book law, every mortgagee of a house or a farm was

the owner of it, and had the absolute right to take possession

upon the delivery of the deed. But the curious thing about

this is, that the people generally never dreamed that such was

the law."

H. W. Chaplin,

The Story of Mortgage Law

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 4, page 12).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1601-1602.

Malicious Prosecution.

"The modern action for malicious prosecution, represented

formerly by the action for conspiracy, has brought down to our

own time a doctrine which is probably traceable to the

practice of spreading the case fully upon the record, namely,

that what is a reasonable and probable cause for a prosecution

is a question for the court. That it is a question of fact is

confessed, and also that other like questions in similar cases

are given to the jury. Reasons of policy led the old judges to

permit the defendant to state his case fully upon the record,

so as to secure to the court a greater control over the jury

in handling the facts, and to keep what were accounted

questions of law, i. e., questions which it was thought should

be decided by the judges out of the jury's hands. Gawdy, J.,

in such a case, in 1601-2, 'doubted whether it were a plea,

because it amounts to a non culpabilis. … But the other

justices held that it was a good plea, per doubt del lay

gents.' Now that the mode of pleading has changed, the old

rule still holds; being maintained, perhaps, chiefly by the

old reasons of policy."

J. B. Thayer,

Law and Fact in Jury Trials

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 4, page 147).

ALSO IN:

J. B. Thayer,

Select Cases on Evidence,

page 150.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1603.

Earliest reported case of Bills of Exchange.

"The origin and history of Bills of Exchange and other

negotiable instruments are traced by Lord Chief Justice

Cockburn in his judgment in Goodwin v. Robarts [L. R. 10 Ex.,

pages 346-358]. It seems that bills were first brought into

use by the Florentines in the twelfth century. From Italy the

use of them spread to France, and eventually they were

introduced into England. The first English reported case in

which they are mentioned is Martin v. Boure (Cro. Jac. 3),

decided in 1603. At first the use of Bills of Exchange seems

to have been confined to foreign bills between English and

foreign merchants. It was afterwards extended to domestic

bills between traders, and finally to bills of all persons

whether traders or not. The law throughout has been based on

the custom of merchants respecting them; the old form of

declaration on bill used always to state that it was drawn

'secundum usum et consuetudinem mercatorum.'"

M. D. Chalmers,

Bills of Exchange,

page xliv., introduction.

See, also,

MONEY AND BANKING, MEDIÆVAL.

{1969}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1604.

Death Inferred from Long Absence.

"It is not at all modern to infer death from a long absence;

the recent thing is the fixing of a time of seven years, and

putting this into a rule. The faint beginning of it, as a

common-law rule, and one of general application in all

questions of life and death, is found, so far as our recorded

cases show, in Doe d. George v. Jesson (January, 1805). Long

before this time, in 1604, the 'Bigamy Act' of James I. had

exempted from the scope of its provisions, and so from the

situation and punishment of a felon (1) those persons who had

married a second time when the first spouse had been beyond

the seas for seven years, and (2) those whose spouse had been

absent for seven years, although not beyond the seas,—'the

one of them not knowing the other to be living within that

time.' This statute did not treat matters altogether as if the

absent party were dead; it did not validate the second

marriage in either case. It simply exempted a party from the

statutory penalty."

J. B. Thayer,

Presumptions and the Law of Evidence

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 3, page 151).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1609.

First Recognition of Right to Sue for Quantum Meruit.

"There seems to have been no recognition of the right to sue

upon an implied 'quantum meruit' before 1609. The innkeeper

was the first to profit by the innovation. Reciprocity

demanded that, if the law imposed a duty upon the innkeeper to

receive and keep safely, it should also imply a promise on the

part of the guest to pay what was reasonable. The tailor was

in the same case with the innkeeper, and his right to recover

upon a quantum meruit was recognized in 1610.". [Six

Carpenters' Case, 8 Rep., 147a.]

J. B. Ames,

History of Assumpsit

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 2, page 58).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1623.

Liability of Gratuitous Bailee to be Charged in Assumpsit,

established.

"The earliest attempt to charge bailees in assumpsit were made

when the bailment was gratuitous. These attempts, just before

and after 1600, were unsuccessful, because the plaintiffs

could not make out any consideration. The gratuitous bailment

was, of course, not a benefit, but a burden to the defendant;

and, on the other hand, it was not regarded as a detriment,

but an advantage to the plaintiff. But in 1623 it was finally

decided, not without a great straining, it must be conceded,

of the doctrine of consideration, that a bailee might be

charged in assumpsit on a gratuitous bailment."

J. B. Ames,

History of Assumpsit

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 2, page 6,

citing Wheatley v. Low, Palm., 281; Cro. Jac. 668).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1625 (circa).

Experiment in Legislation.

Limitation in time.

"The distinction between temporary and permanent Legislation

is a very old one." It was a distinction expressed at Athens;

but "we have no such variety of name. All are alike Acts of

Parliament. Acts in the nature of new departures in the Law of

an important kind are frequently limited in time, very often

with a view of gaining experience as to the practical working

of a new system before the Legislature commits itself to final

legislation on the subject, sometimes, no doubt, by way of

compromise with the Opposition, objecting to the passing of

such a measure at all. Limitation in time often occurs in old

Acts. Instances are the first Act of the first Parliament of

Charles I. (1 Car. 1., c. 1), forbidding certain sports and

pastimes on Sunday, and permitting others. The Book of Sports

of James I. had prepared the mind of the people for that more

liberal observance of Sunday which had been so offensive to

the Puritans of Elizabeth's reign, but it had not been down to

that time acknowledged by the Legislature. This was now done

in 1625, the Act was passed for the then Parliament, continued

from time to time, and finally (the experiment having

apparently succeeded) made perpetual in 1641. Another instance

is the Music Hall Act of 1752 passed it is said on the advice

of Henry Fielding, in consequence of the disorderly state of

the music halls of the period, and perhaps still more on

account of the Jacobite songs sometimes sung at such places.

It was passed for three years, and, having apparently put an

end to local disaffection, was made perpetual in 1755. Modern

instances are the Ballot Act, 1872, passed originally for

eight years, and now annually continued, the Regulation of

Railways Act, 1873, creating a new tribunal, the Railway

Commission, passed originally for five years, and annually

continued until made perpetual by the Railway and Canal

Traffic Act, 1888; the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, a new

departure in Social Legislation, expiring on the 31st

December, 1887, and since annually continued; and the Shop

Hours Regulation Act, 1886, a similar departure, expiring in

1888, and continued for the present Session. … (2) Place.

—It is in this respect that the Experimental method of

Parliament is most conspicuous. A law is enacted binding only

locally, and is sometimes extended to the whole or a part of

the realm, sometimes not. The old Statute of Circumspecte

Agatis (13 Edw. I., stat. 4) passed in 1285 is one of the

earliest examples. The point of importance in it is that it

was addressed only to the Bishop of Norwich, but afterwards

seems to have been tacitly admitted as law in the case of all

dioceses, having probably been found to have worked well at

Norwich. It was not unlike the Rescripts of the Roman

emperors, which, primarily addressed to an individual,

afterwards became precedents of general law."

James William

(Law Magazine & Review, London 1888-9),

4th ser., volume 14, page 306.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1630-1641.

Public Registry.

"When now we look to the United States, we find no difficulty

in tracing the history of the institution on this side of the

Atlantic. The first settlers of New York coming from Holland,

brought it with them. In 1636, the Pilgrims of Plymouth,

coming also from Holland, passed a law requiring that for the

prevention of frauds, all conveyances, including mortgages and

leases, should be recorded. Connecticut followed in 1639, the

Puritans of Massachusetts in 1641; Penn, of course, introduced

it into Pennsylvania. Subsequently every State of the Union

established substantially the same system."

D. Campbell,

The Puritan in Holland, England and America,

volume 2, page 463.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1650 (circa).

Law regarded as a Luxury.

"Of all the reforms needed in England, that of the law was

perhaps the most urgent. In the general features of its

administration the system had been little changed since the

days of the first Edward. As to its details, a mass of abuses

had grown up which made the name of justice nothing but a

mockery. Twenty thousand cases, it was said, stood for

judgment in the Court of Chancery, some of them ten, twenty,

thirty years old. In all the courts the judges held their

positions at the pleasure of the crown. They and their clerks,

the marshals, and the sheriffs exacted exorbitant fees for

every service, and on their cause-list gave the preference to

the suitor with the longest purse. Legal documents were

written in a barbarous jargon which none but the initiated

could understand.

{1970}

The lawyers, for centuries, had exercised their ingenuity in

perfecting a system of pleading, the main object of which

seems to have been to augment their charges, while burying the

merits of a cause under a tangle of technicalities which would

secure them from disentombment. The result was that law had

become a luxury for the rich alone."

D. Campbell,

The Puritan in Holland, England and America,

volume 2, pages 383-384.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1657.

Perhaps the first Indebitatus Assumpsit for Money paid to

Defendant by Mistake.

"One who received money from another to be applied in a

particular way was bound to give an account of his

stewardship. If he fulfilled his commission, a plea to that

effect would be a valid discharge. If he failed for any reason

to apply the money in the mode directed, the auditors would

find that the amount received was due to the plaintiff, who

would have a judgment for its recovery. If, for example, the

money was to be applied in payment of a debt erroneously

supposed to be due from the plaintiff to the defendant, …

the intended application of the money being impossible, the

plaintiff would recover the money in Account. Debt would also

lie in such cases. … By means of a fiction of a promise

implied in law 'Indebitatus Assumpsit' because concurrent with

Debt, and thus was established the familiar action of

Assumpsit for money had and received to recover money paid to

the defendant by mistake. Bonnel v. Fowke (1657) is, perhaps,

the first action of the kind."

J. B. Ames,

History of Assumpsit

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 2, page 66).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1670.

Personal Knowledge of Jurors.

"The jury were still required to come from the neighborhood

where the fact they had to try was supposed to have happened;

and this explains the origin of the venue (vicintum), which

appears in all indictments and declarations at the present

day. It points out the place from which the jury must be

summoned. … And it was said by the Court of Common Pleas in

Bushell's case (A. D. 1670), that the jury being returned from

the vicinage whence the cause of action arises, the law

supposes them to have sufficient knowledge to try the matters

in issue, 'and so they must, though no evidence were given on

either side in court';—and the case is put of an action upon

a bond to which the defendant pleads solvit ad diem, but

offers no proof:—where, the court said 'the jury is directed

to find for the plaintiff, unless they know payment was made

of their own knowledge, according to the plea.' This is the

meaning of the old legal doctrine, which is at first sight

somewhat startling, that the evidence in court is not binding

evidence to a jury. Therefore acting upon their own knowledge,

they were at liberty to give a verdict in direct opposition to

the evidence, if they so thought fit."

W. Forsyth,

Trial by Jury,

pages 134-136.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1678.

The Statute of Frauds.

"During Lord Nottingham's period of office, and partly in

consequence of his advice, the Statute of Frauds was passed.

Its main provisions are directed against the enforcement of

verbal contracts, the validity of verbal conveyances of

interests in land, the creation of trusts of lands without

writing, and the allowance of nuncupative wills. It also made

equitable interests in lands subject to the owner's debts to

the same extent as legal interests were. The statute carried

into legislative effect principles which had, so far back as

the time of Bacon's orders, been approved by the Court of

Chancery, and by its operation in the common law courts it

must often have obviated the necessity for equitable

interference. In modern times it has not infrequently been

decried, especially so far as it restricts the verbal proof of

contracts, but in estimating its value and operation at the

time it became a law it must be remembered that the evidence

of the parties to an action at law could not then be received,

and the Defendant might have been charged upon the

uncorroborated statement of a single witness which he was not

allowed to contradict, as Lord Eldon argued many years

afterwards, when the action upon the case for fraud was

introduced at law. It was therefore a most reasonable

precaution, while this unreasonable rule continued, to lay

down that the Defendant should be charged only upon writing

signed by him."

D. M. Kerly,

History of Equity,

page 170.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1680.

Habeas Corpus and Personal Liberty.

"The language of the great charter is, that no freeman shall

be taken or imprisoned but by the lawful judgment of his

equals, or by the law of the land. And many subsequent old

statutes expressly direct, that no man shall be taken or

imprisoned by suggestion or petition to the king or his

council, unless it be by legal indictment, or the process of

the common-law. By the petition of right, 3 Car. I., it is

enacted, that no freeman shall be imprisoned or detained

without cause shown. … By 16 Car. I., c. 10, if any person

be restrained of his liberty … , he shall, upon demand of

his counsel, have a writ of habeas corpus, to bring his body

before the court of king's bench or common pleas, who shall

determine whether the cause of his commitment be just. … And

by 31 Car. II., c. 2, commonly called the habeas corpus act,

the methods of obtaining this writ are so plainly pointed out

and enforced, that, … no subject of England can be long

detained in prison, except in those cases in which the law

requires and justifies such detainer. And, … it is declared

by 1 W. and M. St. 2, c. 2, that excessive bail ought not be

required."

W. Blackstone,

Commentaries, I., 135.

J. Kent,

Commentaries,

part 4, lecture 24.

For the text of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679

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

A. D. 1683-1771.

Subsequent Birth of a Child revokes a Will.

"The first case that recognized the rule that the subsequent

birth of a child was a revocation of a will of personal

property, was decided by the court of delegates, upon appeal,

in the reign of Charles II.; and it was grounded upon the law

of the civilians [Overbury v. Overbury, 2 Show Rep., 253]. …

The rule was applied in chancery to a devise of real estate,

in Brown v. Thompson [I Ld. Raym. 441]; but it was received

with doubt by Lord Hardwicke and Lord Northington. The

distinction between a will of real and personal estate could

not well be supported; and Lord Mansfield declared, that he

saw no ground for a distinction. The great point was finally

and solemnly settled, in 1771, by the court of exchequer, in

Christopher v. Christopher [Dicken's Rep. 445], that marriage

and a child, were a revocation of a will of land."

J. Kent,

Commentaries,

part 6, lecture 68.

{1971}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1688.

Dividing Line between Old and New Law.

The dividing line between the ancient and the modern English

reports may, for the sake of convenient arrangement, be placed

at the revolution in the year 1688. "The distinction between

the old and new law seems then to be more distinctly marked.

The cumbersome and oppressive appendages of the feudal tenures

were abolished in the reign of Charles II., and the spirit of

modern improvement, … began then to be more sensibly felt,

and more actively diffused. The appointment of that great and

honest lawyer, Lord Holt, to the station of chief justice of

the King's Bench, gave a new tone and impulse to the vigour of

the common law."

J. Kent,

Commentaries,

part 3, lecture 21.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1689.

First instance of an Action sustained for Damages for a Breach

of Promise to Account.

"It is worthy of observation that while the obligation to

account is created by law, yet the privity without which such

an obligation cannot exist is, as a rule, created by the

parties to the obligation. … Such then being the facts from

which the law will raise an obligation to account, the next

question is, How can such an obligation be enforced, or, what

is the remedy upon such an obligation? It is obvious that the

only adequate remedy is specific performance, or at least

specific reparation. An action on the case to recover damages

for a breach of the obligation, even if such an action would

lie, would be clearly inadequate, as it would involve the

necessity of investigating all the items of the account for

the purpose of ascertaining the amount of the damages, and

that a jury is not competent to do. In truth, however, such an

action will not lie. If, indeed, there be an actual promise to

account, either an express or implied in fact, an action will

lie for the breach of that promise; but as such a promise is

entirely collateral to the obligation to account, and as

therefore a recovery on the promise would be no bar to an

action on the obligation, it would seem that nominal damages

only could be recovered in an action on the promise, or at the

most only such special damages as the plaintiff had suffered

by the breach of the promise. Besides the first instance in

which an action on such a promise was sustained was as late as

the time of Lord Holt [Wilkyns v. Wilkyns, Carth. 89], while

the obligation to account has existed and been recognized from

early times."

C. C. Langdell,

A Brief Survey of Equity Jurisdiction

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 2, pages 250-251).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1689-1710.

Lord Holt and the Law of Bailments.

"The most celebrated case which he decided in this department

was that of Coggs v. Bernard, in which the question arose,

'whether, if a person promises without reward to take care of

goods, he is answerable if they are lost or damaged by his

negligence?' In a short compass he expounded with admirable

clearness and accuracy the whole law of bailment, or the

liability of the person to whom goods are delivered for

different purposes on behalf of the owner; availing himself of

his knowledge of the Roman civil Jaw, of which most English

lawyers were as ignorant as of the Institutes of Menu. … He

then elaborately goes over the six sorts of bailment, showing

the exact degree of care required on the part of the bailee in

each, with the corresponding degree of negligence, which will

give a right of action to the bailor. In the last he shows

that, in consideration of the trust, there is an implied

promise to take ordinary care; so that, although there be no

reward, for a loss arising from gross negligence the bailee is

liable to the bailor for the value of the goods. Sir William

Jones is contented that his own masterly 'Essay on the Law of

Bailment' shall be considered merely as a commentary upon this

judgment; and Professor Story, in his 'Commentaries on the Law

of Bailments,' represents it as 'a prodigious effort to

arrange the principles by which the subject is regulated in a

scientific order.'"

Lord Campbell,

Lives of the Chief Justices,

volume 2, pages 113-114.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1703.

Implied Promises recognized.

"The value of the discovery of the implied promise in fact was

exemplified … in the case of a parol submission to an award.

If the arbitrators awarded the payment of a sum of money, the

money was recoverable in debt, since an award, after the

analogy of a judgment, created a debt. But if the award was

for the performance of a collateral act, … there was,

originally, no mode of compelling compliance with the award,

unless the parties expressly promised to abide by the decision

of the arbitrators. Tilford v. French (1663) is a case in

point. So, also, seven years later, 'it was said by Twisden,

J., [Anon., 1 Vent. 69], that if two submit to an award, this

contains not a reciprocal promise to perform; but there must

be an express promise to ground an action upon it.' This

doctrine was abandoned by the time of Lord Holt, who, …

said: 'But the contrary has been held since; for if two men

submit to the award of a third person, they do also thereby

promise expressly to abide by his determination, for agreeing

to refer is a promise in itself.'"

J. B. Ames,

History of Assumpsit

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 2, page 62).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1706.

Dilatory Pleas.

"Pleas to the jurisdiction, to the disability, or in

abatement, were formerly very often used as mere dilatory

pleas, without any foundation of truth, and calculated only

for delay; but now by statute 4 and 5 Ann., c. 16, no dilatory

plea is to be admitted, without affidavit made of the truth

thereof, or some probable matter shown to the court to induce

them to believe it true."

W. Blackstone,

Commentaries,

book 3, page 302.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1710.

Joint Stock Companies: Bubble Act.

"The most complicated, as well as the most modern, branch of

the law of artificial persons relates to those which are

formed for purposes of trade. They are a natural accompaniment

of the extension of commerce. An ordinary partnership lacks

the coherence which is required for great undertakings. Its

partners may withdraw from it, taking their capital with them,

and the 'firm' having as such no legal recognition, a contract

made with it could be sued upon, according to the common law

of England, only in an action in which the whole list of

partners were made plaintiffs or defendants. In order to

remedy the first of these inconveniences, partnerships were

formed upon the principle of a joint-stock, the capital

invested in which must remain at a fixed amount, although the

shares into which it is divided may pass from hand to hand.

This device did not however obviate the difficulty in suing,

nor did it relieve the partners, past and present, from

liability for debts in excess of their, past or present,

shares in the concern.

{1972}

In the interest not only of the share-partners, but also of

the public with which they had dealings, it was desirable to

discourage the formation of such associations; and the

formation of joint-stock partnerships, except such as were

incorporated by royal charter, was accordingly, for a time,

prohibited in England by the 'Bubble Act,' 6 Geo. I, c. 18. An

incorporated trading company, in accordance with the ordinary

principles regulating artificial persons, consists of a

definite amount of capital to which alone creditors of the

company can look for the satisfaction of their demands,

divided into shares held by a number of individuals who,

though they participate in the profits of the concern, in

proportion to the number of shares held by each, incur no

personal liability in respect of its losses. An artificial

person of this sort is now recognized under most systems of

law. It can be formed, as a rule, only with the consent of the

sovereign power, and is described as a 'societe,' or

'compagnie,' 'anonyme,' an 'Actiengesellschaft,' or

'joint-stock company limited.' A less pure form of such a

corporation is a company the shareholders in which incur an

unlimited personal liability. There is also a form resembling

a partnership 'en commandite,' in which the liability of some

of the shareholders is limited by their shares, while that of

others is unlimited. Subject to some exceptions, any seven

partners in a trading concern may, and partners whose number

exceeds twenty must, according to English law, become

incorporated by registration under the Companies Acts, with

either limited or unlimited liability as they may determine at

the time of incorporation."

Thomas Erskine Holland,

Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,

page 298.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1711.

Voluntary Restraint of Trade.

"The judicial construction of Magna Charta is illustrated in

the great case of Mitchell v. Reynolds (1 P. W., 181), still

the leading authority upon the doctrine of voluntary restraint

of trade, though decided in 1711, when modern mercantile law

was in its infancy. The Court (Chief Justice Parker),

distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary restraints of

trade, says as to involuntary restraints: 'The first reason

why such of these, as are created by grant and charter from

the crown and by-laws generally are void, is drawn from the

encouragement which the law gives to trade and honest

industry, and that they are contrary to the liberty of the

subject. Second, another reason is drawn from Magna Charta,

which is infringed by these acts of power. That statute says:

Nullus liber homo, etc., disseizetur de libero tenemento, vel

libertatibus vel liberis consuetudinibus suis, etc.; and these

words have been always taken to extend to freedom of trade.'"

Frederick N. Judson,

14 American Bar Association Report,

page 236.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1730.

Special Juries.

"The first statutory recognition of their existence occurs so

late as in the Act 3 Geo. II., ch. 25. But the principle seems

to have been admitted in early times. We find in the year 1450

(29 Hen. VI.) a petition for a special jury. … The statute

of George II. speaks of special juries as already well known,

and it declares and enacts that the courts at Westminster

shall, upon motion made by any plaintiff, prosecutor, or

defendant, order and appoint a jury to be struck before the

proper officer of the court where the cause is depending, 'in

such manner as special juries have been and are usually struck

in such courts respectively upon trials at bar had in the said

courts.'"

W. Forsyth,

Trial by Jury,

pages 143-144.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1730.

Written Pleadings to be in English.

"There was one great improvement in law proceedings which,

while he [Lord King] held the Great Seal, he at last

accomplished. From very ancient times the written pleadings,

both in criminal and civil suits, were, or rather professed to

be, in the Latin tongue, and while the jargon employed would

have been very perplexing to a Roman of the Augustan Age, it

was wholly unintelligible to the persons whose life, property,

and fame were at stake. This absurdity had been corrected in

the time of the Commonwealth, but along with many others so

corrected, had been reintroduced at the Restoration, and had

prevailed during five succeeding reigns. The attention of the

public was now attracted to it by a petition from the

magistracy of the North Riding of the county of York,

representing the evils of the old law language being retained

in legal process and proceedings, and praying for the

substitution of the native tongue. The bill, by the

Chancellor's direction, was introduced in the House of

Commons, and it passed there without much difficulty. In the

Lords it was fully explained and ably supported by the Lord

Chancellor, but it experienced considerable opposition. …

Amidst heavy forebodings of future mischief the bill passed,

and mankind are now astonished that so obvious a reform should

have been so long deferred."

Lord Campbell,

Lives of the Chancellors,

volume 4, page 504.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1739-1744.

Oath according to one's Religion.

"Lord Hardwick established the rule that persons, though not

Christians, if they believe in a divinity, may be sworn

according to the ceremonies of their religion, and that the

evidence given by them so sworn is admissible in courts of

justice, as if, being Christians, they had been sworn upon the

Evangelists. This subject first came before him in

Ramkissenseat v. Barker, where, in a suit for an account

against the representatives of an East India Governor, the

plea being overruled that the plaintiff was an alien infidel,

a cross bill was filed, and an objection being made that he

could only be sworn in the usual form, a motion was made that

the words in the commission, 'on the holy Evangelists,' should

be omitted, and that the commissioners should be directed to

administer an oath to him in the manner most binding on his

conscience. … The point was afterwards finally settled in

the great case of Omychund v. Barker, where a similar

commission to examine witnesses having issued, the

Commissioners certified 'That they had sworn the witnesses

examined under it in the presence of Brahmin or priest of the

Gentoo religion, and that each witness touched the hand of the

Brahmin,—this being the most solemn form in which oaths are

administered to witnesses professing the Gentoo religion.'

Objection was made that the deposition so taken could not be

read in evidence; and on account of the magnitude of the

question, the Lord Chancellor called in the assistance of the

three chiefs of the common law Courts.—After a very long,

learned, and ingenious argument, which may be perused with

pleasure, they concurred in the opinion that the depositions

were admissible."

Lord Campbell,

Lives of the Chancellors,

volume 5, pages 69-70.

{1973}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1750.

Dale v. Hall, I Wits., 281, understood to be the first

reported case of an action of special assumpsit sustained

against a common carrier, on his implied contract.

"Assumpsit, … was allowed, in the time of Charles I., in

competition with Detinue and Case against a bailee for

custody. At a later period Lord Holt suggested that one might

'turn an action against a common carrier into a special

assumpsit (which the law implies) in respect of his hire.'

Dale v. Hall (1750) is understood to have been the first

reported case in which that suggestion was followed."

J. B. Ames,

History of Assumpsit

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 2, page 63).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1750-1800.

Demurrer to Evidence.

"Near the end of the last century demurrers upon evidence were

rendered useless in England, by the decision in the case of

Gibson v. Hunter (carrying down with it another great case,

that of Lickbarrow v. Mason, which, like the former, had come

up to the Lords upon this sort of demurrer), that the party

demurring must specify upon the record the facts which he

admits. That the rule was a new one is fairly plain from the

case of Cocksedge v. Fanshawe, ten years earlier. It was not

always followed in this country, but the fact that it was

really a novelty was sometimes not understood."

J. B. Thayer,

Law and Fact in Jury Trials

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 4, page 147).

ALSO IN:

J. B. Thayer,

Select Cases on Evidence,

page 149.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1756-1788.

Lord Mansfield and Commercial Law.

"In the reign of Geo. II., England had grown into the greatest

manufacturing and commercial country in the world, while her

jurisprudence had by no means been expanded or developed in

the same proportion. … Hence, when questions necessarily

arose respecting the buying and selling of goods,—respecting

the affreightment of ships,—respecting marine

insurances,—and respecting bills of exchange and promissory

notes, no one knew how they were to be determined. …

Mercantile questions were so ignorantly treated when they came

into Westminster Hall, that they were usually settled by

private arbitration among the merchants themselves. If an

action turning upon a mercantile question was brought in a

court of law, the judge submitted it to the jury, who

determined it according to their own notions of what was fair,

and no general rule was laid down which could afterwards be

referred to for the purpose of settling similar disputes. …

When he [Lord Mansfield] had ceased to preside in the Court of

King's Bench, and had retired to enjoy the retrospect of his

labors, he read the following just eulogy bestowed upon them

by Mr. Justice Buller, in giving judgment in the important

case of Lickbarrow v. Mason, respecting the effect of the

indorsement of a bill of lading:—'Within these thirty years

the commercial law of this country has taken a very different

turn from what it did before. Lord Hardwicke himself was

proceeding with great caution; not establishing any general

principle, but decreeing on all the circumstances put

together. Before that period we find that, in courts of law,

all the evidence in mercantile cases was thrown together; they

were left generally to a jury; and they produced no general

principle. From that time, we all know, the great study has

been to find some certain general principle, which shall be

known to all mankind, not only to rule the particular case

then under consideration, but to serve as a guide for the

future. Most of us have heard these principles stated,

reasoned upon, enlarged, and explained, till we have been lost

in admiration at the strength and stretch of the

understanding. And I should be very sorry to find myself under

a necessity of differing from any case upon this subject which

has been decided by Lord Mansfield, who may be truly said to

be the founder of the commercial law of this country.' …

With regard to bills of exchange and promissory notes, Lord

Mansfield first promulgated many rules that now appear to us

to be as certain as those which guide the planets in their

orbits. For example, it was till then uncertain whether the

second indorser of a bill of exchange could sue his immediate

indorser without having previously demanded payment from the

drawer. … He goes on to explain [in Heylyn v. Adamson, 2

Burr., 669], … that the maker of a promissory note is in the

same situation as the acceptor of a bill of exchange, and that

in suing the indorser of the note it is necessary to allege

and to prove a demand on the maker. … Lord Mansfield had

likewise to determine that the indorser of a bill of exchange

is discharged if he receives no notice of there having been a

refusal to accept by the drawee (Blesard v. Herst, 6 Burr.,

2670); and that reasonable time for giving notice of the

dishonor of a bill or note is to be determined by the Court as

matter of law, and is not to be left to the jury as matter of

fact, they being governed by the circumstances of each

particular case. (Tindal v. Brown, 1 Term. Rep., 167.) It

seems strange to us how the world could go on when such

questions of hourly occurrence, were unsettled. … There is

another contract of infinite importance to a maritime people.

… I mean that between ship-owners and merchants for the

hiring of ships and carriage of goods. … Till his time, the

rights and liabilities of these parties had remained undecided

upon the contingency, not unlikely to arise, of the ship being

wrecked during the voyage, and the goods being saved and

delivered to the consignee at an intermediate port. Lord

Mansfield settled that freight is due pro rata itineris—in

proportion to the part of the voyage performed. … Lord

Mansfield's familiarity with the general principles of ethics,

… availed him on all occasions when he had to determine on

the proper construction and just fulfilment of contracts. The

question having arisen, for the first time, whether the seller

of goods by auction, with the declared condition that they

shall be sold to 'the highest bidder,' may employ a

'puffer,'—an agent to raise the price by bidding,—he thus

expressed himself: [Bexwell v. Christie, Cowp., 395] '… The

basis of all dealings ought to be good faith; so more

especially in these transactions, where the public are brought

together upon a confidence that the articles set up to sale

will be disposed of to the highest real bidder. That can never

be the case if the owner may secretly enhance the price by a

person employed for that purpose. … I cannot listen to the

argument that it is a common practice, … the owner violates

his contract with the public if, by himself or his agent, he

bids upon his goods, and no subsequent bidder is bound to take

the goods at the price at which they are knocked down to

him.'"

Lord Campbell,

Lives of the Chief Justices,

volume 2, pages 308-314.

{1974}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1760.

Judicial Independence.

"A glance into the pages of the Judges of England, by

Foss, will show with what ruthless vigour the Stuarts

exercised their prerogative of dismissing Judges whose

decisions were displeasing to the court. Even after the

Revolution, the prerogative of dismissal, which was supposed

to keep the Judges dependent on the Crown, was jealously

defended. When in 1692 a Bill passed both Houses of

Parliament, establishing the independence of Judges by law,

and confirming their salaries, William III. withheld his Royal

assent. Bishop Burnet says, with reference to this exercise of

the Veto, that it was represented to the King by some of the

Judges themselves, that it was not fit that they should be out

of all dependence on the Court. When the Act of Settlement

secured that no Judge should be dismissed from office, except

in consequence of a conviction for some offence, or the

address of both Houses of Parliament, the Royal jealousy of

the measure is seen by the promise under which that

arrangement was not to take effect till the deaths of William

III. and of Anne, and the failure of their issue respectively,

in other words, till the accession of the House of Hanover. It

was not till the reign of George III. that the Commissions of

the Judges ceased to be void on the demise of the Crown."

J. G. S. MacNeill,

Law Magazine and Review, 4th series,

volume 16 (1890-91), page 202.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1760.

Stolen Bank Notes the Property of a Bona Fide Purchaser.

"The law of bills of exchange owes much of its scientific and

liberal character to the wisdom of the great jurist, Lord

Mansfield. Sixteen years before the American Revolution, he

held that bank notes, though stolen, become the property of

the person to whom they are bona fide delivered for value

without knowledge of the larceny. This principle is later

affirmed again and again as necessary to the preservation of

the circulation of all the paper in the country, and with it

all its commerce. Later there was a departure from this

principle in the noted English case of Gill v. Cubitt, in

which it was held that if the holder for value took it under

circumstances which ought to have excited the suspicion of a

prudent and careful man, he could not recover. This case

annoyed courts and innocent holders for years, until it was

sat upon, kicked, cuffed, and overruled, and the old doctrine

of 1760 re-established, which is now the undisputed and

settled law of England and this country."

Wm. A. McClean,

Negotiable Paper

(The Green Bag, volume 5, page 86).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1768.

Only one Business Corporation Chartered in this Country before

the Declaration of Independence.

"Pennsylvania is entitled to the honor of having chartered the

first business corporation in this country, 'The Philadelphia

Contributionship for Insuring Houses from Loss by Fire.' It

was a mutual insurance company, first organized in 1752, but

not chartered until 1768. It was the only business corporation

whose charter antedated the Declaration of Independence. The

next in order of time were: 'The Bank of North America,'

chartered by Congress in 1781 and, the original charter having

been repealed in 1785, by Pennsylvania in 1787; 'The

Massachusetts Bank,' chartered in 1784; 'The Proprietors of

Charles River Bridge,' in 1785; 'The Mutual Assurance Company'

(Philadelphia), in 1786; 'The Associated Manufacturing Iron

Co.' (N. Y.), in 1786. These were the only joint-stock

business corporations chartered in America before 1787. After

that time the number rapidly increased, especially in

Massachusetts. Before the close of the century there were

created in that State about fifty such bodies, at least half

of them turn-pike and bridge companies. In the remaining

States combined, there were perhaps as many more. There was no

great variety in the purposes for which these early companies

were formed. Insurance, banking, turn-pike roads,

toll-bridges, canals, and, to a limited extent, manufacturing

were the enterprises which they carried on."

S. Williston,

History of the Law of Business Corporations before 1800

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 2, pp. 165-166).

A. D. 1776.

Ultimate property in land.

"When, by the Revolution, the Colony of New York became

separated from the Crown of Great Britain, and a republican

government was formed, The People succeeded the King in the

ownership of all lands within the State which had not already

been granted away, and they became from thenceforth the source

of all private titles."

Judge Comstock,

People v. Rector, etc., of Trinity Church,

22 N. Y., 44-46.

"It is held that only such parts of the common law as, with

the acts of the colony in force on April 19, 1775, formed part

of the law of the Colony on that day, were adopted by the

State; and only such parts of the common and statute law of

England were brought by the colonists with them as suited

their condition, or were applicable to their situation. Such

general laws thereupon became the laws of the Colony until

altered by common consent, or by legislative enactment. The

principles and rules of the common law as applicable to this

country are held subject to modification and change, according

to the circumstances and condition of the people and

government here. … By the English common law, the King was

the paramount proprietor and source of all title to all land

within his dominion, and it was considered to be held

mediately or immediately of him. After the independence of the

United States, the title to land formerly possessed by the

English Crown in this country passed to the People of the

different States where the land lay, by virtue of the change

of nationality and of the treaties made. The allegiance

formerly due, also, from the people of this country to Great

Britain was transferred, by the Revolution, to the governments

of the States."

James Gerard,

Titles to Real Estate (3rd edition),

pages 26 and 5.

"Hence the rule naturally follows, that no person can, by any

possible arrangement, become invested with the absolute

ownership of land. But as that ownership must be vested

somewhere, or great confusion, if not disturbance, might

result, it has, therefore, become an accepted rule of public

law that the absolute and ultimate right of property shall be

regarded as vested in the sovereign or corporate power of the

State where the land lies. This corporate power has been

naturally and appropriately selected for that purpose, because

it is the only one which is certain to survive the generations

of men as they pass away. Wherever that sovereign power is

represented by an individual, as in England, there the

absolute right of property to all land in the kingdom is

vested in that individual whoever succeeds to the sovereignty,

succeeds to that right of property and holds it in trust for

the nation.

{1975}

In this country, where the only sovereignty recognized in

regard to real property, is represented by the State in its

corporate capacity, that absolute right of property is vested

in the State."

Anson Bingham,

Law of Real Property,

page 3.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1778.

First Instance of Assumpsit upon a Vendor's Warranty.

"A vendor who gives a false warranty may be charged to-day, of

course, in contract; but the conception of such a warranty, as

a contract is quite modern. Stuart v. Wilkens [3 Doug., 18],

decided in 1778, is said to have been the first instance of an

action of assumpsit upon a vendor's warranty."

J. B. Ames,

History of Assumpsit

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 2, page 8).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1783.

Lord Mansfield laid foundation of Law of Trade-Marks.

"The symbolism of commerce, conventionally called

'trade-marks,' is, according to Mr. Browne, in his excellent

work on trade-marks, as old as commerce itself. The Egyptians,

the Chinese, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, all used

various marks or signs to distinguish their goods and

handiwork. The right to protection in such marks has come to

be recognized throughout the civilized world. It is, however,

during the last seventy or eighty years that the present

system of jurisprudence has been built up. In 1742 Lord

Hardwick refused an injunction to restrain the use of the

Great Mogul stamp on cards. In 1783 Lord Mansfield laid the

foundation of the law of trade-marks as at present developed,

and in 1816, in the case of Day v. Day, the defendant was

enjoined from infringing the plaintiff's blacking label. From

that time to the present day there have arisen a multitude of

cases, and the theory of the law of trade-marks proper may be

considered as pretty clearly expounded. In 1875 the

Trade-marks Registration Act provided for the registration of

trade-marks, and defined what could in future properly be a

trade-mark. In this country the Act of 1870, corrected by the

Act of 1881, provided for the registration of trade-marks. The

underlying principle of the law of trade-marks is that of

preventing one man from acquiring the reputation of another by

fraudulent means, and of preventing fraud upon the public; in

other words, the application of the broad principles of

equity."

Grafton D. Cushing,

Cases Analogous to Trade-marks

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 4, page 321).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1790.

Stoppage in Transitu, and Rights of Third Person

under a Bill of Lading.

"Lord Loughborough's most elaborate common law judgment was in

the case of Lichbarrow v. Mason, when he presided in the court

of Exchequer Chamber, on a writ of error from the Court of

King's Bench. The question was one of infinite importance to

commerce—'Whether the right of the unpaid seller of goods to

stop them while they are on their way to a purchaser who has

become insolvent, is divested by an intermediate sale to a

third person, through the indorsement of the bill of lading,

for a valuable consideration?' He concluded by saying:—'From

a review of all the cases it does not appear that there has

ever been a decision against the legal right of the consignor

to stop the goods in transitu before the case which we have

here to consider. The rule which we are now to lay down will

not disturb but settle the notions of the commercial port of

this country on a point of very great importance, as it

regards the security and good faith of their transactions. For

these reasons we think the judgment of the Court of King's Bench

ought to be reversed.' But a writ of error being brought in

the House of Lords, this reversal was reversed, and the right

of the intermediate purchaser as against the original seller,

has ever since been established."

Lord Campbell,

Lives of the Chancellors,

volume 6, pages 138-139.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1792.

Best-Evidence rule.

"In Grant v. Gould, 2 H. Bl. p. 104 (1792), Lord Loughborough

said: 'That all common law courts ought to proceed upon the

general rule, namely, the best evidence that the nature of the

case will admit, I perfectly agree.' But by this time it was

becoming obvious that this 'general rule' was misapplied and

over-emphasized. Blackstone, indeed, repeating Gilbert, had

said in 1770, in the first editions of his Commentaries (III.

368) as it was said in all the later ones: 'The one general

rule that runs through all the doctrine of trials is this,

that the best evidence the nature of the case will admit of

shall always be required, if possible to be had; but, if not

possible, then the best evidence that can be had shall be

allowed. For if it be found that there is any better evidence

existing than is produced, the very not producing it is a

presumption that it would have detected some falsehood that at

present is concealed.' But in 1794, the acute and learned

Christian, in editing the twelfth edition, pointed out the

difficulties of the situation: 'No rule of law,' he said, 'is

more frequently cited, and more generally misconceived, than

this. It is certainly true when rightly understood; but it is

very limited in its extent and application. It signifies

nothing more than that, if the best legal evidence cannot

possibly be produced, the next best legal evidence shall be

admitted.'"

J. B. Thayer,

Select Cases on Evidence,

page 732.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1794.

First Trial by Jury in United States Supreme Court.

"In the first trial by jury at the bar of the Supreme Court of

the United States, in 1794, Chief-Justice Jay, after remarking

to the jury that fact was, for the jury and law for the court,

went on to say: 'You have, nevertheless, a right to take upon

yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well

as the fact in controversy.' But I am disposed to think that

the common-law power of the jury in criminal cases does not

indicate any right on their part; it is rather one of those

manifold illogical and yet rational results, which the good

sense of the English people brought about, in all parts of

their public affairs, by way of easing up the rigor of a

strict application of rules."

J. B. Thayer,

Law and Fact in Jury Trials

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 4, page 171).

ALSO IN:

J. B. Thayer,

Select Cases on Evidence,

page 153.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1813-1843.

Insolvents placed under Jurisdiction of a Court, and able to

claim Protection by a Surrender of Goods.

"It was not until 1813 that insolvents were placed under the

jurisdiction of a court, and entitled to seek their discharge

on rendering a true account of all their debts and property. A

distinction was at length recognized between poverty and crime.

This great remedial law restored liberty to crowds of wretched

debtors. In the next thirteen years upwards of 50,000 were set

free. Thirty years later, its beneficent principles were

further extended, when debtors were not only released from

confinement, but able to claim protection to their liberty, on

giving up all their goods."

T. E. May,

Constitutional History of England

(Widdleton's edition)

volume 2, page 271.

See, also, DEBT, LAWS CONCERNING.

{1976}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1819.

The Dartmouth College Case.

"The framers of the Constitution of the United States, moved

chiefly by the mischiefs created by the preceding legislation

of the States, which had made serious encroachments on the

rights of property, inserted a clause in that instrument which

declared that 'no State shall pass any ex post-facto law, or

law impairing the obligation of contracts.' The first branch

of this clause had always been understood to relate to

criminal legislation, the second to legislation affecting

civil rights. But, before the case of Dartmouth College v.

Woodward occurred, there had been no judicial decisions

respecting the meaning and scope of the restraint in regard to

contracts. … The State court of New Hampshire, in deciding

this case, had assumed that the college was a public

corporation, and on that basis had rested their judgment;

which was, that between the State and its public corporations

there is no contract which the State cannot regulate, alter,

or annul at pleasure. Mr. Webster had to overthrow this

fundamental position. If he could show that this college was a

private eleemosynary corporation, and that the grant of the

right to be a corporation of this nature is a contract between

the sovereign power and those who devote their funds to the

charity, and take the incorporation for its better management,

he could bring the legislative interference within the

prohibition of the Federal Constitution. … Its important

positions, … were these: 1. That Dr. Wheelock was the

founder of this college, and as such entitled by law to be

visitor, and that he had assigned all the visitatorial powers

to the trustees. 2. That the charter created a private and not

a pubic corporation, to administer a charity, in the

administration of which the trustees had a property, which the

law recognizes as such. 3. That the grant of such a charter is

a contract between the sovereign power and its successors and

those to whom it is granted and their successors. 4. That the

legislation which took away from the trustees the right to

exercise the powers of superintendence, visitation, and

government, and transferred them to another set of trustees,

impaired the obligation of that contract. … On the

conclusion of the argument, the Chief Justice intimated that a

decision was not to be expected until the next term. It was

made in February, 1819, fully confirming the grounds on which

Mr. Webster had placed the cause. From this decision, the

principle in our constitutional jurisprudence, which regards a

charter of a private corporation as a contract, and places it

under the protection of the Constitution of the United States,

takes its date. To Mr. Webster belongs the honor of having

produced its judicial establishment."

G. T. Curtis,

Life of Daniel Webster,

volume 1, pages 165-169 (5th edition).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1823.

Indian Right of Occupancy.

"The first case of importance that came before the court of

last resort with regard to the Indian question had to do with

their title to land. This was the case of Johnson v. McIntosh,

8 Wheaton, 543. In this case, Chief Justice Marshall delivered

the opinion of the court and held that discovery gave title to

the country by whose subjects or by whose authority it was

made, as against all persons but the Indians as occupants;

that this title gave a power to grant the soil and to convey a

title to the grantees, subject only to the Indian right of

occupancy; and that the Indians could grant no title to the

lands occupied by them, their right being simply that of

occupancy and not of ownership. The Chief Justice says: 'It

has never been doubted that either the United States or the

several States had a clear title to all the lands within the

boundary lines described in the treaty (of peace between

England and United States) subject only to the Indians' right

of occupancy, and that the exclusive power to extinguish that

right was vested in that government which might

constitutionally exercise it. … The United States, then,

have unequivocally acceded to that great and broad rule by

which its civilized inhabitants now hold this country. They

hold and assert in themselves the title by which it was

acquired. They maintain, as all others have maintained, that

discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian

title of occupancy, either by purchase or by conquest; and

gave also a right to such a degree of sovereignty as the

circumstances of the people would allow them to exercise. The

power now possessed by the government of the United States to

grant lands resided, while we were colonies, in the crown or

its grantees. The validity of the title given by either has

never been questioned in our courts. It has been exercised

uniformly over territory in possession of the Indians. The

existence of this power must negative the existence of any

right which may conflict with and control it. An absolute

title to lands cannot exist, at the same time, in different

persons, or in different governments. An absolute must be an

exclusive title, or at least a title which excludes all others

not compatible with it. All our institutions recognize the

absolute title of the crown, subject only to the Indian right

of occupancy, and recognize the absolute title of the crown to

extinguish that right. This is incompatible with an absolute

and complete title in the Indians.'"

William B. Hornblower,

14 American Bar Association Report 264-265.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1826

Jurors from the Body of the County.

"In the time of Fortescue, who was lord chancellor in the

reign of Henry VI. [1422-61], with the exception of the

requirement of personal knowledge in the jurors derived from

near neighborhood of residence, the jury system had become in

all its essential functions similar to what now exists. …

The jury were still required to come from the neighborhood

where the fact they had to try was supposed to have happened;

and this explains the origin of the venire (vicinetum), which

appears in all indictments and declarations at the present

day. It points out the place from which the jury must be

summoned. … Now, by 6 George IV., ch. 50, the jurors need

only be good and lawful men of the body of the county."

W. Forsyth,

Trial by Jury,

chapter 7, section 3.

{1977}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1828.

Lord Tenterden's Act.

"Be it therefore enacted … , That in Actions of Debt or upon

the Case grounded upon any Simple Contract or Acknowledgement

or Promise by Words only shall be deemed sufficient Evidence

of a new or continuing Contract, … unless such

Acknowledgement or Promise shall be made or contained by or in

some Writing to be signed by the Party chargeable thereby."

Statutes at Large,

volume 68, 9 George IV., c. 14.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1833.

Wager of Law abolished, and Effect upon Detinue.

"This form of action (detinue) was also formerly subject (as

were some other of our legal remedies), to the incident of

'wager of law' ('vadiatio legis'),—a proceeding which

consisted in the defendant's discharging himself from the

claim on his own oath, bringing with him at the same time into

court eleven of his neighbors, to swear that they believed his

denial to be true. This relic of a very ancient and general

institution, which we find established not only among the

Saxons and Normans, but among almost all the northern nations

that broke in upon the Roman empire, continued to subsist

among us even till the last reign, when it was at length

abolished by 3 and 4 Will, IV. c. 42, s. 13: and as the wager

of law used to expose plaintiffs in detinue to great

disadvantage, it had the effect of throwing that action almost

entirely out of use, and introducing in its stead the action

of trover and conversion."

Stephens,

Commentaries,

volume 3, pages 442-443 (8th edition).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1834.

Real Actions abolished.

"The statutes of 32 H. VIII., c. 2, and 21 Jac. I., c. 16 (so

far as the latter applied to actions for the recovery of land)

were superseded by 3 & 4 Wm. IV, c. 27. The latter statute

abolished the ancient real actions, made ejectment (with few

exceptions) the sole remedy for the recovery of land, and, for

the first time, limited directly the period within which an

ejectment might be brought. It also changed the meaning of

'right of entry,' making it signify simply the right of an

owner to the possession of land of which another person has

the actual possession, whether the owner's estate is devested

or not. In a word, it made a right of entry and a right to

maintain ejectment synonymous terms, and provided that

whenever the one ceased the other should cease also; i. e., it

provided that whenever the statute began to run against the

one right, it should begin to run against the other also, and

that, when it had run twenty years without interruption, both

rights should cease; and it also provided that the statute

should begin to run against each right the moment that the

right began to exist, i. e., the moment that the actual

possession and the right of possession became separated. The

statute, therefore, not only ignored the fact that ejectment

(notwithstanding its origin) is in substance purely in rem

(the damages recovered being only nominal), and assumed that

it was, on the contrary, in substance purely in personam, i.

e., founded upon tort, but it also assumed that every actual

possession of land, without a right of possession, is a tort."

C. C. Langdell,

Summary of Equity Pleading,

pages 144-145.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1836.

Exemption Laws.

"Our State legislatures commenced years ago to pass laws

exempting from execution necessary household goods and

personal apparel, the horses and implements of the farmer, the

tools and instruments of the artisan, etc. Gradually the

beneficent policy of such laws has been extended. In 1828, Mr.

Benton warmly advocated in the Senate of the United States the

policy of a national homestead law. The Republic of Texas

passed the first Homestead Act, in 1836. It was the great gift

of the infant Republic of Texas to the world. In 1849, Vermont

followed; and this policy has since been adopted in all but

eight States of the Union. By these laws a homestead (under

various restrictions as to value) for the shelter and

protection of the family is now exempt from execution or

judicial sale for debt, unless both the husband and the wife

shall expressly join in mortgaging it or otherwise expressly

subjecting it to the claims of creditors."

J. F. Dillon,

Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America,

page 360.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1837.

Employer's liability.

"No legal principle, with a growth of less than half a

century, has become more firmly fixed in the common law of

to-day, than the rule that an employer, if himself without

fault, is not liable to an employee injured through the

negligence of a fellow-employee engaged in the same general

employment. This exception to the well known doctrine of

'respondeat superior,' although sometimes considered an old

one, was before the courts for the first time in 1837, in the

celebrated case of Priestly v. Fowler, 3 M. & W. 1, which it

is said, has changed the current of decisions more radically

than any other reported case. … The American law, though in

harmony with the English, seems to have had an origin of its

own. In 1841 Murray v. The South Carolina Railroad Company, 1

Mc. & M. 385, decided that a railroad company was not liable

to one servant injured through the negligence of another

servant in the same employ. Although this decision came a few

years after Priestly v. Fowler, the latter case was cited by

neither counsel nor court. It is probable, therefore, that the

American Court arrived at its conclusion entirely independent

of the earlier English case,—a fact often lost sight of by

those who in criticising the rule, assert that it all sprang

from an ill-considered opinion by Lord Abinger in Priestly v.

Fowler. The leading American case, however, is Farwell v.

Boston and Worcester Railroad Company, 4 Met. 49, which,

following the South Carolina case, settled the rule in the

United States. It has been followed in nearly every

jurisdiction, both State and Federal."

Marland C. Hobbs,

Statutory Changes in Employers Liability

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 2, pages 212-213).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1838.

Arrests on Mesne Process for Debt abolished, and Debtor's

Lands, for first time, taken in Satisfaction of Debt.

"The law of debtor and creditor, until a comparatively recent

period, was a scandal to a civilized country. For the smallest

claim, any man was liable to be arrested on mesne process,

before legal proof of the debt. … Many of these arrests were

wanton and vexatious; and writs were issued with a facility

and looseness which paced the liberty of every man—suddenly

and without notice—at the mercy of any one who claimed

payment of a debt. A debtor, however honest and solvent, was

liable to arrest. The demand might even be false and

fraudulent: but the pretended creditor, on making oath of the

debt, was armed with this terrible process of the law. The

wretched defendant might lie in prison for several months

before his cause was heard; when, even if the action was

discontinued or the debt disproved, he could not obtain his

discharge without further proceedings, often too costly for a

poor debtor, already deprived of his livelihood by

imprisonment.

{1978}

No longer even a debtor,—he could not shake off his bonds.

… The total abolition of arrests on mesne process was

frequently advocated, but it was not until 1888 that it was at

length accomplished. Provision was made for securing

absconding debtors; but the old process for the recovery of a

debt in ordinary cases, which had wrought so many acts of

oppression, was abolished. While this vindictive remedy was

denied, the debtor's lands were, for the first time, allowed

to be taken in satisfaction of a debt; and extended facilities

were afterwards afforded for the recovery of small claims, by

the establishment of county courts."

T. E. May,

Constitutional History of England (Widdleton's edition),

volume 2, pages 267-268.

See, also, DEBT: LAWS CONCERNING.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1839-1848.

Emancipation of Women.

"According to the old English theory, a woman was a chattel,

all of whose property belonged to her husband. He could beat

her as he might a beast of burden, and, provided he was not

guilty of what would be cruelty to animals, the law gave no

redress. In the emancipation of women Mississippi led off, in

1839, New York following with its Married Women's Act of 1848,

which has been since so enlarged and extended, and so

generally adopted by the other states, that, for all purposes

of business, ownership of property, and claim to her

individual earnings, a married woman is to-day, in America, as

independent as a man."

D. Campbell,

The Puritan in Holland, England and America,

volume 1, page 71.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1842.

One who takes Commercial Paper as Collateral is a Holder for

Value.

"Take the subject of the transfer of such paper as collateral

security for, or even in the payment of, a pre-existing

indebtedness. We find some of the courts holding that one who

takes such paper as collateral security for such a debt is a

holder for value; others, that he is not, unless he extends

the time for the payment of the secured debt or surrenders

something of value, gives some new consideration; while still

others hold that one so receiving such paper cannot be a

holder for value; and some few hold that even receiving the

note in payment and extinguishment of a pre-existing debt does

not constitute one a holder for value. The question, as is

known to all lawyers, was first presented to the Supreme Court

of the United States in Swift vs. Tyson (16 Peters, 1). There,

however, the note had been taken in payment of the debt. It

was argued in that case that the highest court in New York had

decided that one so taking a note was not a holder for value,

and it was insisted in argument that the contract, being made

in New York, was to be governed by its law; but the court,

through Justice Story—Justice Catron alone

dissenting—distinctly and emphatically repudiated the

doctrine that the Federal court was to be governed on such

questions 'by the decisions of the courts of the State where

the contract was made, and held the holder a holder for

value."

Henry C. Tompkins,

13 American Bar Association Report,

page 255.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1845.

Interest of Disseisee transferable.

"It was not until 1845 that by statute the interest of the

disseisee of land became transferable. Similar statutes have

been enacted in many of our States. In a few jurisdictions the

same results have been obtained by judicial legislation. But

in Alabama, Connecticut, Dakota, Florida, Kentucky,

Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and

Tennessee, and presumably in Maryland and New Jersey, it is

still the law that the grantee of a disseisee cannot maintain

an action in his own name for the recovery of the land."

J. B. Ames,

The Disseisin of Chattels

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 3, page 25).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1846.

Ultra vires.

"When railway companies were first created with Parliamentary

powers of a kind never before entrusted to similar bodies, it

soon became necessary to determine whether, when once called

into existence, they were to be held capable of exercising, as

nearly as possible, all the powers of a natural person, unless

expressly prohibited from doing so, or whether their acts must

be strictly limited to the furtherance of the purpose for

which they had been incorporated. The question was first

raised in 1846, with reference to the right of a railway

company to subsidise a harbour company, and Lord Langdale, in

deciding against such a right, laid down the law in the

following terms:—'Companies of this kind, possessing most

extensive powers, have so recently been introduced into this

country that neither the legislature nor the courts of law

have yet been able to understand all the different lights in

which their transactions ought properly to be viewed. … To

look upon a railway company in the light of a common

partnership, and as subject to no greater vigilance than

common partnerships are, would, I think, be greatly to mistake

the functions which they perform and the powers which they

exercise of interference not only with the public but with the

private rights of all individuals in this realm. … I am

clearly of opinion that the powers which are given by an Act

of Parliament, like that now in question, extend no further

than is expressly stated in the Act, or is necessarily and

properly required for carrying into effect the undertaking and

works which the Act has expressly sanctioned.' [Citing Coleman

v. Eastern Counties Rw. Co., 10 Beav., 18.] This view, though

it has sometimes been criticised, seems now to be settled law.

In a recent case in the House of Lords, the permission which

the Legislature gives to the promoters of a company was

paraphrased as follows:—'You may meet together and form

yourselves into a company, but in doing that you must tell all

who may be disposed to deal with you the objects for which you

have been associated. Those who are dealing with you will

trust to that memorandum of association, and they will see

that you have the power of carrying on business in such a

manner as it specifies. You must state the objects for which

you are associated, so that the persons dealing with you will

know that they are dealing with persons who can only devote

their means to a given class of objects.' [Citing Riche v.

Ashbury Carriage Co., L R., 7 E. & I., App. 684.] An act of a

corporation in excess of its powers with reference to third

persons is technically said to be ultra vires [perhaps first

in South Yorkshire Rw. Co. v. Great Northern R. Co., 9 exch.

84 (1853)]; and is void even if unanimously agreed to by all

the corporators. The same term is also, but less properly,

applied to a resolution of a majority of the members of a

corporation which being beyond the powers of the corporation

will not bind a dissentient minority of its members."

Thomas Erskine Holland,

Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition, page 301.

(Compare Article by Seymour D. Thompson in American Law

Review, May-June, 1894).

{1979}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1848-1883.

The New York Codes and their Adoption in other Communities.

"The 'New York Mail' gives the following information as to the

extent to which our New York Codes have been adopted in other

communities. In most instances the codes have been adopted

substantially in detail, and in others in principle: 'The

first New York Code, the Code of Civil Procedure, went into

effect on the 1st of July, 1848. It was adopted in Missouri in

1849; in California in 1851; in Kentucky in 1851; in Ohio in

1853; in the four provinces of India between 1853 and 1856; in

Iowa in 1855; in Wisconsin in 1856; in Kansas in 1859; in

Nevada in 1861; in Dakota in 1862; in Oregon in 1862; in Idaho

in 1864; in Montana in 1864; in Minnesota in 1866; in Nebraska

in 1866; in Arizona in 1866; in Arkansas in 1868; in North

Carolina in 1868; in Wyoming in 1869; in Washington Territory

in 1869; in South Carolina in 1870; in Utah in 1870; in

Connecticut in 1879; in Indiana in 1881. In England and

Ireland by the Judicature Act of 1873; this Judicature Act has

been followed in many of the British Colonies; in the Consular

Courts of Japan, in Shanghai, in Hong Kong and Singapore,

between 1870 and 1874. The Code of Criminal Procedure, though

not enacted in New York till 1881, was adopted in California

in 1850; in India at the same time with the Code of Civil

Procedure; in Kentucky in 1854; in Iowa in 1858; in Kansas in

1859; in Nevada in 1861; in Dakota in 1862; in Oregon in 1864;

in Idaho in 1864; in Montana in 1864; in Washington Territory

in 1869; in Wyoming in 1869; in Arkansas in 1874; in Utah in

1876; in Arizona in 1877; in Wisconsin in 1878; in Nebraska in

1881; in Indiana in 1881; in Minnesota in 1883. The Penal

Code, though not enacted in New York until 1882, was adopted

in Dakota in 1865 and in California in 1872. The Civil Code,

not yet enacted in New York, though twice passed by the

Legislature, was adopted in Dakota in 1866 and in California

in 1872, and has been much used in the framing of substantive

laws for India. The Political Code, reported for New York but

not yet considered, was adopted in California in 1872. Thus it

will be seen that the State of New York has given laws to the

world to an extent and degree unknown since the

Roman Codes followed Roman conquests.'"

The Albany Law Journal,

volume 39, page 261.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1848.

Simplification of Procedure.

"In civil matters, the greatest reform of modern times has

been the simplification of procedure in the courts, and the

virtual amalgamation of law and equity. Here again America

took the lead, through the adoption by New York, in 1848, of a

Code of Practice, which has been followed by most of the other

states of the Union, and in its main features has lately been

taken up by England."

D. Campbell,

The Puritan in Holland, England and America,

volume 1, page 70.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1848.

Reform in the Law of Evidence.

"The earliest act of this kind in this country was passed by

the Legislature of Connecticut in 1848. It is very broad and

sweeping in its provisions. It is in these words: 'No person

shall be disqualified as a witness in any suit or proceeding

at law, or in equity, by reason of his interest in the event

of the same, as a party or otherwise, or by reason of his

conviction of a crime; but such interest or conviction may be

shown for the purpose of affecting his credit.'

(Revised Statutes of Connecticut, 1849,

page 86, section 141.

In the margin of the page the time of the

passage of the law is given as 1848.)

This act was drafted and its enactment secured by the

Honorable Charles J. McCurdy, a distinguished lawyer and the

Lieutenant-Governor of that State. A member of Judge McCurdy's

family, having been present at the delivery of this lecture at

New Haven in 1892, called my attention to the above fact,

claiming, and justly, for this act the credit of leading in

this country the way to such legislation. But he was mistaken

in his claim that it preceded similar legislation in England,

although its provisions are an improvement on the contemporary

enactments of the like kind in that country."

John F. Dillon,

Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America,

page 374, notes.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1851.

Bentham's Reforms in the Law of Evidence.

"In some respects his [Bentham's] 'Judicial Evidence,' … is

the most important of all his censorial writings on English

Law. In this work he exposed the absurdity and perniciousness

of many of the established technical rules of evidence. …

Among the rules combatted were those relating to the

competency of witnesses and the exclusion of evidence on

various grounds, including that of pecuniary interest. He

insisted that these rules frequently caused the miscarriage of

justice, and that in the interest of justice they ought to be

swept away. His reasoning fairly embraces the doctrine that

parties ought to be allowed and even required to testify. …

But Bentham had set a few men thinking. He had scattered the

seeds of truth. Though they fell on stony ground they did not

all perish. But verily reform is a plant of slow growth in the

sterile gardens of the practising and practical lawyer.

Bentham lived till 1832, and these exclusionary rules still

held sway. But in 1843, by Lord Denman's Act, interest in

actions at common law ceased, as a rule, to disqualify; and in

1846 and 1851, by Lord Brougham's Acts, parties in civil

actions were as a rule made competent and compellable to

testify. I believe I speak the universal judgment of the

profession when I say changes more beneficial in the

administration of justice have rarely taken place in our law,

and that it is a matter of profound amazement, as we look back

upon it, that these exclusionary rules ever had a place

therein, and especially that they were able to retain it until

within the last fifty years."

J. F. Dillon,

Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America,

pages 339-341.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1852-1854.

Reform in Procedure.

"A great procedure reform was effected by the Common Law

Procedure Acts of 1852 and 1854 as the result of their

labours." The main object of the Acts was to secure that the

actual merits of every case should be brought before the

judges unobscured by accidental and artificial questions

arising upon the pleadings, but they also did something to

secure that complete adaptability of the common law courts for

finally determining every action brought within them, which

the Chancery Commissioners of 1850 had indicated as one of the

aims of the reformers. Power was given to the common law courts

to allow parties to be interrogated by their opponents, to

order discovery of documents, to direct specific delivery of

goods, to grant injunctions, and to hear interpleader actions,

and equitable pleas were allowed to be urged in defence to

common law actions."

D. M. Kerly,

History of Equity,

page 288.

{1980}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1854.

"Another mode" (besides common law lien).

"Another mode of creating a security is possible, by which not

merely the ownership of the thing but its possession also

remains with the debtor. This is called by the Roman lawyers

and their modern followers 'hypotheca.' Hypothecs may arise by

the direct application of a rule of law, by judicial decision,

or by agreement. Those implied by law, generally described as

'tacit hypothecs,' are probably the earliest. They are first

heard of in Roman law in connection with that right of a

landlord over the goods of his tenant, which is still well

known on the Continent and in Scotland under its old name, and

which in England takes the form of a right of Distress.

Similar rights were subsequently granted to wives, pupils,

minors, and legatees, over the property of husbands, tutors,

curators, and heirs, respectively. The action by which the

praetor Servius first enabled a landlord to claim the goods of

his defaulting tenant in order to realize his rent, even if

they had passed into the hands of third parties, was soon

extended so as to give similar rights to any creditor over

property which its owner had agreed should be held liable for

a debt. A real right was thus created by the mere consent of

the parties, without any transfer of possession, which

although opposed to the theory of Roman law, became firmly

established as applicable both to immoveable and moveable

property. Of the modern States which have adopted the law of

hypothec, Spain perhaps stands alone in adopting it to the

fullest extent. The rest have, as a rule, recognized it only

in relation to immoveables. Thus the Dutch law holds to the

maxim 'mobilia non habent sequelam,' and the French Code,

following the 'coutumes' of Paris and Normandy, lays down that

'les meubles n'ont pas de suite par hypotheque.' But by the

'Code de Commerce,' ships, though moveables, are capable of

hypothecation; and in England what is called a mortgage, but

is essentially a hypothec, of ships is recognized and

regulated by the 'Merchant Shipping Acts,' under which the

mortgage must be recorded by the registrar of the port at

which the ship itself is registered [17 and 18 Vic. c. 104].

So also in the old contract of 'bottomry,' the ship is made

security for money lent to enable it to proceed upon its

voyage."

T. E. Holland,

Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,

p. 203.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1854-1882.

Simplification of Titles and Transfers of Land in England.

"For the past fifty years the project of simplifying the

titles and transfer of land has received great attention in

England. In the year 1854 a royal commission was created to

consider the subject. The report of this commission, made in

1857, was able and full so far as it discussed the principles

of land transfer which had been developed to that date. It

recommended a limited plan of registration of title. This

report, and the report of the special commission of the House

of Commons of 1879, have been the foundation of most of the

subsequent British legislation upon the subject. Among the

more prominent acts passed may be named Lord Westbury's Act of

1862, which attempted to establish indefeasible titles; Lord

Cairns' Land Transfer Act of 1875, which provided for

guaranteed titles upon preliminary examinations; the

Conveyancing and Law of Property Act of 1881, which

established the use of short forms of conveyances; and Lord

Cairns' Settled Land Act of 1882."

Dwight H. Olmstead,

13 American Bar Association Report,

page 267.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1855.

Suits against a State or Nation.

"In England the old common law methods of getting redress from

the Crown were by 'petition de droit' and 'monstrans le

droit,' in the Court of Chancery or the Court of Exchequer,

and in some cases by proceedings in Chancery against the

Attorney-General. It has recently been provided by statute [23

& 24 Vic., c. 24] that a petition of right may be entitled in

anyone of the superior Courts in which the subject-matter of

the petition would have been cognisable, if the same had been

a matter in dispute between subject and subject, and that it

shall be left with the Secretary of State for the Home

Department, for her Majesty's consideration, who, if she shall

think fit, may grant her fiat that right be done, whereupon an

answer, plea, or demurrer shall be made on behalf of the

Crown, and the subsequent proceedings be assimulated as far as

practicable to the course of an ordinary action. It is also

provided that costs shall be payable both to and by the Crown,

subject to the same rules, so far as practicable, as obtain in

proceedings between subject and subject."

T. E. Holland,

Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,

page 337.

The United States Court of Claims was established in 1855. For

State courts of claims see Note in 16 Abbott's New Cases 436

and authorities there referred to.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1858.

The Contractual Theory of Marriage as affecting Divorce.

"The doctrine may be resolved into two propositions-(a) that a

marriage celebrated abroad cannot be dissolved but by a Court

of the foreign country; (b) that a marriage in England is

indissoluble by a foreign Court. The first proposition has

never been recognized in any decision in England. Even before

the Act of 1858 it is extremely doubtful if the English Courts

would have scrupled to decree a divorce â mensâ where the

marriage was had in a foreign country, and certainly after the

Statutes they did not hesitate to grant a divorce, though the

marriage took place abroad (Ratcliff v. Ratcliff, 1859, 1 Sw.

& Tr. 217). It is true that in cases where the foreign Courts

have dissolved a marriage celebrated in their own country

between persons domiciled in that country, these sentences

were regarded as valid here, and some credit was given to the

fact of the marriage having been celebrated there (Ryan v.

Ryan, 1816, 2 Phill. 332; Argent v. Argent, 1865, 4 Sw. & Tr.

52); but bow far it influenced the learned Judges does not

appear; the main consideration being the circumstance of

domicile. The second proposition has been generally supposed

by writers both in England and America (Story, Wharton) to

have been introduced by Lolley's Case, 1812, Ruse. & Ry. 237,

and followed in Tovey v. Lindsay, 1813, 1 Dow. 117, and

McCarthy v. De Caix, 1831, 2 Cl. & F. 568, and only to have

been abandoned in 1858 (Dicey), or in 1868 in Shaw v. Gould.

But the case of Harvey v. Farnie, 1880-1882, 5 P. D. 153; 6 P.

D. 35, 8 App. C. 48, has now shown that the Contractual theory

had no permanent hold whatever in this country, that it did

not originate with Lolley's Case and was not adopted by Lord

Eldon but that it arose from a mistaken conception of Lord

Brougham as to the point decided in the famous Resolution, and

was never seriously entertained by any other Judge in England,

and we submit this is correct."

E. H. Monnier,

Law Magazine & Review,

12 ser., volume 17 (London, 1891-2), page 82.

{1981}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1873.

The Judicature Acts.

"The first Judicature Act was passed in 1873 under the

auspices of Lord Selborne and Lord Cairns. It provided for the

consolidation of all the existing superior Courts into one

Supreme Court, consisting of two primary divisions, a High

Court of Justice and a Court of Appeal. … Law and Equity, it

was provided, were to be administered concurrently by every

division of the Court, in all civil matters, the same relief

being granted upon equitable claims or defences, … as would

have previously been granted in the Court of Chancery; no

proceeding in the Court was to be stayed by injunction

analogous to the old common injunction but the power for any

branch of the Court to stay proceedings before itself was of

course to be retained; and the Court was to determine the

entire controversy in every matter that came before it. By the

25th section of the Act rules upon certain of the points where

differences between Law and Equity had existed, deciding in

favour of the latter, were laid down, and it was enacted

generally that in the case of conflict, the rules of Equity

should prevail."

D. M. Kerly,

History of Equity,

page 293.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1882.

Experiments in Codification in England.

"The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 is, I believe, the first code

or codifying enactment which has found its way into the

English Statute Book. By a code, I mean a statement under the

authority of the legislature, and on a systematic plan, of the

whole of the general principles applicable to any given branch

of the law. A code differs from a digest inasmuch as its

language is the language of the legislature, and therefore

authoritative; while the propositions of a digest merely

express what is, in the opinion of an individual author, the

law on any given subject. In other words the words

propositions of a code are law, while the propositions of a

digest may or may not be law."

M. D. Chalmers,

An Experiment in Codification

(Law Quarterly Review,

volume 2, page 125).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1889.

Passage of Block-Indexing Act.

"The history of Land Transfer Reform in the United States is

confined, almost exclusively, to matters which have occurred

in the State of New York during the past ten years, and which

culminated in the passage of the Block-Indexing Act for the

city, of New York of 1889. In January, 1882, a report was made

by a special committee of the Association of the Bar of the

city of New York, which had been appointed to consider and

report what changes, if any, should be made in the manner of

transferring title to land in the city and State. The

committee reported that by reason of the accumulated records

in the offices of the county clerk and register of deeds of

the city, 'searches practically could not be made in those

offices,' and recommended the appointment of a State

commission, which should consider and report a mode of

transferring land free from the difficulties of the present

system. The report was adopted by the association, and during

the same year like recommendations were made by the Chamber of

Commerce and by real estate and other associations of the

city."

D. H. Olmstead,

13 American Bar Association Report,

pages 269-270.

----------COMMON LAW: End----------

----------CRIMINAL LAW: Start----------

Criminal Law.

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1066-1272.

The Ordinary Criminal Courts.

"In a very few words the history of the ordinary courts is as

follows: Before the Conquest the ordinary criminal court was

the County or Hundred Court, but it was subject to the general

supervision and concurrent jurisdiction of the King's Court.

The Conqueror and his sons did not alter this state of things,

but the supervision of the King's Court and the exercise of

his concurrent jurisdiction were much increased both in

stringency and in frequency, and as time went on narrowed the

jurisdiction and diminished the importance of the local court.

In process of time the King's Court developed itself into the

Court of King's Bench and the Courts of the Justices of

Assize, Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery, or to use the

common expression, the Assize Courts; and the County Court, so

far as its criminal jurisdiction was concerned, lost the

greater part of its importance. These changes took place by

degrees during the reigns which followed the Conquest, and

were complete at the accession of Edward I. In the reign of

Edward III. the Justices of the Peace were instituted, and

they, in course of time, were authorized to hold Courts for

the trial of offenders, which are the Courts of Quarter

Sessions. The County Court, however, still retained a separate

existence, till the beginning of the reign of Edward IV., when

it was virtually, though not absolutely, abolished. A vestige

of its existence is still to be traced in Courts Leet."

Sir James F. Stephen,

History of the Criminal Law,

volume 1, pages 75-76.

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1166.

Disappearance of Compurgation in Criminal Cases.

"In criminal cases in the king's courts, compurgation is

thought to have disappeared in consequence of what has been

called 'the implied prohibition' of the Assize of Clarendon,

in 1166. But it remained long in the local and ecclesiastical

courts. Palgrave preserves as the latest instances of

compurgation in criminal cases that can be traced, some cases

as late as 1440-1, in the Hundred Court of Winchelsea in

Sussex. They are cases of felony, and the compurgation is with

thirty-six neighbors. They show a mingling of the old and the

new procedure."

J. B. Thayer,

The Older Modes of Trial

(Harvard Law Review., volume 5, page 59).

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1166-1215.

Jury in Criminal Cases.

"It seems to have been possible, even before the decree of the

Fourth Lateran Council, in … 1215, to apply the jury to

criminal cases when ever the accused asked for it. … The

Assize of Clarendon, in 1166, with its apparatus of an

accusing jury and a trial by ordeal is thought to have done

away in the king's courts with compurgation as a mode of trial

for crime; and now the Lateran Council, in forbidding

ecclesiastics to take part in trial by ordeal, was deemed to

have forbidden that mode of trial."

Jas. B. Thayer,

The Jury and its Development

(Harvard Law Review, volume 5, page 265).

{1982}

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1176 (circa).

"Eyres," and Criminal Jurisdiction.

"It is enough for me to point out that, on the circuits

instituted by Henry II, and commonly distinguished as 'eyres',

by way of pre-eminence, the administration of criminal

justice, was treated, not as a thing by itself, but as one

part, perhaps the most prominent and important part, of the

general administration of the country, which was put to a

considerable extent under the superintendence of the justices

in eyre. Nor is this surprising when we consider that fines,

amercements, and forfeitures of all sorts were items of great

importance in the royal revenue. The rigorous enforcement of

all the proprietary and other profitable rights of the Crown

which the articles of eyre confided to the justices was

naturally associated with their duties as administrators of

the criminal law, in which the king was deeply interested, not

only because it protected the life and property of his

subjects, but also because it contributed to his revenue."

Sir J. F. Stephen,

History of the Criminal Law of England,

volume 1, page 102.

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1198-1199.

Trial by Ordeal.

"The earliest instance of the ordeal [see ORDEAL] in our

printed judicial records occurs in 1198-9, on an appeal of

death, by a maimed person, where two of the defendants are

adjudged to purge themselves by the hot iron. But within

twenty years or so this mode of trial came to a sudden end in

England, through the powerful agency of the Church,—an event

which was the more remarkable because Henry II., in the Assize

of Clarendon (1166) and again in that of Northampton (1176),

providing a public mode of accusation in the case of the

larger crimes, had fixed the ordeal as the mode of trial. The

old form of trial by oath was no longer recognized in such

cases in the king's courts. It was the stranger, therefore,

that such quick operation should have been allowed in England

to the decree, in November, 1215, of the Fourth Lateran

Council at Rome. That this was recognized and accepted within

about three years (1218-19) by the English crown is shown by

the well-known writs of Henry III., to the judges, dealing

with the puzzling question of what to do for a mode of trial,

'cum prohibitum sit per Ecclesiam Romanam judicium ignis et

aquae.' I find no case of trial by ordeal in our printed

records later than Trinity Term of the 15 John (1213)."

J. B. Thayer,

The Older Modes of Trial

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 5, pages 64-65).

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1215.

Two Juries in Criminal Cases.

"The ordeal was strictly a mode of trial. What may clearly

bring this home to one of the present day is the well-known

fact that it gave place, not long after the Assize of

Clarendon, to the petit jury, when Henry III. bowed to the

decree of the fourth Lateran Council (1215) abolishing the

ordeal. It was at this point that our cumbrous, inherited

system of two juries in criminal cases had its origin."

J. B. Thayer,

Presumptions and the Law of Evidence

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 3, page 159, note).

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1215.

Had Coroners Common Law Power as to Fires?

"Although Magna Charta took away the power of the Coroner of

holding Pleas of the Crown, that is of trying the more

important crimes, there was nothing to forbid him from

continuing to receive accusations against all offenders. This

he did, and continues to do to the present day, without

challenge, in cases of sudden or unexplained deaths. Nor is it

denied that he has done so and may do so in other matters,

such as in treasure trove, wreck of the sea and deodands. The

difficulty, of course, is to know whether the Coroner was or

was not in the habit of holding inquests on fires. There is no

evidence that he had not the power to do so. On the contrary,

we think the extracts from the ancient writers which we have

before quoted, are on the whole in favour of his having that

power. Before Magna Charta he had the power to try all serious

crimes; arson would unquestionably be one of them. Magna

Charta only took a way his power of trying them, not of making

a preliminary investigation, otherwise an inquest."

Sherston Baker,

Law Magazine & Review (London, 1886-7),

4th ser., volume 12, page 268.

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1272-1875.

King's Bench.

The Supreme Criminal Court.

"From the reign of Edward I, to the year 1875 it [the Court of

King's Bench] continued to be the Supreme Criminal Court of

the Realm, with no alterations in its powers or constitution

of sufficient importance to be mentioned except that during

the Commonwealth it was called the Upper Bench."

Sir J. F. Stephen,

History of Criminal Law of England,

volume 1, page 94.

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1276.

Coroner's Jury.

"The earliest instance that occurs of any sort of preliminary

inquiry into crimes with a view to subsequent proceedings is

the case of the coroner's inquest. Coroners, according to Mr.

Stubbs, originated in the year 1194, but the first authority

of importance about their duties is to be found in Bracton. He

gives an account of their duties so full as to imply that in

his day their office was comparatively modern. The Statute de

Officio Coronatoris (4 Edward I., st. 2, A. D. 1276) is almost

a transcript of the passage in Bracton. It gives the coroner's

duty very fully, and is, to this day, the foundation of the

law on the subject."

Sir J. F. Stephen,

History of the Criminal Law of England,

volume 1, page 217.

ALSO IN:

W. Forsyth,

Trial by Jury,

page 187.

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1285.

Courts of Oyer and Terminer.

"The first express mention of them with which I am acquainted

is in the statute 13 Edw. I., c. 29 (A. D. 1285), which taken

in connection with some subsequent authorities throws

considerable light on their nature. They were either general

or special. General when they were issued to commissioners

whose duty it was to hear and determine all matters of a

criminal nature within certain local limits, special when the

commission was confined to particular cases. Such special

commissions were frequently granted at the prayer of

particular individuals. They differed from commissions of gaol

delivery principally in the circumstance that the commission

of Oyer and Terminer was 'ad inquirendum, audiendum, et

terminandum,' whereas that of gaol delivery is 'ad gaolam

nostram castri nostri de C. de prisonibus in ea existentibus

hac vice deliberandum,' the interpretation put upon which was

that justices of Oyer and Terminer could proceed only upon

indictments taken before themselves, whereas justices of gaol

delivery had to try everyone found in the prison which they

were to deliver. On the other hand, a prisoner on bail could

not be tried before a justice of gaol delivery, because he

would not be in the gaol, whereas if he appeared before

justices of Oyer and Terminer he might be both indicted and

tried."

Sir J. F. Stephen,

History of the Criminal Law of England,

volume 1, page 106.

{1983}

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1305.

Challenging Jury for Cause.

"The prisoner was allowed to challenge peremptorily, i. e.

without showing cause, any number of jurors less than

thirty-five, or three whole juries. When or why he acquired

this right it is difficult to say. Neither Bracton nor Britton

mention it, and it is hard to reconcile it with the fact that

the jurors were witnesses. A man who might challenge

peremptorily thirty-five witnesses could always secure

impunity. It probably arose at a period when the separation

between the duties of the jury and the witnesses was coming to

be recognized. The earliest statute on the subject, 33 Edw. I,

st. 4 (A. D. 1305), enacts 'that from henceforth,

notwithstanding it be alleged by them that sue for the king

that the jurors of those inquests, or some of them, be not

indifferent for the king, yet such inquests shall not remain

untaken for that cause, but if they that sue for the king will

challenge any of those jurors, they shall assign of the

challenge a cause certain.'"

Sir J. F. Stephen,

History of the Criminal Law of England,

volume 1, pages 301-302.

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1344.

Justices of the Peace.

"In 1344 (18 Edw. Ill, st. 2, c. 2) it was enacted that 'two

or three of the best of reputation in the counties shall be

assigned keepers of the peace by the King's Commission, … to

hear and determine felonies and trespasses done against the

peace in the same counties, and to inflict punishment

reasonably.' This was the first act by which the Conservators

of the Peace obtained judicial power."

Sir J. F. Stephen,

History of the Criminal Law of England,

volume 1, page 113.

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1506.

Insanity as a Defence.

The earliest adjudication upon the legal responsibility of an

insane person occurred in the Year Book of the 21 Henry VII.

American Law Review,

volume 15, page 717.

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1547.

Two Lawful Witnesses required to Convict.

"In all cases of treason and misprision of treason,—by

statutes l Edw. VI. c. 12; 5 & 6 Edw. VI. c. 11, and 7 & 8

Will. III. c. 3,—two lawful witnesses are required to convict

a prisoner; unless he shall willingly and without violence

confess the same. And, by the last-mentioned statute, it is

declared, that both of such witnesses must be to the same

overt act of treason; or one to one overt act, and the other

to another overt act of the same species of treason, and not

of distinct heads or kinds: and that no evidence shall be

admitted to prove any overt act, not expressly laid in the

indictment."

Sir J. F. Stephen,

Commentaries,

volume 4, page 425 (8th edition).

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1592.

Criminal Trials under Elizabeth.

"In prosecutions by the State, every barrier which the law has

ever attempted to erect for the protection of innocence was

ruthlessly cast down. Men were arrested without the order of a

magistrate, on the mere warrant of a secretary of state or

privy councillor, and thrown into prison at the pleasure of

the minister. In confinement they were subjected to torture,

for the rack rarely stood idle while Elizabeth was on the

throne. If brought to trial, they were denied the aid of a

counsel and the evidence of witnesses in their behalf. Nor

were they confronted with the witnesses against them, but

written depositions, taken out of court and in the absence of

the prisoner, were read to the jury, or rather such portions

of them as the prosecution considered advantageous to its

side. On the bench sat a judge holding office at the pleasure

of the crown, and in the jury-box twelve men, picked out by

the sheriff, who themselves were punished if they gave a

verdict of acquittal."

D. Campbell,

The Puritan in Holland, England and America,

volume 1, page 367.

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1600 (circa).

Capital Punishment.

"Sir James Fitz James Stephen, in his History of Criminal

Law, estimates that at the end of the sixteenth century

there were about 800 executions per year in England (volume 1,

468). Another sentence in vogue in England before that time

was to be hanged, to have the bowels burned, and to be

quartered. Beccaria describes the scene where 'amid clouds of

writhing smoke the groans of human victims, the crackling of

their bones, and the flying of their still panting bowels were

a pleasing spectacle and agreeable harmony to the frantic

multitude.' (chapter 39.) As late as the reign of Elizabeth,

… the sentence of death in England was to be hung, drawn and

quartered. Campian, the Jesuit, was tortured before trial

until his limbs were dislocated on the rack, and was carried

helpless into Westminster Hall for trial before the Chief

Justice of England, unable to raise an arm in order to plead

not guilty. He was sentenced to be hung, drawn and quartered,

which meant legally, that upon being hung he was to be cut

down while yet living, and dragged at the tail of a horse, and

then before death should release him, to be hewn in pieces,

which were to be sent dispersed to the places where the

offense was committed or known, to be exhibited in attestation

of the punishment, the head being displayed in the most

important place, as the chief object of interest. In the

process of hanging, drawing and quartering, Froude says that

due precautions were taken to prolong the agony. Campian's

case is specially interesting, as showing the intervention of

a more humane spirit to mitigate the barbarity of the law. As

they were about to cut him down alive from the gibbet, the

voice of some one in authority cried out: Hold, till the man

is dead.' This innovation was the precursor of the change in

the law so as to require the sentence to be that he be hanged

by the neck until he is dead. It is not generally known that

the words 'until he is dead' are words of mercy inserted to

protect the victim from the torture and mutilation which the

public had gathered to enjoy."

Austin Abbott,

Address before New York Society of Medicine Journal

(The Advocate, Minn., 1889, volume 1, page 71).

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1641-1662.

No Man shall be compelled to Criminate himself.

"What … is the history of this rule? … Briefly, these

things appear: 1st. That it is not a common law rule at all,

but is wholly statutory in its authority. 2d. That the object

of the rule, until a comparatively late period of its

existence, was not to protect from answers in the king's court

of justice, but to prevent a usurpation of jurisdiction on

the part of the Court Christian (or ecclesiastical tribunals).

3d. That even as thus enforced the rule was but partial and

limited in its application. 4th. That by gradual perversion of

function the rule assumed its present form, but not earlier

than the latter half of the seventeenth century. … But

nothing can be clearer than that it was a statutory rule. …

{1984}

The first of these were 16 Car. I., c. 2 (1641) and provided

that no one should impose any penalty in ecclesiastical

matters, nor should 'tender … to any … person whatsoever

any corporal oath whereby he shall be obliged to confess or

accuse himself of any crime or any … thing whereby he shall

be exposed to any censure or penalty whatever.' This probably

applied to ecclesiastical courts alone. The second (13 Car.

II., c. 12, 1662) is more general, providing that 'no one

shall administer to any person whatsoever the oath usually

called ex officio, or any other oath, whereby such persons may

be charged or compelled to confess any criminal matter.' …

The Statute of 13 Car. II. is cited in Scurr's Case, but

otherwise neither of them seems to have been mentioned; nor do

the text-books, as a rule, take any notice of them.

Henceforward, however, no question arises in the courts as to

the validity of the privilege against self-crimination, and

the statutory exemption is recognized as applying in

common-law courts us well as in others. … This maxim, or

rather the abuse of it in the ecclesiastical courts, helps in

part to explain the shape which the general privilege now has

taken. … We notice that most of the church's religious

investigations, … were conducted by means of commissions or

inquisitions, not by ordinary trials upon proper presentment;

and thus the very rule of the canon law itself was continually

broken, and persons unsuspected and unbetrayed 'per famam'

were compelled, 'seipsum prodere,' to become their own

accusers. This, for a time, was the burden of the complaint.

… Furthermore, in rebelling against this abuse of the

canon-law rule, men were obliged to formulate their reasons

for objecting to answer the articles of inquisitions. … They

professed to be willing to answer ordinary questions, but not

to betray themselves to disgrace and ruin, especially as where

the crimes charged were, as a rule, religious offences and not

those which men generally regard as offences against social

order. In this way the rule began to be formulated and

limited, as applying to the disclosure of forfeitures and

penal offences. In the course of the struggle the aid of the

civil courts was invoked, … and towards the end of the

seventeenth century, … it found a lodgement in the practice

of the Exchequer, of Chancery, and of the other courts. There

had never been in the civil courts any complaint based on the

same lines, or any demand for such a privilege. … But the

momentum of this right, wrested from the ecclesiastical courts

after a century of continual struggle, fairly carried it over

and fixed it firmly in the common-law practice also."

John H. Wigmore,

Nemo Tenetur seipsum Prodere

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 5, pages 71-88).

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1660-1820.

187 Capital Offenses added to Criminal Code in England.

"From the Restoration to the death of George III.,—a period

of 160 years,—no less than 187 capital offenses were added to

the criminal code. The legislature was able, every year, to

discover more than one heinous crime deserving of death. In

the reign of George II. thirty-three Acts were passed creating

capital offenses; in the first fifty years of George III., no

less than sixty-three. In such a multiplication of offenses

all principle was ignored; offenses wholly different in

character and degree were confounded in the indiscriminating

penalty of death. Whenever an offense was found to be

increasing, some busy senator called for new rigor, until

murder became in the eye of the law no greater crime than

picking a pocket, purloining a ribbon from a shop, or

pilfering a pewter-pot. Such law-makers were as ignorant as

they were cruel. … Dr. Johnson,—no squeamish

moralist,—exposed them; Sir W. Blackstone, in whom admiration

of our jurisprudence was almost a foible, denounced them.

Beccaria, Montesquieu, and Bentham demonstrated that certainty

of punishment was more effectual in the repression of crime,

than severity; but law-givers were still inexorable."

T. E. May,

Constitutional History of England

(Widdleton's edition),

volume 2, pages 553-554.

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1695.

Counsel allowed to Persons indicted for High Treason.

"Holland, following the early example of Spain, always

permitted a prisoner the services of a counsel; and if he was

too poor to defray the cost, one was furnished at the public

charge. In England, until after the fall of the Stuarts, this

right, except for the purposes of arguing mere questions of

law, was denied to every one placed on trial for his life. In

1695, it was finally accorded to persons indicted for high

treason. Even then it is doubtful, says Lord Campbell, whether

a bill for this purpose would have passed if Lord Ashley,

afterwards Earl of Shaftesbury and author of the

'Characteristics,' had not broken down while delivering in the

House of Commons a set speech upon it, and, being called upon

to go on, had not electrified the House by observing: 'If I,

sir, who rise only to give my opinion upon a bill now pending,

in the fate of which I have no personal interest, am so

confounded that I am unable to express the least of what I

propose to say, what must the condition of that man be, who,

without any assistance, is called to plead for his life, his

honor, and for his posterity?'"

D. Campbell,

The Puritan in Holland, England and America,

volume 2, page 446.

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1708.

Torture.

The fact that judicial torture, though not a common law power

of the courts, was used in England by command of Mary,

Elizabeth, James I and Charles I, is familiar to all. It was

sanctioned by Lord Coke and Lord Bacon, and Coke himself

conducted examinations by it. It was first made illegal in

Scotland in 1708; in Bavaria and Wurtemburg in 1806; in Baden

in 1831.

Austin Abbott,

Address before New York Society of Medicine Journal,

(The Advocate, Minn., 1889, volume 1, page 71).

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1725.

Knowledge of Right and Wrong the test of Responsibility.

The case of Edward Arnold, in 1725, who was indicted for

shooting at Lord Onslow, seems to be the earliest case in

which the knowledge of right and wrong becomes the test of

responsibility.

American Law Review,

volume 15, pages 720-722.

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1770.

Criminal Law of Libel.

"In this case [Case of the North Briton Junius' Letter to the

King, tried before Lord Mansfield and a special jury on the

2nd June 1770] two doctrines were maintained which excepted

libels from the general principles of the Criminal

Law—firstly, that a publisher was criminally responsible for

the acts of his servants, unless he was proved to be neither

privy nor to have assented to the publication of a libel;

secondly, that it was the province of the Court alone to judge

of the criminality of the publication complained of. The first

rule was rigidly observed in the Courts until the passing of

Lord Campbell's Libel Act in 1843 (6 and 7 Vict., c. 96). The

second prevailed only until 1792, when Fox's Libel Act (32

Geo. III, c. 60) declared it to be contrary to the Law of

England. …

{1985}

A century's experience has proved that the law, as declared by

the Legislature in 1792, has worked well, falsifying the

forebodings of the Judges of the period, who predicted 'the

confusion and destruction of the Law of England' as the result

of a change which they regarded as the subversion of a

fundamental and important principle of English Jurisprudence.

Fox's Libel Act did not complete the emancipation of the

Press. Liberty of discussion continued to be restrained by

merciless persecution. The case of Sir Francis Burdett, in

1820, deserves notice. Sir Francis had written, on the subject

of the 'Peterloo Massacre' in Manchester, a letter which was

published in a London newspaper. He was fined £2,000 and

sentenced to imprisonment for three months. The proceedings on

a motion for a new trial are of importance because of the

Judicial interpretation of the Libel Act of 1792. The view was

then stated by Best, J. (afterwards Lord Wynford), and was

adopted unanimously by the Court, that the statute of George

III. had not made the question of libel one of fact. If it

had, instead of removing an anomaly, it would have created

one. Libel, said Best, J., is a question of law, and the judge

is the judge of the law in libel as in all other cases, the

jury having the power of acting agreeably to his statement of

the law or not. All that the statute does is to prevent the

question from being left to the jury in the narrow way in

which it was left before that time. The jury were then only to

find the fact of the publication and the truth of the

innuendoes, for the judges used to tell them that the intent

was an inference of law to be drawn from the paper, with which

the jury had nothing to do. The legislature have said that

this is not so, but that the whole case is for the jury (4 B.

and A. 95). The law relating to Political Libel has not been

developed or altered in any way since the case of R. v.

Burdett. If it should ever be revived, which does not at

present appear probable, it will be found, says Sir James

Stephen, to have been insensibly modified by the law as to

defamatory libels on private persons, which has been the

subject of a great number of highly important judicial

decisions. The effect of these is, amongst other things, to

give a right to everyone to criticise fairly—that is,

honestly, even if mistakenly—the public conduct of public

men, and to comment honestly, even if mistakenly, upon the

proceedings of Parliament and the Courts of Justice. (History

of the Criminal Law, II., 376.) The unsuccessful prosecution

of Cobbett for an article in the 'Political Register,' in

1831, nearly brought to a close the long series of contests

between the Executive and the Press. From the period of the

Reform Act of 1832, the utmost latitude has been permitted to

public writings, and Press prosecutions for political libels,

like the Censorship, have lapsed."

J. W. Ross Brown,

Law Magazine & Review,

4th ser., volume 17, page 197.

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1791.

Criminals allowed Counsel.

"When the American States adopted their first constitutions,

five of them contained a provision that every person accused

of crime was to be allowed counsel for his defence. The same

right was, in 1791, granted for all America in the first

amendments to the Constitution of the United States. This

would seem to be an elementary principle of justice, but it

was not adopted in England until nearly half a century later,

and then only after a bitter struggle."

D. Campbell,

The Puritan in Holland, England and America,

volume 1, page 70.

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1818.

Last Trial by Battle.

"The last appeal of murder brought in England was the case of

Ashford v. Thornton in 1818. In that case, after Thornton had

been tried and acquitted of the murder of Mary Ashford at the

Warwick Assizes her brother charged him in the court of king's

bench with her murder, according to the forms of the ancient

procedure. The court admitted the legality of the proceedings,

and recognized the appellee's right to wage his body; but as

the appellant was not prepared to fight, the case ended upon a

plea of autrefois acquit interposed by Thornton when arraigned

on the appeal. This proceeding led to the statute of 59 Geo.

III., c. 46, by which all appeals in criminal cases were

finally abolished."

Hannis Taylor,

Origin and Growth of the English Constitution,

part 1, page 311.

See, also, WAGER OF BATTLE.

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D: 1819.

Severity of the former Criminal Law of England.

"Sir James Mackintosh in 1819, in moving in Parliament for a

committee to inquire into the conditions of the criminal law,

stated that there were then 'two hundred capital felonies on

the statute book.' Undoubtedly this apparent severity, for the

reasons stated by Sir James Stephen, is greater than the real

severity, since many of the offenses made capital were of

infrequent occurrence; and juries, moreover, often refused to

convict, and persons capitally convicted for offenses of minor

degrees of guilt were usually pardoned on condition of

transportation to the American and afterwards to the

Australian colonies. But this learned author admits that,

'after making all deductions on these grounds there can be no

doubt that the legislation of the eighteenth century in

criminal matters was severe to the highest degree, and

destitute of any sort of principle or system.'"

J. F. Dillon,

Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America,

page 366.

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1825.

"Ticket-of-leave" system established.

"The 'ticket-of-leave' system [was] established under the

English laws of penal servitude. It originated under the

authority of the governors of the penal colonies, and was the

first sanctioned by Parliament, so far as the committee are

aware, by an Act 5 Geo. IV., chapter 34. Subsequently, when

transportation for crime was abolished by the Acts 16, 17

Vict., chapter 99 (A. D. 1853) and 20, 21 Vict., chapter 3,

and system of home prisons established, the 'license' or

ticket-of-leave system was adopted by Parliament, in those

acts, as a method of rewarding convicts for good conduct

during imprisonment. By further acts passed in 1864, 1871 and

1879, the system has been brought gradually into its present

efficacy."

Report of Committee on Judicial Administration,

and Remedial Procedure

(9 American Bar Association Report, 317).

{1986}

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1832-1860.

Revision of Criminal Code in England.

"With the reform period commenced a new era in criminal

legislation. Ministers and law officers now vied with

philanthropists, in undoing the unhallowed work of many

generations. In 1832, Lord Auckland, Master of the Mint,

secured the abolition of capital punishment for offences

connected with coinage; Mr. Attorney-general Denman exempted

forgery from the same penalty in all but two cases, to which

the Lords would not assent; and Mr. Ewart obtained the like

remission for sheep-stealing, and other similar offences. In

1833, the Criminal Law Commission was appointed, to revise the

entire code. … The commissioners recommended numerous other

remissions, which were promptly carried into effect by Lord

John Russell in 1837. Even these remissions, however, fell

short of public opinion, which found expression in an

amendment of Mr. Ewart, for limiting the punishment of death

to the single crime of murder. This proposal was then lost by

a majority of one; but has since, by successive measures, been

accepted by the legislature;—murder alone, and the

exceptional crime of treason, having been reserved for the

last penalty of the law. Great indeed, and rapid, was this

reformation of the criminal code. It was computed that, from

1810 to 1845, upwards of 1,400 persons had suffered death for

crimes, which had since ceased to be capital."

T. E. May,

Constitutional History of England

(Widdleton's edition),

volume 2, pages 557-558.

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1843.

Lord Campbell's Libel Act, and Publisher's Liability.

"In the 'Morning Advertiser' of the 19th of December, 1769,

appeared Junius's celebrated letter to the king. Inflammatory

and seditious, it could not be overlooked; and as the author

was unknown, informations were immediately filed against the

printers and publishers of the letter. But before they were

brought to trial, Almon, the bookseller, was tried for selling

the 'London Museum,' in which the libel was reprinted. His

connection with the publication proved to be so slight that he

escaped with a nominal punishment. Two doctrines, however,

were maintained in this case, which excepted libels from the

general principles of the criminal law. By the first, a

publisher was held criminally answerable for the acts of his

servants, unless proved to be neither privy nor assenting to

the publication of a libel. So long as exculpatory evidence

was admitted, this doctrine was defensible; but judges

afterwards refused to admit such evidence, holding that the

publication of a libel by a publisher's servant was proof of

his criminality. And this monstrous rule of law prevailed

until 1843, when it was condemned by Lord Campbell's Libel

Act."

T. E. May,

Constitutional History of England

(Widdleton's edition),

volume 2, pages 113-114.

"And be it enacted, that whensoever, upon the trial of any

indictment or information for the publication of a libel,

under the plea of not guilty, evidence shall have been given

which shall establish a presumptive case of publication

against the defendant by the act of any other person by his

authority, it shall be competent to such defendant to prove

that such publication was made without his authority, consent,

or knowledge, and that the said publication did not arise from

want of due care or caution on his part."

Statute 6 & 7 Vic., c. 96, s. 7.

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1848.

The English Court of Criminal Appeal.

"England has not yet got her court of Criminal Appeal,

although the Council of Judges, in their belated scheme of

legal reform, recommend the legislature to create one.

Questions whether an action should be dismissed as 'frivolous

or vexatious,' disputes about' security for costs,' and the

'sufficiency of interrogatories' or 'particulars,' and all

manner of trivial causes affecting property or status, are

deemed by the law of England sufficiently important to entitle

the parties to them, if dissatisfied with the finding of a

court of first instance, to submit it to the touchstone of an

appeal. But the lives and liberties of British subjects

charged with the commission of criminal offences are in

general disposed of irrevocably by the verdict of a jury,

guided by the directions of a trial judge. To this rule,

however, there are two leading exceptions. In the first place,

any convicted prisoner may petition the sovereign for a

pardon, or for the commutation of his sentence; and the royal

prerogative of mercy is exercised through, and on the advice

of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. In the

second place, the English machine juridical notwithstanding

its lack of a properly constituted Court of Criminal Appeal,

is furnished with a kind of 'mechanical equivalent' therefor,

in the 'Court for Crown Cases Reserved,' which was established

by act of Parliament in 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 78)."

The English Court of Criminal Appeal

(The Green Bag, volume 5, page 345).

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1854.

Conflict between United States Constitution and a Treaty.

"About 1854, M. Dillon, French consul at San Francisco,

refused to appear and testify in a criminal case. The

Constitution of the United States (Amendment VI.), in criminal

cases grants accused persons compulsory process for obtaining

witnesses, while our treaties of 1853, with France (Art. II.)

says that consuls 'shall never be compelled to appear as

witnesses before the courts.' Thus there was a conflict

between the Constitution and the treaty, and it was held that

the treaty was void. After a long correspondence the French

Consuls were directed to obey a subpoena in future."

Theodore D. Woolsey,

Introduction to the Study of International Law

[6th edition],

page 157, note.

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1877.

"Indeterminate Sentences."

"This practice, so far as the committee can ascertain, has

been adopted in the states of New York and Ohio only. … The

Ohio statute has been taken mainly from that which was adopted

in New York, April 12, 1877."

Report of Committee on Judicial Administrations, and

Remedial Procedure

(9 American Bar Association Report, page 313).

CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1893.

Criminal Jurisdiction of Federal Courts.

"The Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v.

Rodgers, … 150 U. S., … in declaring that the term 'high

seas' in the criminal law of the United States is applicable

as well to the open waters of the great lakes as to the open

waters of the ocean, may be said, in a just sense, not to have

changed the law, but to have asserted the law to be in force

upon a vast domain over which its jurisdiction was heretofore

in doubt. The opinion of Justice Field will take its place in

our jurisprudence in company with the great cases of the

Genesee Chief, 12 How. (U. S.), 443, and its successors, and

with them marks the self adapting capacity of the judicial

power to meet the great exigencies of justice and good

government."

University Law Review,

volume 1, page 2.

----------CRIMINAL LAW: End----------

----------ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: Start--------

{1987}

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 449-1066.

No distinction between Lay and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.

"In the time of our Saxon ancestors, there was no sort of

distinction between the lay and the ecclesiastical

jurisdiction: the county court was as much a spiritual as a

temporal tribunal; the rights of the church were ascertained

and asserted at the same time, and by the same judges, as the

rights of the laity. For this purpose the bishop of the

diocese, and the alderman, or, in his absence, the sheriff of

the county, used to sit together in the county court, and had

there the cognizance of all causes, as well ecclesiastical as

civil: a superior deference being paid to the bishop's opinion

in spiritual matters, and to that of the lay judges in temporal.

W. Blackstone,

Commentaries,

book 3, page 61.

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1066-1087.

Separation of Ecclesiastical from Civil Courts.

"William I. (whose title was warmly espoused by the

monasteries, which he liberally endowed, and by the foreign

clergy whom he brought over in shoals from France and Italy,

and planted in the best preferments of the English church),

was at length prevailed upon to … separate the

ecclesiastical court from the civil: whether actuated by

principles of bigotry, or by those of a more refined policy,

in order to discountenance the laws of King Edward, abounding

with the spirit of Saxon liberty, is not altogether certain.

But the latter, if not the cause, was undoubtedly the

consequence, of this separation: for the Saxon laws were soon

overborne by the Norman justiciaries, when the county court

fell into disregard by the bishop's withdrawing his presence,

in obedience to the charter of the conqueror; which prohibited

any spiritual cause from being tried in the secular courts,

and commanded the suitors to appear before the bishop only,

whose decisions were directed to conform to the canon law."

W. Blackstone,

Commentaries,

book 3, pages 62-63.

"The most important ecclesiastical measure of the reign, the

separation of the church jurisdiction from the secular

business of the courts of law, is unfortunately, like all

other charters of the time, undated. Its contents however show

the influence of the ideas which under the genius of

Hildebrand were forming the character of the continental

churches. From henceforth the bishops and archdeacons are no

longer to hold ecclesiastical pleas in the hundred-court, but

to have courts of their own; to try causes by canonical, not

by customary law, and allow no spiritual questions to come

before laymen as judges. In case of contumacy the offender may

be excommunicated and the king and sheriff will enforce the

punishment. In the same way laymen are forbidden to interfere

in spiritual causes. The reform is one which might very

naturally recommend itself to a man like Lanfranc."

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

volume 1, section 101.

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1100.

Reunion of Civil and Ecclesiastical Courts.

"King Henry the First, at his accession, among other

restorations of the laws of King Edward the Confessor, revived

this of the union of the civil and ecclesiastical courts. …

This, however, was ill-relished by the popish clergy,… and,

therefore, in their synod at Westminster, 3 Hen. I., they

ordained that no bishop should attend the discussion of

temporal causes; which soon dissolved this newly effected

union."

W. Blackstone,

Commentaries, book 3, page 63.

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1135.

Final Separation of Civil and Ecclesiastical Courts.

"And when, upon the death of King Henry the First, the usurper

Stephen was brought in and supported by the clergy, we find

one article of the oath which they imposed upon him was, that

ecclesiastical persons and ecclesiastical causes should be

subject only to the bishop's jurisdiction. And as it was about

that time that the contest and emulation began between the

laws of England and those of Rome, the temporal courts

adhering to the former, and the spiritual adopting the latter

as their rule of proceeding, this widened the breach between

them, and made a coalition afterwards impracticable; which

probably would else have been effected at the general

reformation of the church."

W. Blackstone,

Commentaries,

book 3, page 64.

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1285.

Temporal Courts assume Jurisdiction of Defamation.

"To the Spiritual Court appears also to have belonged the

punishment of defamation until the rise of actions on the

case, when the temporal courts assumed jurisdiction, though

not, it seems, to the exclusion of punishment by the church.

The punishment of usurers, cleric and lay, also belonged to

the ecclesiastical judges, though their movables were

confiscated to the king, unless the usurer 'vita comite digne

poenituerit, et testamento condito quae legare decreverit a se

prorsus alienaverit.' That is, it seems, the personal

punishment was inflicted by the Ecclesiastical Court, but the

confiscation of goods (when proper) was decreed by the King's

Court."

Melville M. Bigelow,

History of Procedure,

page 51.

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: A. D. 1857-1859.

Ecclesiastical Courts deprived of Matrimonial and Testamentary

Causes.

"Matrimonial causes, or injuries respecting the rights of

marriage, are another … branch of the ecclesiastical

jurisdiction. Though, if we consider marriages in the light of

mere civil contracts, they do not seem to be properly of

spiritual cognizance. But the Romanists having very early

converted this contract into a holy sacramental ordinance, the

church of course took it under her protection,' upon the

division of the two jurisdictions. … One might … wonder,

that the same authority, which enjoined the strictest celibacy

to the priesthood, should think them the proper judges in

causes between man and wife. These causes, indeed, partly from

the nature of the injuries complained of, and partly from the

clerical method of treating them, soon became too gross for

the modesty of a lay tribunal. … Spiritual jurisdiction of

testamentary causes is a peculiar constitution of this island;

for in almost all other (even in popish) countries all matters

testamentary are under the jurisdiction of the civil

magistrate. And that this privilege is enjoyed by the clergy

in England, not as a matter of ecclesiastical right, but by

the special favor and indulgence of the municipal law, and as

it should seem by some public act of the great council, is

freely acknowledged by Lindewode, the ablest canonist of the

fifteenth century. Testamentary causes, he observes, belong to

the ecclesiastical courts 'de consuetudine Angliae, et super

consensu regio et suorum procerum in talibus ab antiquo

concesso.'"

W. Blackstone,

Commentaries,

book 3, pages 91-95.

{1988}

Jurisdiction in testamentary causes was taken away from the

ecclesiastical courts by Statutes 20 and 21 Vic., c. 77 and 21

and 22 Vic., chapters 56 and 95, and was transferred to the

court of Probate. Jurisdiction in matrimonial causes was

transferred to the Divorce Court by Statute 20 and 21 Vic., 85.

----------ECCLESIASTICAL LAW: End--------

----------EQUITY: Start--------

Equity.

EQUITY: A. D. 449-1066.

Early Masters in Chancery.

"As we approach the era of the Conquest, we find distinct

traces of the Masters in Chancery, who, though in sacred

orders, were well trained in jurisprudence, and assisted the

chancellor in preparing writs and grants, as well as in the

service of the royal chapel. They formed a sort of college of

justice, of which he was the head. They all sate in the

Wittenagemote, and, as 'Law Lords', are supposed to have had

great weight in the deliberations of that assembly."

Lord Campbell,

Lives of the Chancellors,

volume 1, page 53.

EQUITY: A. D. 596.

Chancellor, Keeper of the Great Seal.

"From the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity by

the preaching of St. Augustine, the King always had near his

person a priest, to whom was entrusted the care of his chapel,

and who was his confessor. This person, selected from the most

learned and able of his order, and greatly superior in

accomplishments to the unlettered laymen attending the Court,

soon acted as private secretary to the King, and gained his

confidence in affairs of state. The present demarcation

between civil and ecclesiastical employments was then little

regarded, and to this same person was assigned the business of

superintending writs and grants, with the custody of the great

seal."

Lord Campbell,

Lives of the Chancellors,

volume 1, page 27.

EQUITY: A. D. 1066.

Master of the Rolls.

"The office of master, formerly called the Clerk or Keeper of

the Rolls, is recognized at this early period, though at this

time he appears to have been the Chancellor's deputy, not an

independent officer."

Geo. Spence,

Equity Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery,

volume 1, page 100.

EQUITY: A. D. 1066-1154.

Chancellor as Secretary of State.

Under the Norman Kings, the Chancellor was a kind of secretary

of state. His functions were political rather than judicial.

He attended to the royal correspondence, kept the royal

accounts, and drew up writs for the administration of justice.

He was also the keeper of the seal.

Montague's Elements of Constitutional History of England,

page 27.

See, also, CHANCELLOR.

A. D. 1067.

First Lord Chancellor.

"The first keeper of the seals who was endowed with the title

of Lord Chancellor was Maurice, who received the great seal in

1067. The incumbents of the office were for a long period

ecclesiastics; and they usually enjoyed episcopal or

archiepiscopal rank, and lived in the London palaces attached

to their sees or provinces. The first Keeper of the seals of

England was Fitzgilbert, appointed by Queen Matilda soon after

her coronation, and there was no other layman appointed until

the reign of Edward III."

L. J. Bigelow,

Bench and Bar,

page 23.

EQUITY: A. D. 1169.

Uses and Trusts.

"According to the law of England, trusts may be created 'inter

vivos' as well as by testament, and their history is a curious

one, beginning, like that of the Roman 'fidei commissa,' with

an attempt to evade the law. The Statutes of Mortmain, passed

to prevent the alienation of lands to religious houses, led to

the introduction of 'uses,' by which the grantor alienated his

land to a friend to hold 'to the use' of a monastery, the

clerical chancellors giving legal validity to the wish thus

expressed. Although this particular device was put a stop to

by 15 Ric. II. c. 5, 'uses' continued to be employed for other

purposes, having been found more malleable than what was

called, by way of contrast, 'the legal estate.' They offered

indeed so many modes of escaping the rigour of the law, that,

after several other statutes had been passed with a view of

curtailing their advantages, the 27 Hen. VIII. c. 10 enacted

that, where anyone was seised to a use, the legal estate

should be deemed to be in him to whose use he was seised. The

statute did not apply to trusts of personal property, nor to

trusts of land where any active duty was cast upon the

trustee, nor where a use was limited 'upon a use,' i. e. where

the person in whose favour a use was created was himself to

hold the estate to the use of some one else. There continued

therefore to be a number of cases in which, in spite of the

'Statute of Uses,' the Court of Chancery was able to carry out

its policy of enforcing what had otherwise been merely moral

duties. The system thus arising has grown to enormous

dimensions, and trusts, which, according to the definition of

Lord Hardwicke, are 'such a confidence between parties that no

action at law will lie, but there is merely a case for the

consideration of courts of equity,' are inserted not only in

wills, but also in marriage settlements, arrangements with

creditors, and numberless other instruments necessary for the

comfort of families and the development of commerce."

T. E. Holland,

Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,

page 217.

EQUITY: A. D. 1253.

A Lady Keeper of the Seals.

"Having occasion to cross the sea and visit Gascony, A. D.

1253, Henry III. made her [Queen Eleanor] keeper of the seal

during his absence, and in that character she in her own

person presided in the 'Aula Regia,' hearing causes, and, it

is to be feared, forming her decisions less in accordance with

justice than her own private interests. Never did judge set

law and equity more fearfully at naught."

L. J. Bigelow,

Bench and Bar,

page 28.

EQUITY: A. D. 1258.

No Writs except De Cursu.

"In the year 1258 the Provisions of Oxford were promulgated;

two separate clauses of which bound the chancellor to issue no

more writs except writs 'of course' without command of the

King and his Council present with him. This, with the growing

independence of the judiciary on the one hand, and the

settlement of legal process on the other, terminated the right

to issue special writs, and at last fixed the common writs in

unchangeable form; most of which had by this time become

developed into the final form in which for six centuries they

were treated as precedents of declaration."

M. M. Bigelow,

History of Procedure,

page 197.

EQUITY: A. D. 1272-1307.

The Chancellor's functions.

"In the reign of Edward I. the Chancellor begins to appear in

the three characters in which we now know him; as a great

political officer, as the head of a department for the issue

of writs and the custody of documents in which the King's

interest is concerned, as the administrator of the King's

grace."

Sir William H. Anson,

Law and Custom of the Constitution,

part 2, page 146.

{1989}

EQUITY: A. D. 1330.

Chancery stationary at Westminster.

"There was likewise introduced about this time a great

improvement in the administration of justice, by rendering the

Court of Chancery stationary at Westminster. The ancient kings

of England were constantly migrating,—one principal reason

for which was, that the same part of the country, even with

the aid of purveyance and pre-emption, could not long support

the court and all the royal retainers, and render in kind due

to the King could be best consumed on the spot. Therefore, if

he kept Christmas at Westminster, he would keep Easter at

Winchester, and Pentecost at Gloucester, visiting his many

palaces and manors in rotation. The Aula Regis, and afterwards

the courts into which it was partitioned, were ambulatory

along with him—to the great vexation of the suitors. This

grievance was partly corrected by Magna Charta, which enacted

that the Court of Common Pleas should be held 'in a certain

place,'—a corner of Westminster Hall being fixed upon for

that purpose. In point of law, the Court of King's Bench and

the Court of Chancery may still be held in any county of

England,—'wheresoever in England the King or the Chancellor

may be.' Down to the commencement of the reign of Edward III.,

the King's Bench and the Chancery actually had continued to

follow the King's person, the Chancellor and his officers

being entitled to part of the purveyance made for the royal

household. By 28 Edw. 1., c. 5, the Lord Chancellor and the

Justices of the King's Bench were ordered to follow the King,

so that he might have at all times near him sages of the law

able to order all matters which should come to the Court. But

the two Courts were now by the King's command fixed in the

places where, unless on a few extraordinary occasions, they

continued to be held down to our own times, at the upper end

of Westminster Hall, the King's Bench on the left hand, and

the Chancery on the right, both remaining open to the Hall,

and a bar erected to keep off the multitude from pressing on

the judges."

Lord Campbell,

Lives of the Chancellors,

volume 1, page 181.

EQUITY: A. D. 1348.

"Matters of Grace" committed to the Chancellor.

"In the 22nd year of Edward III, matters which were of grace

were definitely committed to the Chancellor for decision, and

from this point there begins to develop that body of

rules—supplementing the deficiencies or correcting the

harshness of the Common Law—which we call Equity."

Sir W. R. Anson,

Law and Custom of the Constitution,

part 2, page 147.

ALSO IN:

Kerly's History of the Court of Chancery,

page 31.

EQUITY: A. D. 1383.

Early Instance of Subpoena.

"It is said that John Waltham, Bishop of Salisbury, who was

Keeper of the Rolls about the 5th of Richard II., considerably

enlarged this new jurisdiction; that, to give efficacy to it,

he invented, or more properly, was the first who adopted in

that court, the writ of subpoena, a process which had before

been used by the council, and is very plainly alluded to in

the statutes of the last reign, though not under that name.

This writ summoned the party to appear under a penalty, and

answer such things as should be objected against him; upon

this a petition was lodged, containing the articles of

complaint to which he was then compelled to answer. These

articles used to contain suggestions of injuries suffered, for

which no remedy was to be had in the courts of common law, and

therefore the complainant prayed advice and relief of the

chancellor."

J. Reeves,

History English Law (Finlason's edition),

volume 3, page 384.

EQUITY: A. D. 1394.

Chancery with its own Mode of Procedure.

"From the time of passing the stat. 17 Richard II. we may

consider that the Court of Chancery was established as a

distinct and permanent court, having separate jurisdiction,

with its own peculiar mode of procedure similar to that which

had prevailed in the Council, though perhaps it was not wholly

yet separated from the Council."

George Spence,

Equity Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery,

volume 1, page 345.

EQUITY: A. D. 1422.

Chancery Cases appear in Year Books.

"It is beyond a doubt that this [chancery] court had begun to

exercise its judicial authority in the reigns of Richard II.,

Henry IV. and V. … But we do not find in our books any

report of cases there determined till 37 Henry VI., except

only on the subject of uses; which, as has been before

remarked, might give rise to the opinion, that the first

equitable judicature was concerned in the support of uses."

J. Reeves,

History English Law (Finlason's edition),

volume 3, page 553.

EQUITY: A. D. 1443.

No distinction between Examination and Answer.

The earliest record of written answers is in 21 Henry VI.

Before that time little, if any, distinction was made

between the examination and the answer.

Kerly,

History of Courts of Chancery,

page 51.

EQUITY: A. D. 1461-1483.

Distinction between Proceeding by Bill and by Petition.

"A written statement of the grievance being required to be

filed before the issuing of the subpoena, with security to pay

damages and costs,—bills now acquired form, and the

distinction arose between the proceeding by bill and by

petition. The same regularity was observed in the subsequent

stages of the suit. Whereas formerly the defendant was

generally examined viva voce when he appeared in obedience to

the subpoena, the practice now was to put in a written answer,

commencing with a protestation against the truth or

sufficiency of the matters contained in the bill, stating the

facts relied upon by the defendant, and concluding with a

prayer that he may be dismissed, with his costs. There were

likewise, for the purpose of introducing new facts, special

replications and rejoinders, which continued till the reign of

Elizabeth, but which have been rendered unnecessary by the

modern practice of amending the bill and answer. Pleas and

demurrers now appear. Although the pleadings were in English,

the decrees on the bill continued to be in Latin down to the

reign of Henry VIII. Bills to perpetuate testimony, to set out

metes and bounds, and for injunctions against proceedings at

law, and to stay waste, became frequent."

Lord Campbell,

Lives of the Chancellors,

volume 1, page 309.

{1990}

EQUITY: A. D. 1461-1483.

Jurisdiction of Chancery over Trusts.

"The equitable jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery may be

considered as making its greatest advances in this reign

[Edw. IV.]. The point was now settled, that there being a

feoffment to uses, the 'cestui que' use, or person

beneficially entitled, could maintain no action at law, the

Judges saying that he had neither 'jus in re' nor 'jus ad

rem,' and that their forms could not be moulded so as to

afford him any effectual relief, either as to the land or the

profits. The Chancellors, therefore, with general applause,

declared that they would proceed by subpoena against the

feoffee to compel him to perform a duty which in conscience

was binding upon him, and gradually extended the remedy

against his heir and against his alienee with notice of the

trust, although they held, as their successors have done, that

the purchaser of the legal estate for valuable consideration

without notice might retain the land for his own benefit. They

therefore now freely made decrees requiring the trustee to

convey according to the directions of the 'cestui que trust,'

or person beneficially interested; and the most important

branch of the equitable jurisdiction of the Court over trusts

was firmly and irrevocably established."

Lord Campbell,

Lives of the Chancellors,

volume 1, page 309.

EQUITY: A. D. 1538.

Lord Keeper of the Great Seal.

"Between the death, resignation, or removal of one chancellor,

and the appointment of another, the Great Seal, instead of

remaining in the personal custody of the Sovereign, was

sometimes entrusted to a temporal keeper, either with limited

authority (as only to seal writs), or with all the powers,

though not with the rank of Chancellor. At last the practice

grew up of occasionally appointing a person to hold the Great

Seal with the title of 'Keeper,' where it was meant that he

should permanently hold it in his own right and discharge all

the duties belonging to it. Queen Elizabeth, ever sparing in

the conferring of dignities, having given the Great Seal with

the title of 'Keeper' to Sir Nicholas Bacon, objections were

made to the legality of some of his acts,—and to obviate

these, a statute was passed declaring that 'the Lord Keeper of

the Great Seal for the time being shall have the same place,

pre-eminence, and jurisdiction as the Lord Chancellor of

England.' Since then there never have been a Chancellor and

Keeper of the Great Seal concurrently, and the only difference

between the two titles is, that the one is more sounding than

the other, and is regarded as a higher mark of royal favor."

Lord Campbell,

Lives of the Chancellors,

volume 1, page 40.

ALSO IN:

Sir W. R. Anson,

Law and Custom of the Constitution,

volume 2, page 150.

EQUITY: A. D. 1558.

Increase of Business in the Court of Chancery.

"The business of the Court of Chancery had now so much

increased that to dispose of it satisfactorily required a

Judge regularly trained to the profession of the law, and

willing to devote to it all his energy and industry. The

Statute of Wills, the Statute of Uses, the new modes of

conveyancing introduced for avoiding transmutation of

possession, the questions which arose respecting the property

of the dissolved monasteries, and the great increase of

commerce and wealth in the nation, brought such a number of

important suits into the Court of Chancery, that the holder of

the Great Seal could no longer satisfy the public by

occasionally stealing a few hours from his political

occupations, to dispose of bills and petitions, and not only

was his daily attendance demanded in Westminster Hall during

term time, but it was necessary that he should sit, for a

portion of each vacation, either at his own house, or in some

convenient place appointed by him for clearing off his

arrears."

Lord Campbell,

Lives of the Chancellors,

volume 2, page 95.

EQUITY: A. D. 1567-1632.

Actions of Assumpsit in Equity.

"The late development of the implied contract to pay 'quantum

meruit,' and to indemnify a surety, would be the more

surprising, but for the fact that Equity gave relief to

tailors and the like, and to sureties long before the common

law held them. Spence, although at a loss to account for the

jurisdiction, mentions a suit brought in Chancery, in 1567, by

a tailor, to recover the amount due for clothes furnished. The

suit was referred to the Queen's tailor, to ascertain the

amount due, and upon his report a decree was made. The learned

writer adds that 'there were suits for wages and many others

of like nature.' A surety who had no counter-bond filed a bill

against his principal in 1632, in a case which would seem to

have been one of the earliest of the kind, for the reporter,

after stating that there was a decree for the plaintiff, adds

'quod nota.'"

J. B. Ames,

History of Assumpsit

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 2, pages 59-60).

EQUITY: A. D. 1592.

All Chancellors, save one, Lawyers.

"No regular judicial system at that time prevailed in the

court; but the suitor when he thought himself aggrieved, found

a desultory and uncertain remedy, according to the private

opinion of the chancellor, who was generally an ecclesiastic,

or sometimes (though rarely) a statesman: no lawyer having sat

in the court of chancery from the times of the chief justices

Thorpe and Knyvet, successively chancellors to King Edward

III. in 1372 and 1373, to the promotion of Sir Thomas More by

King Henry VIII., in 1530. After which the great seal was

indiscriminately committed to the custody of lawyers or

courtiers, or churchmen, according as the convenience of the

times and the disposition of the prince required, till

Sargeant Puckering was made lord keeper in 1592; from which

time to the present the court of chancery has always been

filled by a lawyer, excepting the interval from 1621 to 1625,

when the seal was entrusted to Dr. Williams, then dean of

Westminster, but afterwards bishop of Lincoln; who had been

chaplain to Lord Ellesmere when chancellor."

W. Blackstone,

Commentaries,

book 3, chapter 4.

EQUITY: A. D. 1595.

Injunctions against Suits at Law.

Opposition of common law courts.

"The strongest inclination was shown to maintain this

opposition to the court of equity, not only by the courts, but

by the legislature. The stat. 27 Elizabeth, c, l., which, in

very general words, restrains all application to other

jurisdictions to impeach or impede the execution of judgments

given in the king's courts, under penalty of a praemunire, has

been interpreted, as well as stat. Richard II., c. 5, not only

as imposing a restraint upon popish claims of judicature, but

also of the equitable jurisdiction in Chancery; and in the

thirty-first and thirty-second years of this reign, a

counsellor-at-law was indicted in the King's Bench on the

statute of praemunire, for exhibiting a bill in Chancery after

judgment had gone against his client in the King's Bench.

Under this and the like control, the Court of Chancery still

continued to extend its authority, supported, in some degree,

by the momentum it acquired in the time of Cardinal Wolsey."

J. Reeves,

History English Law (Finlason's edition.),

volume 5, pages 386-387.

{1991}

EQUITY: A. D. 1596.

Lord Ellesmere and his Decisions.

Kerly says the earliest chancellors' decisions that have come

down to us are those of Lord Ellesmere. He was the first

chancellor to establish equity upon the basis of precedents.

But compare Reeves (Finlason's), History English Law, volume

3, page 553, who mentions decisions in the Year Books.

Kerly,

History of the Court of Chancery,

page 98.

EQUITY: A. D. 1601.

Cy Pres Doctrine.

"There is no trace of the doctrine being put into practice in

England before the Reformation, although in the earliest

reported cases where it has been applied it is treated as a

well recognized rule, and as one owing its origin to the

traditional favour with which charities had always been

regarded. Much of the obscurity which covers the introduction

of the doctrine into our Law may perhaps be explained by the

fact that, in the earliest times, purely charitable gifts, as

they would now be understood, were almost unknown. The piety

of donors was most generally displayed in gifts to religious

houses, and the application of the subject matter of such

gifts was exclusively in the Superiors of the different

Orders, and entirely exempt from secular control. From the

religious houses the administration of charitable gifts passed

to the Chancellor, as keeper of the King's conscience, the

latter having as 'parens patriae' the general superintendence

of all infants, idiots, lunatics and charities. And it was not

until some time later that this jurisdiction became gradually

merged, and then only in cases where trusts were interposed,

in the general jurisdiction of the Chancery Courts. It is not

necessary to go into the long vexed question as to when that

actually took place. It is enough to say that it is now pretty

conclusively established that the jurisdiction of the Chancery

Courts over charitable trusts existed anterior to, and

independently of, the Statute of Charitable Uses, 43 Eliz., c.

4. As charitable gifts generally involved the existence of a

trust reposed in some one, it was natural that the Chancery

Court, which assumed jurisdiction over trusts, should have

gradually extended that jurisdiction over charities generally;

but the origin of the power, that it was one delegated by the

Crown to the Chancellor, must not be lost sight of, as in this

way, probably, can be best explained the curious distinct

jurisdictions vested in the Crown and the Chancery Courts

respectively to apply gifts Cy pres, the limits of which,

though long uncertain, were finally determined by Lord Eldon

in the celebrated case of Moggridge v. Thackwell, 7 ves. 69.

If we remember that the original jurisdiction in all

charitable matters was in the Crown, and that even after the

Chancery Courts acquired a jurisdiction over trusts, there was

still a class of cases untouched by such jurisdiction, we

shall better understand how the prerogative of the Crown still

remained in a certain class of cases, as we shall see

hereafter. However this may be, there is no doubt that when

the Chancery Courts obtained the jurisdiction over the

charities, which they have never lost, the liberal principles

of the Civil or Canon Law as to the carrying out of such gifts

were the sources and inspirations of their decisions. And

hence the Cy pres doctrine became gradually well recognised,

though the mode of its application has varied from time to

time. Perhaps the most striking instances of this liberal

construction are to be found in the series of cases which, by

a very strained interpretation of the Statute of Elizabeth

with regard to charitable uses, decided that gifts to such

uses in favour of corporations, which could not take by devise

under the old Wills Act, 32 Hen. VIII., c. 1, were good as

operating in the nature of an appointment of the trust in

equity, and that the intendment of the statute being in favour

of charitable gifts, all deficiencies of assurance were to be

supplied by the Courts. Although, historically, there may be

no connection between the power of the King over the

administration of charities, and the dispensing power reserved

to him by the earlier Mortmain Acts, the one being, as we have

seen, a right of Prerogative, the other a Feudal right in his

capacity as ultimate Lord of the fee, it is perhaps not wholly

out of place to allude shortly to the latter, particularly as

the two appear not to have been kept distinct in later times.

By the earlier Mortmain Acts, the dispensing power of the

King, as Lord Paramount, to waive forfeitures under these Acts

was recognised, and gifts of land to religious or charitable

corporations were made not 'ipso facto' void, but only

voidable at the instance of the immediate Lord, or, on his

default, of the King and after the statute 'quia emptores,'

which practically abolished mesne seignories, the Royal

license became in most cases sufficient to secure the validity

of the gift. The power of suspending statutes being declared

illegal at the Revolution, it was deemed prudent, seeing that

the grant of licenses in Mortmain imported an exercise of such

suspending power, to give these licenses a Parliamentary

sanction; and accordingly, by 7 and 8 William III., c. 37, it

was declared that the King might grant licenses to aliens in

Mortmain, and also to purchase, acquire, and hold lands in

Mortmain in perpetuity without pain of forfeiture. The right

of the mesne lord was thus passed over, and the dispensing

power of the Crown, from being originally a Feudal right,

became converted practically into one of Prerogative. The

celebrated Statute of 1 Edward VI., c. 14, against

superstitious uses, which is perhaps the earliest statutory

recognition of the Cy pres doctrine, points also strongly to

the original jurisdiction in these matters being in the King."

The author proceeds to trace at some length the subsequent

developments of the doctrine both judicial and statutory. The

doctrine is not generally recognised in the United States.

H. L. Manby

in Law Magazine & Review, 4th ser.,

volume 15 (London, 1889-90), page 203.

EQUITY: A. D. 1603-1625.

Equity and the Construction of Wills.

"After a violent struggle between Lord Coke and Lord

Ellesmere, the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery to stay

by injunction execution on judgments at law was finally

established. In this reign [James I.] the Court made another

attempt,—which was speedily abandoned,—to determine upon the

validity of wills,—and it has been long settled that the

validity of wills of real property shall be referred to courts

of law, and the validity of wills of personal property to the

Ecclesiastical Courts,—equity only putting a construction

upon them when their validity has been established."

Lord Campbell,

Lives of the Chancellors,

volume 2, page 386.

EQUITY: A. D. 1612.

Right of Redemption.

The right to redeem after the day dates from the reign of

James I. From the time of Edward IV. (1461-83) a mortgagor

could redeem after the day if accident, or a collateral

agreement, or fraud by mortgagee, prevented payment.

Kerly,

History of the Court of Chancery,

page 143.

{1992}

EQUITY: A. D. 1616.

Contest between Equity and Common-Law Courts.

"In the time of Lord Ellesmere (A. D. 1616) arose that notable

dispute between the courts of law and equity, set on foot by

Sir Edward Coke, then chief justice of the court of king's

bench; whether a court of equity could give relief after or

against a judgment at the common law? This contest was so

warmly carried on, that indictments were preferred against the

suitors, the solicitors, the counsel, and even a master in

chancery, for having incurred a 'praemunire,' by questioning

in a court of equity a judgment in the court of king's bench,

obtained by a gross fraud and imposition. This matter being

brought before the king, was by him referred to his learned

counsel for their advice and opinion; who reported so strongly

in favor of the courts of equity, that his majesty gave

judgment in their behalf."

W. Blackstone,

Commentaries,

book 3, page 54.

EQUITY: A. D. 1616.

Relief against judgments at law.

"This was in 1616, the year of the memorable contest between

Lord Coke and Lord Ellesmere as to the power of equity to

restrain the execution of common-law judgment obtained by

fraud. … The right of equity to enforce specific

performance, where damages at law would be an inadequate

remedy, has never since been questioned."

J. B. Ames,

Specific Performance of Contracts

(The Green Bag, volume 1, page 27).

EQUITY: A. D. 1671.

The Doctrine of Tacking established.

"It is the established doctrine in the English law, that if

there be three mortgages in succession, and all duly

registered, or a mortgage, and then a judgment, and then a

second mortgage upon the estate, the junior mortgagee may

purchase in the first mortgage, and tack it to his mortgage,

and by that contrivance 'squeeze out' the middle mortgage, and

gain preference over it. The same rule would apply if the

first, as well as the second incumbrance, was a judgment; but

the incumbrancer who tacks must always be a mortgagee, for he

stands in the light of a bona fide purchaser, parting with his

money upon the security of the mortgage. … In the English

law, the rule is under some reasonable qualification. The last

mortgagee cannot tack, if, when he took his mortgage, he had

notice in fact … of the intervening incumbrance. … The

English doctrine of tacking was first solemnly established in

Marsh v. Lee [2 Vent. 337], under the assistance of Sir

Matthew Hale, who compared the operation to a plank in

shipwreck gained by the last mortgagee; and the subject was

afterwards very fully and accurately expounded by the Master

of the Rolls, in Brace v. Duchess of Marlborough [2 P. Wms.

491]."

J. Kent,

Commentaries,

part 6, lecture 58.

EQUITY: A. D. 1702-1714.

Equitable conversion.

"He [Lord Harcourt] first established the important doctrine,

that if money is directed either by deed or will to be laid

out in land, the money shall be taken to be land, even as to

collateral heirs."

Lord Campbell,

Lives of the Chancellors,

volume 4, page 374.

EQUITY: A. D. 1736-1756.

Lord Hardwicke developed System of Precedents.

It was under Lord Hardwicke that the jurisdiction of Equity

was fully developed. During the twenty years of his

chancellorship the great branches of equitable jurisdiction

were laid out, and his decisions were regularly cited as

authority until after Lord Eldon's time.

Kerly,

History of the Court of Chancery,

pages 175-177.

EQUITY: A. D. 1742.

Control of Corporations.

"That the directors of a corporation shall manage its affairs

honestly and carefully is primarily a right of the corporation

itself rather than of the individual stockholders. … The

only authority before the present century is the case of the

Charitable Corporation v. Sutton, decided by Lord Hardwicke [2

Atk. 400]. But this case is the basis … of all subsequent

decisions on the point, and it is still quoted as containing

an accurate exposition of the law. The corporation was

charitable only in name, being a joint-stock corporation for

lending money on pledges. By the fraud of some of the

directors … , and by the negligence of the rest, loans were

made without proper security. The bill was against the

directors and other officers, 'to have a satisfaction for a

breach of trust, fraud, and mismanagement.' Lord Hardwicke

granted the relief prayed, and a part of his decision is well

worth quoting. He says: 'Committee-men are most properly

agents to those who employ them in this trust, and who empower

them to direct and superintend the affairs of the corporation.

In this respect they may be guilty of acts of commission or

omission, of malfeasance or nonfeasance. … Nor will I ever

determine that a court of equity cannot lay hold of every

breach of trust, let the person be guilty of it either in a

private or public capacity.'"

S. Williston,

History of the Law of Business

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 2, page 158-159).

EQUITY: A. D. 1782.

Demurrer to Bill of Discovery.

"Originally, it appears not to have been contemplated that a

demurrer or plea would lie to a bill for discovery, unless it

were a demurrer or plea to the nature of the discovery sought

or to the jurisdiction of the court, e. g., a plea of purchase

for value; and, though it was a result of this doctrine that

plaintiffs might compel discovery to which they were not

entitled, it seems to have been supposed that they were not

likely to do so to any injurious effect, since they must do it

at their own expense. But this view was afterwards abandoned,

and in 1782 it was decided that, if a bill of discovery in aid

of an action at law stated no good cause of action against the

defendant, it might be demurred to on that ground, i. e., that

it showed on its face no right to relief at law, and,

therefore, no right to discovery in equity. Three years later

in Hindman v. Taylor, the question was raised whether a

defendant could protect himself for answering a bill for

discovery by setting up an affirmative defence by plea; and,

though Lord Thurlow decided the question in the negative, his

decision has since been overruled; and it is now fully settled

that any defence may be set up to a bill for discovery by

demurrer or plea, the same as to a bill for relief; and, if

successful, it will protect the defendant from answering."

C. C. Langdell,

Summary of Equity Pleading,

pages 204-205.

{1993}

EQUITY: A. D. 1786.

Injunction after Decree to pay Proceeds of Estate into Court.

"As soon as a decree is made … , under which the executor

will be required to pay the proceeds of the whole estate into

court, an injunction ought to be granted against the

enforcement of any claim against the estate by an action at

law; and accordingly such has been the established rule for

more than a hundred years. … The first injunction that was

granted expressly upon the ground above explained was that

granted by Lord Thurlow, in 1782, in the case of Brooks v.

Reynolds. … In the subsequent case of Kenyon v. Worthington,

… an application to Lord Thurlow for an injunction was

resisted by counsel of the greatest eminence. The resistance,

however, was unsuccessful, and the injunction was granted.

This was in 1786; and from that time the question was regarded

as settled."

C. C. Langdell,

Equity Jurisdiction

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 5, pages 122-123).

EQUITY: A. D. 1792.

Negative Pleas.

"In Gun v. Prior, Forrest, 88, note, 1 Cox, 197, 2 Dickens,

657, Cas. in Eq. Pl. 47, a negative plea was overruled by Lord

Thurlow after a full argument. This was in 1785. Two years

later, the question came before the same judge again, and,

after another full argument, was decided the same way. Newman

v. Wallis, 2 Bro. C. C. 143, Cas. in Eq. Pl. 52. But in 1792,

in the case of Hall v. Noyes, 3 Bro. C. C. 483, 489, Cas. in

Eq. Pl. 223, 227, Lord Thurlow took occasion to say that he

had changed his opinion upon the subject of negative pleas,

and that his former decisions were wrong; and since then the

right to plead a negative plea has not been questioned."

C. C. Langdell,

Summary of Equity Pleading,

p. 114, note.

EQUITY: A. D. 1801-1827.

Lord Eldon settled Rules of Equity.

"'The doctrine of this Court,' he [Lord Eldon] said himself,

'ought to be as well settled and as uniform, almost, as those

of the common law, laying down fixed principles, but taking

care that they are to be applied according to the

circumstances of each case. I cannot agree that the doctrines

of this Court are to be changed by every succeeding judge.

Nothing would inflict on me greater pain than the recollection

that I had done any thing to justify the reproach that the

Equity of this Court varies like the Chancellor's foot.'

Certainly the reproach he dreaded cannot justly be inflicted

upon his memory. … From his time onward the development of

equity was effected ostensibly, and, in the great majority of

cases, actually, by strict deduction from the principles to be

discovered in decided cases, and the work of subsequent

Chancery judges has been, for the most part, confined, as Lord

Eldon's was, to tracing out these principles into detail, and

to rationalising them by repeated review and definition."

D. M. Kerly,

History Court Chancery,

page 182.

EQUITY: A. D. 1812.

Judge Story.

"We are next to regard Story during his thirty-five years of

judicial service. He performed an amount of judicial labor

almost without parallel, either in quality or quantity, in the

history of jurisprudence. His judgments in the Circuit Court

comprehended thirteen volumes. His opinions in the Supreme

Court are found in thirty-five volumes. Most of these

decisions are on matters of grave difficulty, and many of them

of first impression. Story absolutely created a vast amount of

law for our country. Indeed, he was essentially a builder.

When he came to the bench, the law of admiralty was quite

vague and unformed; his genius formed it as exclusively as

Stowell's did in England. He also did much toward building up

the equity system which has become part of our jurisprudence.

In questions of international and constitutional law, the

breadth and variety of his legal learning enabled him to shine

with peculiar brilliancy. It is sufficient to say that there

is scarcely any branch of the law which he has not greatly

illustrated and enlarged,—prize, constitutional, admiralty,

patent, copyright, insurance, real estate, commercial law so

called, and equity,—all were gracefully familiar to him. The

most celebrated of his judgments are De Lovio v. Boit, in

which be investigates the jurisdiction of the Admiralty;

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, which examines the appellate

jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court; Dartmouth

College v. Woodward, in which the question was, whether the

charter of a college was a contract within the meaning of the

constitutional provision prohibiting the enactment, by any

State, of laws impairing the obligations of contracts; his

dissenting opinion in Charles River Bridge Company v. The

Warren Bridge; involving substantially the same question as

the last case; and the opinion in the Girard will case. These

are the most celebrated, but are scarcely superior to scores

of his opinions in cases never heard of beyond the legal

profession. His biographer is perhaps warranted in saying of

his father's judicial opinions: 'For closeness of texture and

compact logic, they are equal to the best judgments of

Marshall; for luminousness and method, they stand beside those

of Mansfield; in elegance of style, they yield the palm only

to the prize cases of Lord Stowell, but in fullness of

illustration and wealth and variety of learning, they stand

alone."

Irving Browne,

Short Studies of Great Lawyers,

pages 293-295.

EQUITY: A. D. 1814-1823.

Chancellor Kent.

"In February, 1814, he was appointed chancellor. The powers

and jurisdiction of the court of chancery were not clearly

defined. There were scarcely any precedents of its decisions,

to which reference could be made in case of doubt. Without any

other guide, he felt at liberty to exercise such powers of the

English chancery as he deemed applicable under the

Constitution and laws of the State, subject to the correction

of the Court of Errors, on appeal. … On the 31st of July,

1823, having attained the age of sixty years, the period

limited by the Constitution for the tenure of his office, he

retired from the court, after hearing and deciding every case

that had been brought before him. On this occasion the members

of the bar residing in the City of New York, presented him an

address. After speaking of the inestimable benefits conferred

on the community by his judicial labors for five and twenty

years they say: 'During this long course of services, so

useful and honorable, and which will form the most brilliant

period in our judicial history, you have, by a series of

decisions in law and equity, distinguished alike for practical

wisdom, profound learning, deep research and accurate

discrimination, contributed to establish the fabric of our

jurisprudence on those sound principles that have been

sanctioned by the experience of mankind, and expounded by the

enlightened and venerable sages of the law. Though others may

hereafter enlarge and adorn the edifice whose deep and solid

foundations were laid by the wise and patriotic framers of our

government, in that common law which they claimed for the people

as their noblest inheritance, your labors on this magnificent

structure will forever remain eminently conspicuous, command

the applause of the present generation, and exciting the

admiration and gratitude of future ages.'"

Charles B. Waite,

James Kent

(Chicago Law Times,

volume 3, pages 339-341).

{1994}

EQUITY: A. D. 1821.

Negative Pleas to be supported by an Answer.

"The principle of negative pleas was first established by the

introduction of anomalous pleas; but it was not perceived at

first that anomalous pleas involved the admission of pure

negative pleas. It would often happen, however, that a

defendant would have no affirmative defence to a bill, and yet

the bill could not be supported because of the falsity of some

material allegation contained in it; and, if the defendant

could deny this false allegation by a negative plea, he would

thereby avoid giving discovery as to all other parts of the

bill. At length, therefore, the experiment of setting up such

a plea was tried; and, though unsuccessful at first, it

prevailed in the end, and negative pleas became fully

established. If they had been well understood, they might have

proved a moderate success, although they were wholly foreign

to the system into which they were incorporated; but, as it

was, their introduction was attended with infinite mischief

and trouble, and they did much to bring the system into

disrepute. For example, it was not clearly understood for a

long time that a pure negative plea required the support of an

answer; and there was no direct decision to that effect until

the case of Sanders v. King, 6 Madd. 61, Cas. in Eq. Pl. 74,

decided in 1821."

C. C. Langdell,

Summary of Equity Pleading,

pages 113-114.

EQUITY: A. D. 1834.

First Statute of Limitations in Equity.

"None of the English statutes of limitation, prior to 3 & 4

Wm. IV., c. 27, had any application to suits in equity.

Indeed, they contained no general terms embracing all actions

at law, but named specifically all actions to which they

applied; and they made no mention whatever of suits in equity.

If a plaintiff sued in equity, when he might have brought an

action at law, and the time for bringing the action was

limited by statute, the statute might in a certain sense be

pleaded to the suit in equity; for the defendant might say

that, if the plaintiff had sued at law, his action would have

been barred; that the declared policy of the law therefore,

was against the plaintiff's recovering; and hence the cause

was not one of which a court of equity ought to take

cognizance. In strictness, however, the plea in such a case

would be to the jurisdiction of the court."

C. C. Langdell,

Summary of Equity Pleading,

pages 149-150.

EQUITY: A. D. 1836.

Personal Character of Shares of Stock first established in

England.

"The most accurate definition of the nature of the property

acquired by the purchase of a share of stock in a corporation

is that it is a fraction of all the rights and duties of the

stockholders composing the corporation. Such does not seem to

have been the clearly recognized view till after the beginning

of the present century. The old idea was rather that the

corporation held all its property strictly as a trustee, and

that the shareholders were, strictly speaking, 'cestuis que

trust,' being in equity co-owners of the corporate property.

… It was not until the decision of Bligh v. Brent [Y. & C.

268], in 1836, that the modern view was established in

England."

S. Williston,

History of the Law of Business Corporations before 1800

(Harvard Law Review,

volume 2, pages 149-151).

EQUITY: A. D. 1875.

Patents, Copyrights and Trade-Marks.

"In modern times the inventor of a new process obtains from

the State, by way of recompense for the benefit he has

conferred upon society, and in order to encourage others to

follow his example, not only an exclusive privilege of using

the new process for a fixed term of years, but also the right

of letting or selling his privilege to another. Such an

indulgence is called a patent-right, and a very similar

favour, known as copy-right, is granted to the authors of

books, and to painters, engravers, and sculptors, in the

productions of their genius. It has been a somewhat vexed

question whether a 'trade-mark' is to be added to the list of

intangible objects of ownership. It was at any rate so treated

in a series of judgments by Lord Westbury, which, it seems,

are still good law. He says, for instance, 'Imposition on the

public is indeed necessary for the plaintiff's title, but in

this way only, that it is the test of the invasion by the

defendant of the plaintiff's right of property.' [Citing 33 L.

J. Ch. 204; cf. 35 Ch. D. Oakley v. Dalton.] It was also so

described in the 'Trade Marks Registration Act,' 1875

[sections 3, 4, 5], as it was in the French law of 1857

relating to 'Marques de fabrique et de commerce.' The

extension of the idea of ownership to these three rights is of

comparatively recent date. Patent-right in England is older

than the Statute of Monopolies, 21 Jac. I. C. 3, and

copy-right is obscurely traceable previously to the Act of 8

Anne, C. 19, but trade-marks were first protected in the

present century."

T. E. Holland,

Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition,

page 183.

ALSO IN:

E. S. Drone,

Treatise on the Law of Property in Intellectual Productions.

----------EQUITY: End--------

Topics of law treated under other heads are indicated by the

following references:

Agrarian Laws.

See AGRARIAN.

Assize of Jerusalem.

See ASSIZE.

Brehon Laws.

See BREHON.

Canuleian Laws.

See ROME: B. C. 445.

Code Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1804.

Common Law.

See COMMON LAW.

Constitutional Laws.

See CONSTITUTION.

Debt and Debtors.

See DEBT.

Dioklesian Laws.

See DIOKLES.

Dooms of Ihne.

See DOOMS.

Draconian Laws.

See ATHENS: B. C. 624.

Factory Laws.

See FACTORY.

Hortensian Laws.

See ROME: B. C. 286.

Institutes and Pandects of Justinian.

See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

Licinian Laws.

See ROME: B. C. 376.

Lycurgan Laws.

See SPARTA.

Laws of Manu.

See MANU.

Navigation Laws.

See NAVIGATION LAWS.

Ogulnian Law.

See ROME: B. C. 300.

Laws of Oleron.

See OLERON.

Poor Laws.

See POOR LAWS.

Publilian Laws.

See ROME: B. C. 472-471, and 340.

Salic Laws.

See SALIC.

Slave Codes.

See SLAVERY.

Solonian Laws.

See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

Tariff Legislation.

See TARIFF.

Terentilian Law.

See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

The Twelve Tables.

See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

Valerian Law.

See ROME: B. C. 509.

Valero-Horatian Law.

See ROME: B. C. 449.

{1995}

LAWFELD, Battle of (1747).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747.

LAWRENCE, Captain James:

In the War of 1812.

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

LAWRENCE, Lord, the Indian Administration of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849; 1857 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER);

and 1862-1876.

LAWRENCE, Kansas: A. D. 1863.

Sacking of the town by Quantrell's guerrillas.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (AUGUST: MISSOURI-KANSAS).

LAYBACH, Congress of.

See VERONA, CONGRESS OF.

LAZARISTS, The.

"The Priests of the Missions, or the Lazarists ['sometimes

called the Vincentian Congregation'], … have not

unfrequently done very essential service to Christianity."

Their Society was founded in 1624 by St. Vincent de Paul, "at

the so-called Priory of St. Lazarus in Paris, whence the name

Lazarists. … Besides their mission-labours, they took

complete charge, in many instances, of ecclesiastical

seminaries, which, in obedience to the instruction of the

Council of Trent, had been established in the various

dioceses, and even at this day many of these institutions are

under their direction. In the year 1642 these devoted priests

were to be seen in Italy, and not long after were sent to

Algiers, to Tunis, to Madagascar, and to Poland."

J. Alzog

Manual of Universal Church History,

volume 3, pages 463-465.

ALSO IN:

H. L. S. Lear,

Priestly Life in France,

chapter 5.

LAZICA.

LAZIC WAR.

"Lazica, the ancient Colchis and the modern Mingrelia and

Imeritia, bordered upon the Black Sea." From A. D. 522 to 541

the little kingdom was a dependency of Rome, its king, having

accepted Christianity, acknowledging himself a vassal of the

Roman or Byzantine emperor. But the Romans provoked a revolt

by their encroachments. "They seized and fortified a strong

post, called Petra, upon the coast, appointed a commandant who

claimed an authority as great as that of the Lazic king, and

established a commercial monopoly which pressed with great

severity upon the poorer classes of the Lazi." The Persians

were accordingly invited in to drive the Romans out, and did

so, reducing Lazica, for the time being, to the state of a

Persian province. But, in their turn, the Persians became

obnoxious, and the Lazi, making their peace with Rome, were

taken by the Emperor Justinian under his protection. "The

Lazic war, which commenced in consequence of this act of

Justinian's, continued almost without intermission for nine

years—from A. D. 549 to 557. Its details are related at great

length by Procopius and Agathias, who view the struggle as one

which vitally concerned the interests of their country.

According to them, Chosroës [the Persian king] was bent upon

holding Lazica in order to construct at the mouth of the

Phasis a great naval station and arsenal, from which his

fleets might issue to command the commerce or ravage the

shores of the Black Sea." The Persians in the end withdrew

from Lazica, but the Romans, by treaty, paid them an annual

tribute for their possession of the country.

G. Rawlinson,

Seventh Great Monarchy,

chapter 20.

ALSO IN:

J. Bury,

Later Roman Empire,

book 4, chapter 9 (volume 1).

See, also, PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

LAZZI, The.

See LÆTI.

LEAGUE, The Achaian.

See GREECE: B.C. 280-146.

LEAGUE, The Anti-Corn-Law.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND):

A. D. 1836-1839; and 1845-1846.

LEAGUE, The Borromean or Golden.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1579-1630.

LEAGUE, The Catholic, in France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585, and after.

LEAGUE, The first Catholic, in Germany.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.

LEAGUE, The second Catholic, in Germany.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.

LEAGUE, The Cobblers'.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.

LEAGUE, The Delian.

See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

LEAGUE, The Hanseatic.

See HANSA TOWNS.

LEAGUE, The Holy,

of the Catholic party in the Religious Wars of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585, to 1593-1598.

LEAGUE, The Holy, of German Catholic princes.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.

LEAGUE, The Holy, of Pope Clement VII. against Charles V.

See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.

LEAGUE, The Holy, of Pope Innocent XI.,

the Emperor, Venice, Poland and Russia against the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

LEAGUE, The Holy, of Pope Julius II.

against Louis XII. of France.

See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

LEAGUE, The Holy, of Spain, Venice and the Pope against the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

LEAGUE, The Irish Land.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879; and 1881-1882.

LEAGUE, The Swabian.

See LANDFRIEDE, &c.

LEAGUE, The Union.

See UNION LEAGUE.

LEAGUE AND COVENANT, The solemn.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

LEAGUE OF AUGSBURG.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

LEAGUE OF CAMBRAI.

See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

LEAGUE OF LOMBARDY.

See ITALY: A. D. 1166-1167.

LEAGUE OF POOR CONRAD, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.

LEAGUE OF RATISBON.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

LEAGUE OF SMALKALDE, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

LEAGUE OF THE GUEUX.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.

LEAGUE OF THE PRINCES.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1485-1487.

LEAGUE OF THE PUBLIC WEAL.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468; also, 1453-1461.

LEAGUE OF THE RHINE.

See RHINE LEAGUE.

LEAGUE OF TORGAU.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

LEAGUES, The Grey.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

LE BOURGET, Sortie of (1870).

See FRANCE: A. D.1870-1871.

LECHFELD, OR BATTLE ON THE LECH (A. D. 955).

See HUNGARIANS: A. D. 935-955.

{1996}

LECHFELD, OR BATTLE ON THE LECH (1632.)

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, The.

See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

LEE, General Charles, and the War of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST);

1776 (JUNE), (AUGUST); and 1778 (JUNE).

LEE, General Henry ("Light Horse Harry"),

and the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1780-1781.

LEE, Richard Henry,

And the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

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

LEE, Richard Henry,

Opposition to the Federal Constitution.

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

LEE, General Robert E.

Campaign in West Virginia.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).

LEE, General Robert E.,

Command on the Peninsula.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JUNE: VIRGINIA),

and (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

LEE, General Robert E.

Campaign against Pope.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA);

(AUGUST: VIRGINIA); and (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).

LEE, General Robert E.

First invasion of Maryland.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).

LEE, General Robert E.

Defeat of Hooker.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (APRIL-MAY: VIRGINIA).

LEE, General Robert E.

The second movement of invasion.

Gettysburg and after.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JUNE: VIRGINIA),

and (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA);

also (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

LEE, General Robert E.

Last Campaigns.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA), to 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).

LEEDS, Battle at (1643).

Leeds, occupied by the Royalists, under Sir William Savile,

was taken by Sir Thomas Fairfax, after hard fighting, on the

23d of January, 1643.

C. R. Markham,

Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,

chapter 9.

LEESBURG, OR BALL'S BLUFF, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).

LEEWARD ISLANDS, The.

See WEST INDIES.

LEFÈVRE, Jacques, and the Reformation in France.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.

LEFT, The.

Left Center, The.

See RIGHT, &c.

LEGATE.

This was the title given to the lieutenant-general or

associate chosen by a Roman commander or provincial governor

to be his second-in-authority.

W. Ramsay,

Manual of Roman Antiquity,

chapter 12.

LEGES JULIÆ,

LEGES SEMPRONIÆ, &c.

See JULIAN LAWS; SEMPRONIAN LAWS, &c.

LEGION, The Roman.

"The original order of a Roman army was, as it seems, similar

to the phalanx: but the long unbroken line had been divided

into smaller detachments since, and perhaps by Camillus. The

long wars in the Samnite mountains naturally caused the Romans

to retain and to perfect this organisation, which made their

army more movable and pliable, without preventing the separate

bodies quickly combining and forming in one line. The legion

now [at the time of the war with Pyrrhus, B. C. 280] consisted

of thirty companies (called 'manipuli') of the average

strength of a hundred men, which were arranged in three lines

of ten manipuli each, like the black squares on a chessboard.

The manipuli of the first line consisted of the youngest

troops, called 'hastati'; those of the second line, called

'principes,' were men in the full vigour of life; those of the

third, the 'triarii,' formed a reserve of older soldiers, and

were numerically only half as strong as the other two lines.

The tactic order of the manipuli enabled the general to move

the 'principes' forward into the intervals of the 'hastati,'

or to withdraw the 'hastati' back into the intervals of the

'principes,' the 'triarii' being kept as a reserve. … The

light troops were armed with javelins, and retired behind the

solid mass of the manipuli as soon as they had discharged

their weapons in front of the line, at the beginning of the

combat."

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 3, chapter 16 (volume 1).

"The legions, as they are described by Polybius, in the time

of the Punic wars, differed very materially from those which

achieved the victories of Cæsar, or defended the monarchy of

Hadrian and the Antonines. The constitution of the Imperial

legion may be described in a few words. The heavy-armed

infantry, which composed its principal strength, was divided

into ten cohorts, and fifty-five companies, under the orders

of a correspondent number of tribunes and centurions. The

first cohort, which always claimed the post of honour and the

custody of the eagle, was formed of 1,105 soldiers, the most

approved for valour and fidelity. The remaining nine cohorts

consisted each of 555; and the whole body of legionary

infantry amounted to 6,100 men. … The legion was usually

drawn up eight deep, and the regular distance of three feet

was left between the files as well as ranks. … The cavalry,

without which the force of the legion would have remained

imperfect, was divided into ten troops or squadrons; the

first, as the companion of the first cohort, consisted of 132

men; whilst each of the other nine amounted only to 66."

E. Gibbon

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

W. Ramsay,

Manual of Roman Antiquity,

chapter 12.

LEGION OF HONOR, Institution of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.

LEGITIMISTS AND ORLEANISTS.

The partisans of Bourbon monarchy in France became divided

into two factions by the revolution of 1830, which deposed

Charles X. and raised Louis Philippe to the throne. Charles

X., brother of Louis XVI. and Louis XVIII., was in the direct

line of royal descent, from Louis XIV. Louis Philippe, Duke of

Orleans, who displaced him, belonged to a younger branch of

the Bourbon family, descending from the brother of Louis XIV.,

Philippe, Duke of Orleans, father of the Regent Orleans. Louis

Philippe, in his turn, was expelled from the throne in 1848,

and the crown, after that event, became an object of claim in

both families. The claim supported by the Legitimists was

extinguished in 1883 by the death of the childless Comte de

Chambord, grandson of Charles X. The Orleanist claim is still

maintained (1894) by the Comte de Paris, grandson of Louis

Philippe.

LEGNANO, Battle of (1176).

See ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.

LEICESTER, The Earl of, in the Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586; and 1587-1588.

LEINSTER TRIBUTE, The.

See BOARIAN TRIBUTE.

{1997}

----------LEIPSIC: Start----------

LEIPSIC: A. D. 1631.

Battle of Breitenfeld, before the city.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.

LEIPSIC: A. D. 1642.

Second Battle of Breitenfeld.

Surrender of the city to the Swedes.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

LEIPSIC: A. D. 1813.

Occupied by the Prussians and Russians.

Regained by the French.

The great "Battle of the Nations."

See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813;

1813 (APRIL-MAY), (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER).

----------LEIPSIC: End----------

LEIPSIC, University of.

See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

LEISLER'S REVOLUTION.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1689-1691.

LEITH, The Concordat of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.

LEKHS, The.

See LYGIANS.

LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

LELANTIAN FIELDS.

LELANTIAN FEUD.

See CHALCIS AND ERETRIA; and EUBŒA.

LELEGES, The.

"The Greeks beyond the sea [Ionian Greeks of Asia Minor] were

however not merely designated in groups, according to the

countries out of which they came, but certain collective names

existed for them—such as that of Javan in the East. … Among

all these names the most widely spread was that of the

Leleges, which the ancients themselves designated as that of a

mixed people. In Lycia, in Miletus, and in the Troad these

Leleges had their home; in other words, on the whole extent of

coast in which we have recognized the primitive seats of the

people of Ionic Greeks."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 1, chapter 2.

See, also, DORIANS AND IONIANS.

LELIAERDS.

In the mediæval annals of the Flemish people, the partisans of

the French are called "Leliaerds," from "lelie," the Flemish

for lily.

J. Hutton,

James and Philip van Arteveld,

page 32, foot-note.

LE MANS: Defeat of the Vendéans.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

LE MANS, Battle of (1871).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

LEMNOS.

One of the larger islands in the northern part of the Ægean

Sea, lying opposite the Trojan coast. It was anciently

associated with Samothrace and Imbros in the mysterious

worship of the Cabeiri.

LEMOVICES, The.

The Lemovices were a tribe of Gauls who occupied, in Cæsar's

time, the territory afterwards known as the Limousin

—department of Upper Vienne and parts adjoining.

Napoleon III.,

History of Cæsar,

book 3, chapter 2, foot-note.

The city of Limoges derived its existence and its name from

the Lemovices.

LEMOVII, The.

A tribe in ancient Germany whose territory, on the Baltic

coast, probably in the neighborhood of Danzig, bordered on

that of the Gothones.

Church and Brodribb,

Geographical Notes to the Germany of Tacitus.

LENAPE, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES.

LENS, Siege and battle (1647-1648).

See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1647-1648.

LENTIENSES, The.

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

LEO I., Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 457-474.

Leo II., Pope, 682-683.

Leo II., Roman Emperor (Eastern), 474.

Leo III., Pope, 795-816.

Leo III. (called The Isaurian),

Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek),717-741.

Leo IV., Pope, 847-855.

Leo IV., Emperor in the East

(Byzantine, or Greek), 775-780.

Leo V., Pope, 903, October to December.

Leo V., Emperor in the East

(Byzantine, or Greek), 813-820.

Leo VI., Pope, 928-929.

Leo VI., Emperor in the East

(Byzantine, or Greek), 886-911.

Leo VII., Pope, 936-939.

Leo VIII., Anti-pope, 963-965.

Leo IX., Pope, 1049-1054.

Leo X., Pope, 1513-1521.

Leo XI., Pope, 1605, April 2-27.

Leo XII., Pope, 1823-1829.

Leo XIII., Pope, 1878.

LEOBEN, Preliminary treaty of (1797).

See FRANCE: A.D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

LEODIS (WEREGILD).

See GRAF.

LEON, Ponce de, and his quest.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1512.

----------LEON: Start--------

LEON,

Origin of the name of the city and kingdom.

"This name Legio or Leon, so long borne by a province and by

its chief city in Spain, is derived from the old Roman 'Regnum

Legionis' (Kingdom of the Legion)."

H. Coppée,

Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,

book 5, chapter 1 (volume 1).

LEON:

Origin of the kingdom.

See SPAIN: A. D. 713-910.

LEON:

Union of the kingdom with Castile.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230; and 1212-1238.

----------LEON: End--------

LEONIDAS AT THERMOPYLÆ.

See GREECE: B. C. 480;

and ATHENS: B. C. 480-479.

LEONINE CITY, The

See VATICAN.

LEONTINI.

The Leontine War.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

LEONTIUS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 695-698.

LEOPOLD I.,

Germanic Emperor, A. D. 1658-1705;

King of Hungary, 1655-1705:

King of Bohemia, 1657-1705.

Leopold I., King of Belgium, 1831-1865.

Leopold II., Germanic Emperor, and King of Hungary and

Bohemia, 1790-1792.

Leopold II., King of Belgium, 1865.

LEPANTO, Naval Battle of (1571).

See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

LEPERS AND JEWS, Persecution of.

See JEWS: A. D. 1321.

LIPIDUS, Revolutionary attempt of.

See ROME: B. C. 78-68.

LEPTA.

See TALENT.

LEPTIS MAGNA.

"The city of Leptis Magna, originally a Phœnician colony, was

the capital of this part of the province [the tract of

north-African coast between the Lesser and the Greater

Syrtes], and held much the same prominent position as that of

Tripoli at the present day. The only other towns in the region

of the Syrtes, as it was sometimes called, were Œa, on the

site of the modern Tripoli, and Sabrata, the ruins of which

are still visible at a place called Tripoli Vecchio. The three

together gave the name of the Tripolis of Africa to this

region, as distinguished from the Pentapolis of Cyrenaïca.

Hence the modern appellation."

E. H. Bunbury,

History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 20, section 1, footnote (volume 2).

See, also, CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

{1998}

LERIDA: B. C. 49.

Cæsar's success against the Pompeians.

See ROME: B. C. 49.

LERIDA: A. D. 1644-1646,

Sieges and battle.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.

LERIDA: A. D. 1707.

Stormed and sacked by the French and Spaniards.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1707.

----------LESBOS: Start--------

LESBOS.

The largest of the islands of the Ægean, lying south of the

Troad, great part of which it once controlled, was

particularly distinguished in the early literary history of

ancient Greece, having produced what is called "the Æolian

school" of lyric poetry. Alcæus, Sappho, Terpander and Arion

were poets who sprang from Lesbos. The island was one of the

important colonies of what was known as the Æolic migration,

but became subject to Athens after the Persian War. In the

fourth year of the Peloponnesian War its chief city, Mitylene

(which afterwards gave its name to the entire island), seized

the opportunity to revolt. The siege and reduction of Mytilene

by the Athenians was one of the exciting incidents of that

struggle.

Thucydides,

History,

book 3.

ALSO IN:

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapters 14 and 50.

See, also, ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES;

and GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

LESBOS: B. C. 412.

Revolt from Athens.

See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

----------LESBOS: End--------

LESCHE, The.

The clubs of Sparta and Athens formed an important feature of

the life of Greece. In every Grecian community there was a

place of resort called the Lesche. In Sparta it was peculiarly

the resort of old men, who assembled round a blazing fire in

winter, and were listened to with profound respect by their

juniors. These retreats were numerous in Athens.

C. O. Müller,

History and Antiquities of the Doric race,

volume 2, page 396.

"The proper home of the Spartan art of speech, the original

source of so many Spartan jokes current over all Greece, was

the Lesche, the place of meeting for men at leisure, near the

public drilling-grounds, where they met in small bands, and

exchanged merry talk."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

volume 1, page 220 (American edition).

LESCO V.,

Duke of Poland, A. D. 1194-1227.

Lesco VI., Duke of Poland, 1279-1289.

LESE-MAJESTY.

A term in English law signifying treason, borrowed from the

Romans. The contriving, or counselling or consenting to the

king's death, or sedition against the king, are included in

the crime of "lese-majesty."

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 21, section 786.

LE TELLIER, and the suppression of Port Royal.

See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.

LETTER OF MAJESTY, The.

See BOHEMIA. A. D. 1611-1618.

LETTERS OF MARQUE.

See PRIVATEERS.

LETTRE DE CACHET.

"In French history, a letter or order under seal; a private

letter of state: a name given especially to a written order

proceeding from and signed by the king, and countersigned by a

secretary of state, and used at first as an occasional means

of delaying the course of justice, but later, in the 17th and

18th centuries, as a warrant for the imprisonment without

trial of a person obnoxious for any reason to the government,

often for life or for a long period, and on frivolous

pretexts. Lettres de cachet were abolished at the Revolution."

Century Dictionary.

"The minister used to give generously blank lettres-de-cachet

to the intendants, the bishops, and people in the

administration. Saint-Florentin, alone, gave away as many as

50,000. Never had man's dearest treasure, liberty, been more

lavishly squandered. These letters were the object of a

profitable traffic; they were sold to fathers who wanted to

get rid of their sons, and given to pretty women who were

inconvenienced by their husbands. This last cause of

imprisonment was one of the most prominent. And all through

good-nature. The king [Louis XV.] was too good to refuse a

lettre-de-cachet to a great lord. The intendant was too

good-natured not to grant one at a lady's request. The

government clerks, the mistresses of the clerks, and the

friends of these mistresses, through good-nature, civility, or

mere politeness, obtained, gave, or lent, those terrible

orders by which a man was buried alive. Buried;—for such was

the carelessness and levity of those amiable clerks,—almost

all nobles, fashionable men, all occupied with their

pleasures,—that they never had the time, when once the poor

fellow was shut up, to think of his position."

J. Michelet,

Historical View of the French Revolution,

introduction, part 2, section 9.

LETTS.

See LITHUANIANS.

LEUCADIA,

LEUCAS.

Originally a peninsula of Acarnania, on the western coast of

Greece, but converted into an island by the Corinthians, who

cut a canal across its narrow neck. Its chief town, of the

same name, was at one time the meeting place of the Acarnanian

League. The high promontory at the south-western extremity of

the island was celebrated for the temple of Apollo which

crowned it, and as being the scene of the story of Sappho's

suicidal leap from the Leucadian rock.

LEUCÆ, Battle of.

The kingdom of Pergamum having been bequeathed to the Romans

by its last king, Attalus, a certain Aristonicus attempted to

resist their possession of it, and Crassus, one of the consuls

of B. C. 131 was sent against him. But Crassus had no success

and was finally defeated and slain, near Leucæ. Aristonicus

surrendered soon afterwards to M. Perperna and the war in

Pergamum was ended.

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 1, chapter 14.

LEUCATE, Siege and Battle (1637).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.

LEUCI, The.

A tribe in Belgic Gaul which occupied the southern part of the

modern department of the Meuse, the greater part of the

Meurthe, and the department of the Vosges.

Napoleon III.,

History of Cæsar,

book 3, chapter 2, footnote (volume 2).

LEUCTRA, Battle of (B. C. 371).

See GREECE: B. C. 379-371.

LEUD, OR LIDUS, The.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

LEUDES.

"The Frankish warriors, but particularly the leaders, were

called 'leudes,' from the Teutonic word 'leude,' 'liude,'

'leute,' people, as some think (Thierry, Lettres sur l'Hist.

de Franc, p. 130). In the Scandinavian dialects, 'lide' means

a warrior … ; and in the Kymric also 'lwydd' means an army

or war-band. … It was not a title of dignity, as every free

fighter among the Franks was a leud, but in process of time

the term seems to have been restricted to the most prominent

and powerful warriors alone."

P. Godwin,

History of France: Ancient Gaul,

book 3, chapter 12, foot-note.

{1999}

LEUGA, The.

"The roads in the whole Roman empire were measured and marked

according to the unit of the Roman mile (1.48 kilometer), and

up to the end of the second century this applied also to those

[the Gallic] provinces. But from Severus onward its place was

taken in the three Gauls and the two Germanies by a mile

correlated no doubt to the Roman, but yet different and with a

Gallic name, the 'leuga' (2.222 kilomètres), equal to one and

a half Roman miles. … The double 'leuga,' the German

'rasta,' … corresponds to the French 'lieue.'"

T. Mommsen,

History of the Romans,

book 8, chapter 3.

LEUKAS.

See KORKYRA.

LEUKOPETRA, Battle of (B. C. 146).

See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

LEUTHEN, Battle of.

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

LEVELLERS, The.

"Especially popular among the soldiers [of the Parliamentary

Army, England, A. D. 1647-48], and keeping up their excitement

more particularly against the House of Lords, were the

pamphlets that came from John Lilburne, and an associate of

his named Richard Overton. … These were the pamphlets …

which … were popular with the common soldiers of the

Parliamentary Army, and nursed that especial form of the

democratic passion among them which longed to sweep away the

House of Lords and see England governed by a single

Representative House. Baxter, who reports this growth of

democratic opinion in the Army from his own observation,

distinctly recognises in it the beginnings of that rough

ultra-Republican party which afterwards became formidable

under the name of The Levellers."

D. Masson,

Life of John Milton,

volume 3, book 4, chapter 1.

"They [the Levellers] had a vision of a pure and patriotic

Parliament, accurately representing the people, yet carrying

out a political programme incomprehensible to nine-tenths of

the nation. This Parliament was to represent all legitimate

varieties of thought, and was yet to act together as one man.

The necessity for a Council of State they therefore entirely

denied; and they denounced it as a new tyranny. The excise

they condemned as an obstruction to trade. They would have no

man compelled to fight, unless he felt free in his own

conscience to do so. They appealed to the law of nature, and

found their interpretation of it carrying them further and

further away from English traditions and habits, whether of

Church or State." A mutiny of the Levellers in the army, which

broke out in April and May, 1640, was put down with stern

vigor by Cromwell and Fairfax, several of the leaders being

executed.

J. A. Picton,

Oliver Cromwell,

chapter 17.

LEWES, Battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

LEWIS AND CLARK'S EXPEDITION.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1801.

LEXINGTON, Massachusetts: A. D. 1775.

The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.

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

----------LEXINGTON: Start--------

LEXINGTON, MISSOURI, Siege of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI).

LEXINGTON, MISSOURI: Battle at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

----------LEXINGTON: End--------

LEXOVII, The.

The Lexovii were one of the tribes of northwestern Gaul, in

the time of Cæsar. Their position is indicated and their name,

in a modified form, preserved by the town of Lisieux between

Caen and Evreux.

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 4, chapter 6.

----------LEYDEN: Start--------

LEYDEN: A. D. 1574.

Siege by the Spaniards.

Relief by the flooding of the land.

The founding of the University.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574;

and EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE: NETHERLANDS.

LEYDEN: A. D. 1609-1620.

The Sojourn of the Pilgrim Fathers.

See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.

----------LEYDEN: End--------

LHASSA, the seat of the Grand Lama.

See LAMAS.

LIA-FAIL, The.

"The Tuatha-de-Danaan [the people who preceded the Milesians

in colonizing Ireland, according to the fabulous Irish

histories] brought with them from Scandinavia, among other

extraordinary things, three marvellous treasures, the

Lia-Fail, or Stone of Destiny, the Sorcerer's Spear, and the

Magic Caldron, all celebrated in the old Irish romances. The

Lia-Fail possessed the remarkable property of making a strange

noise and becoming wonderfully disturbed, whenever a monarch

of Ireland of pure blood was crowned, and a prophecy was

attached to it, that whatever country possessed it should be

ruled over by a king of Irish descent, and enjoy uninterrupted

success and prosperity. It was preserved at Cashel, where the

kings of Munster were crowned upon it. According to some

writers it was afterwards kept at the Hill of Tara, where it

remained until it was carried to Scotland by an Irish prince,

who succeeded to the crown of that country. There it was

preserved at Scone, until Edward I. carried it away into

England, and placed it under the seat of the coronation chair

of our kings, where it still remains. … It seems to be the

opinion of some modern antiquarians that a pillar stone still

remaining at the Hill of Tara is the true Lia-Fail, which in

that case was not carried to Scotland."

T. Wright,

History of Ireland,

book 1, chapter 2, and foot-note.

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

LIBBY PRISON.

See PRISONS AND PRISON-PENS, CONFEDERATE.

LIBERAL ARTS, The Seven.

See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SCHOLASTICISM,

LIBERAL REPUBLICAN PARTY.

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

LIBERAL UNIONISTS.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.

LIBERI HOMINES.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND.

LIBERIA, The founding of the Republic of.

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

LIBERTINES OF GENEVA, The.

The party which opposed Calvin's austere and arbitrary rule in

Geneva were called Libertines.

F. P. Guizot,

John Calvin,

chapter 9-16.

LIBERTINI.

See INGENUI.

LIBERTY BELL, The.

See INDEPENDENCE HALL.

{2000}

LIBERTY BOYS.

The name by which the Sons of Liberty of the American

Revolution were familiarly known.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1765; NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774;

and LIBERTY TREE.

LIBERTY CAP.

"This emblem, like many similar ones received by the

revolutions from the hand of chance, was a mystery even to

those who wore it. It had been adopted [at Paris] for the

first time on the day of the triumph of the soldiers of

Châteauvieux [April 15, 1792, when 41 Swiss soldiers of the

regiment of Châteauvieux, condemned to the galleys for

participation in a dangerous mutiny of the garrison at Nancy

in 1790, but liberated in compliance with the demands of the

mob, were fêted as heroes by the Jacobins of Paris]. Some said

it was the coiffure of the galley-slaves, once infamous, but

glorious since it had covered the brows of these martyrs of

the insurrection; and they added that the people wished to

purify this head-dress from every stain by wearing it

themselves. Others only saw in it the Phrygian bonnet, a

symbol of freedom for slaves. The 'bonnet rouge' had from its

first appearance been the subject of dispute and dissension

amongst the Jacobins; the 'exaltés' wore it, whilst the

'modérés' yet abstained from adopting it." Robespierre and his

immediate followers opposed the "frivolity" of the "bonnet

rouge," and momentarily suppressed it in the Assembly. "But

even the voice of Robespierre, and the resolutions of the

Jacobins, could not arrest the outbreak of enthusiasm that had

placed the sign of 'avenging equality' ('l'égalité

vengeresse') on every head; and the evening of the day on

which it was repudiated at the Jacobins' saw it inaugurated at

all the theatres. The bust of Voltaire, the destroyer of

prejudice, was adorned with the Phrygian cap of liberty,

amidst the shouts of the spectators, whilst the cap and pike

became the uniform and weapon of the citizen soldier."

A. de Lamartine,

History of the Girondists,

book 13 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

H. M. Stephens,

History of the French Revolution,

volume 2, chapter 2.

LIBERTY GAP, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: TENNESSEE).

LIBERTY PARTY AND LIBERTY LEAGUE.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1840-1847.

LIBERTY TREE AND LIBERTY HALL.

"Lafayette said, when in Boston, 'The world should never

forget the spot where once stood Liberty Tree, so famous in

your annals.' … The open space at the four corners of

Washington, Essex, and Boylston streets was once known as

Hanover Square, from the royal house of Hanover, and sometimes

as the Elm Neighborhood, from the magnificent elms with which

it was environed. It was one of the finest of these that

obtained the name of Liberty Tree, from its being used on the

first occasion of resistance to the obnoxious Stamp Act. …

At daybreak on the 14th August, 1765, nearly ten years before

active hostilities broke out, an effigy of Mr. Oliver, the

Stamp officer, and a boot, with the Devil peeping out of

it,—an allusion to Lord Bute,—was discovered hanging from

Liberty Tree. The images remained hanging all day, and were

visited by great numbers of people, both from the town and the

neighboring country. Business was almost suspended.

Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson ordered the sheriff to take the

figures down, but he was obliged to admit that he dared not do

so. As the day closed in the effigies were taken down, placed

upon a bier, and, followed by several thousand people of every

class and condition," were borne through the city and then

burned, after which much riotous conduct on the part of the

crowd occurred. In 1766, when the repeal of the Stamp Act took

place, a large copper plate was fastened to the tree,

inscribed in golden characters:—'This tree was planted in the

year 1646, and pruned by order of the Sons of Liberty,

February 14th, 1766.' … The ground immediately about Liberty

Tree was popularly known as Liberty Hall. In August, 1767, a

flagstaff had been erected, which went through and extended

above its highest branches. A flag hoisted upon this staff was

the signal for the assembling of the Sons of Liberty. … In

August, 1775, the name of Liberty having become offensive to

the Tories and their British allies, the tree was cut down by

a party led by one Job Williams."

S. A. Drake,

Old Landmarks of Boston,

chapter 14.

LIBERUM VETO, The.

See POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652.

LIBRA, The Roman.

The ancient Roman unit of weight was the libra, or pondus,

from which the modern names of the livre and pound are

derived. Its weight was equal to 5,015 Troy gr. or 325 grams,

and it was identical with the Greek-Asiatic mina."

H. W. Chisholm,

Science of Weighing and Measuring,

chapter 2.

See, also, AS.

----------LIBRARIES: Start--------

LIBRARIES:

Ancient, Babylonia and Assyria.

"The Babylonians were … essentially a reading and writing

people. … Books were numerous and students were many. The

books were for the most part written upon clay [tablets] with

a wooden reed or metal stylus, for clay was cheap and

plentiful, and easily impressed with the wedge-shaped lines of

which the characters were composed. But besides clay, papyrus

and possibly also parchment were employed as writing

materials; at all events the papyrus is referred to in the

texts."

A. H. Sayce,

Social Life among the Assyrians and Babylonians,

page 30.

"We must speak of the manner in which the tablet was formed.

Fine clay was selected, kneaded, and moulded into the shape of

the required tablet. One side was flat, and the other rounded.

The writing was then inscribed on both sides, holes were

pricked in the clay, and then it was baked. The holes allowed

the steam which was generated during the process of baking to

escape. It is thought that the clay used in some of the

tablets was not only well kneaded, but ground in some kind of

mill, for the texture of the clay is as fine as some of our

best modern pottery. The wedges appear to have been impressed

by a square headed instrument."

E. A. W. Budge,

Babylonian Life and History,

p. 105.

{2001}

Assurbanipal, the Sardanapalus of the Greeks, was the greatest

and most celebrated of Assyrian monarchs. He was the principal

patron of Assyrian literature, and the greater part of the

grand library at Nineveh was written during his reign."

G. Smith,

Assyrian Discoveries,

chapter 18.

"Assurbanipal is fond of old books, particularly of the old

sacred works. He collects the scattered specimens from the

chief cities of his empire, and even employs scribes in

Chaldea, Ourouk, Barsippa, and Babylon to copy for him the

tablets deposited in the temples. His principal library is at

Nineveh, in the palace which he built for himself upon the

banks of the Tigris, and which he has just finished

decorating. It contains more than thirty thousand tablets,

methodically classified and arranged in several rooms, with

detailed catalogues for convenient reference. Many of the

works are continued from tablet to tablet and form a series,

each bearing the first words of the text as its title. The

account of the creation, which begins with the phrase:

'Formerly, that which is above was not yet called the heaven,'

was entitled: 'Formerly, that which is above, No.1;'

'Formerly, that which is above, No.2;' and so on to the end.

Assurbanipal is not less proud of his love of letters than of

his political activity, and he is anxious that posterity

should know how much he has done for literature. His name is

inscribed upon every work in his library, ancient and modern.

'The palace of Assurbanipal, king of legions, king of

multitudes, king of Assyria, to whom the god Nebo and the

goddess Tasmetu have granted attentive ears and open eyes to

discover the writings of the scribes of my kingdom, whom the

kings my predecessors, have employed. In my respect for Nebo,

the god of intelligence, I have collected these tablets; I

have had them copied, I have marked them with my name, and I

have deposited them in my palace.' The library at Dur-Sarginu,

although not so rich as the one in Nineveh, is still fairly

well supplied."

G. Maspéro,

Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria,

chapter 16.

Collections of inscribed tablets had been made by

Tiglath-Pileser II., king of Assyria, B. C. 745, who had

copied some historical inscriptions of his predecessors.

Sargon, the founder of the dynasty to which Assur-bani-pal

belonged, B. C. 722, had increased this library by adding a

collection of astrological and similar texts, and Sennacherib,

B. C. 705, had composed copies of the Assyrian canon, short

histories, and miscellaneous inscriptions, to add to the

collection. Sennacherib also moved the library from Calah, its

original seat, to Nineveh, the capital. Esarhaddon, B. C. 681,

added numerous historical and mythological texts. All the

inscriptions of the former kings were, however, nothing

compared to those written during the reign of Assur-bani-pal.

Thousands of inscribed tablets from all places, and on every

variety of subject, were collected, and copied, and stored in

the library of the palace at Nineveh during his reign; and by

his statements they appear to have been intended for the

inspection of the people, and to spread learning among the

Assyrians. Among these tablets one class consisted of

historical texts, some the histories of the former kings of

Assyria, and others copies of royal inscriptions from various

other places. Similar to these were the copies of treaties,

despatches, and orders from the king to his generals and

ministers, a large number of which formed part of the library.

There was a large collection of letters of all sorts, from

despatches to the king on the one hand, down to private notes

on the other. Geography found a place among the sciences, and

was represented by lists of countries, towns, rivers, and

mountains, notices of the position, products, and character of

districts, &c., &c. There were tables giving accounts of the

law and legal decisions, and tablets with contracts, loans,

deeds of sale and barter, &c. There were lists of tribute and

taxes, accounts of property in the various cities, forming

some approach to a census and general account of the empire.

One large and important section of the library was devoted to

legends of various sorts, many of which were borrowed from

other countries. Among these were the legends of the hero

Izdubar, perhaps the Nimrod of the Bible. One of these legends

gives the Chaldean account of the flood, others of this

description give various fables and stories of evil spirits.

The mythological part of the library embraced lists of the

gods, their titles, attributes, temples, &c., hymns in praise

of various deities, prayers to be used by different classes of

men to different gods, and under various circumstances, as

during eclipses or calamities, on setting out for a campaign,

&c., &e. Astronomy was represented by various tablets and

works on the appearance and motions of the heavens, and the

various celestial phenomena. Astrology was closely connected

with Astronomy, and formed a numerous class of subjects and

inscriptions. An interesting division was formed by the works

on natural history; these consisted of lists of animals,

birds, reptiles, trees, grasses, stones, &c., &c., arranged in

classes, according to their character and affinities as then

understood, lists of minerals and their uses, lists of foods,

&c., &c. Mathematics and arithmetic were found, including

square and cube root, the working out of problems, &c., &c.

Much of the learning on these tablets was borrowed from the

Chaldeans and the people of Babylon, and had originally been

written in a different language and style of writing, hence it

was necessary to have translations and explanations of many of

these; and in order to make their meaning clear, grammars,

dictionaries, and lexicons were prepared, embracing the

principal features of the two languages involved, and enabling

the Assyrians to study the older inscriptions. Such are some

of the principal features of the grand Assyrian library, which

Assur-bani-pal established at Nineveh, and which probably

numbered over 10,000 clay documents."

George Smith,

Ancient History from the Monuments: Assyria,

pages 188-191.

"It is now [1882] more than thirty years since Sir Henry

Layard, passing through one of the doorways of the partially

explored palace in the mound of Konyunjik, guarded by

sculptured fish gods, stood for the first time in the double

chambers containing a large portion of the remains of the

immense library collected by Assurbannipal, King of Nineveh.

… Since that time, with but slight intermissions, this

treasure-house of a forgotten past has been turned over again

and again, notably in the expeditions of the late Mr. George

Smith, and still the supply of its cuneiform literature is not

exhausted. Until last year [1881] this discovery remained

unique; but the perseverance of the British Museum authorities

and the patient labour of Mr. Rassam were then rewarded by the

exhumation of what is apparently the library chamber of the

temple or palace at Sippara, with all its 10,000 tablets,

resting undisturbed, arranged in their position on the

shelves, just as placed in order by the librarian twenty-five

centuries ago. …

{2002}

From what Berosus tells us with regard to Sippara, or

Pantibiblon (the town of books), the very city, one of whose

libraries has just been brought to light, … it may be

inferred that this was certainly one of the first towns that

collected a library. … It is possible that the mound at

Mugheir enshrines the oldest library of all, for here are the

remains of the city of Ur (probably the Biblical Ur of the

Chaldees). From this spot came the earliest known royal brick

inscription, as follows:—'Urukh, King of Ur, who Bit Nanur

built.' Although there are several texts from Mugheir, such as

that of Dungi, son of Urukh, yet, unless by means of copies

made for later libraries in Assyria, we cannot be said to know

much of its library. Strange to say, however, the British

Museum possesses the signet cylinder of one of the librarians

of Ur, who is the earliest known person holding such an

office. … Its inscription is given thus by

Smith:—'Emuq-sin, the powerful hero, the King of Ur, King of

the four regions; Amil Anu, the tablet-keeper, son of Gatu his

servant.' … Erech, the modern Warka, is a city at which we

know there must have been one or more libraries, for it was

from thence Assurbannipal copied the famous Isdubar series of

legends in twelve tablets, one of which contained the account

of the Deluge. Hence also came the wonderful work on magic in

more than one hundred tablets: for, as we have it, it is

nothing more than a facsimile by Assurbannipal's scribes of a

treatise which had formed part of the collection of the school

of the priests at Erech. … Larsa, now named Senkereh, was

the seat of a tablet collection that seems to have been

largely a mathematical one; for in the remains we possess of

it are tablets containing tables of squares and cube roots and

others, giving the characters for fractions. There are from

here also, however, fragments with lists of the gods, a

portion of a geographical dictionary, lists of temples, &c.

… To a library at Cutha we owe the remnants of a tablet work

containing an account of the creation and the wars of the

gods, and, among others, a very ancient terra-cotta tablet

bearing a copy of an inscription engraved in the temple of the

god Dup Lan at Cutha, by Dungi, King of Ur. The number of

tablets and cylinders found by M. de Sarzec at Zirgulla show

that there too the habit of committing so much to writing was

as rife as in other cities of whose literary character we know

more."

The Libraries of Babylonia and Assyria

(Knowledge, November 24, 1882,

and March 2, 1883).

"One of the most important results of Sir A. H. Layard's

explorations at Nineveh was the discovery of the ruined

library of the ancient city, now buried under the mounds of

Kouyunjik. The broken clay tablets belonging to this library

not only furnished the student with an immense mass of

literary matter, but also with direct aids towards a knowledge

of the Assyrian syllabary and language. Among the literature

represented in the library of Kouyunjik were lists of

characters, with their various phonetic and ideographic

meanings, tables of synonymes, and catalogues of the names of

plants and animals. This, however, was not all. The inventors

of the cuneiform system of writing had been a people who

preceded the Semites in the occupation of Babylonia, and who

spoke an agglutinative language utterly different from that of

their Semitic successors. These Accadians, as they are usually

termed, left behind them a considerable amount of literature,

which was highly prized by the Semitic Babylonians and

Assyrians. A large portion of the Ninevite tablets,

accordingly, consists of interlinear or parallel translations

from Accadian into Assyrian, as well as of reading books,

dictionaries, and grammars, in which the Accadian original is

placed by the side of its Assyrian equivalent."

A. H. Sayce,

Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,

chapter 1.

LIBRARIES:

Greece.

"Pisistratus the tyrant is said to have been the first who

supplied books of the liberal sciences at Athens for public

use. Afterwards the Athenians themselves, with great care and

pains, increased their number; but all this multitude of

books, Xerxes, when he obtained possession of Athens, and

burned the whole of the city except the citadel, seized and

carried away to Persia. But king Seleucus, who was called

Nicanor, many years afterwards, was careful that all of them

should be again carried back to Athens." "That Pisistratus was

the first who collected books, seems generally allowed by

ancient writers. … In Greece were several famous libraries.

Clearchus, who was a follower of Plato, founded a magnificent

one in Heraclea. There was one in the island of Cnidos. The

books of Athens were by Sylla removed to Rome. The public

libraries of the Romans were filled with books, not of

miscellaneous literature, but were rather political and sacred

collections, consisting of what regarded their laws and the

ceremonies of their religion."

Aulus Gellius,

The Attic Nights,

book 6, chapter 17 (volume 2),

with foot-note by W. Beloe.

"If the libraries of the Greeks at all resembled in form and

dimensions those found at Pompeii, they were by no means

spacious; neither, in fact, was a great deal of room

necessary, as the manuscripts of the ancients stowed away much

closer than our modern books, and were sometimes kept in

circular boxes, of elegant form, with covers of turned wood.

The volumes consisted of rolls of parchment, sometimes purple

at the back, or papyrus, about twelve or fourteen inches in

breadth, and as many feet long as the subject required. The

pages formed a number of transverse compartments, commencing

at the left, and proceeding in order to the other extremity,

and the reader, holding in either hand one end of the

manuscript, unrolled and rolled it up as he read. Occasionally

these books were placed on shelves, in piles, with the ends

outwards, adorned with golden bosses, the titles of the

various treatises being written on pendant labels."

J. A. St. John,

The Hellenes,

volume 2, page 84.

"The learned reader need not be reminded how wide is the

difference between the ancient 'volumen,' or roll, and the

'volume' of the modern book-trade, and how much smaller the

amount of literary matter which the former may represent. Any

single 'book' or 'part' of a treatise would anciently have

been called 'volumen,' and would reckon as such in the

enumeration of a collection of books. The Iliad of Homer,

which in a modern library may form but a single volume, would

have counted as twenty-four 'volumina' at Alexandria.

{2003}

We read of authors leaving behind them works reckoned, not by

volumes or tens of volumes, but by hundreds. … It will at

once be understood that … the very largest assemblage of

'volumina' assigned as the total of the greatest of the

ancient collections would fall far short, in its real literary

contents, of the second-rate, or even third-rate collections

of the present day."

Libraries, Ancient and Modern

(Edinburgh Review,

January, 1874).

LIBRARIES:

Alexandria.

"The first of the Ptolemies, Lagus, not only endeavoured to

render Alexandria one of the most beautiful and most

commercial of cities, he likewise wished her to become the

cradle of science and philosophy. By the advice of an Athenian

emigrant, Demetrius of Phaleros, this prince established a

society of learned and scientific men, the prototype of our

academies and modern institutions. He caused that celebrated

museum to be raised, that became an ornament to the Bruchion;

and here was deposited the noble library, 'a collection,' says

Titus Livius, 'at once a proof of the magnificence of those

kings, and of their love of science.' Philadelphos, the

successor of Lagus, finding that the library of the Bruchion

already numbered 400,000 volumes, and either thinking that the

edifice could not well make room for any more, or being

desirous, from motives of jealousy, to render his name equally

famous by the construction of a similar monument, founded a

second library in the temple of Serapis, called the Serapeum,

situated at some distance from the Bruchion, in another part

of the town. These two libraries were denominated, for a

length of time, the Mother and the Daughter. During the war

with Egypt, Cæsar, having set fire to the king's fleet, which

happened to be anchored in the great port, it communicated

with the Bruchion; the parent library was consumed, and, if

any remains were rescued from the flames, they were, in all

probability, conveyed to the Serapeum. Consequently, ever

after, there can be no question but of the latter. Euergetes

and the other Ptolemies enlarged it successively; and

Cleopatra added 200,000 manuscripts at once from the library

of King Pergamos, given her by Mark Antony. … Aulus Gellius

and Ammianus Marcellus seem to insinuate that the whole of the

Alexandrian library had been destroyed by fire in the time of

Cæsar. … But both are mistaken on this point. Ammianus, in

the rest of his narrative, evidently confounds Serapeum and

Bruchion. … Suetonius (in his life of Domitian) mentions

that this emperor sent some amanuenses to Alexandria, for the

purpose of copying a quantity of books that were wanting in

his library; consequently a library existed in Alexandria a

long while after Cæsar. Besides, we know that the Serapeum was

only destroyed A. D. 301, by the order of Theodosius.

Doubtless the library suffered considerably on this

last-mentioned occasion; but that it still partly existed is

beyond a doubt, according to the testimony of Oroses, who,

twenty-four years later, made a voyage to Alexandria, and

assures us that he 'saw, in several temples, presses full of

books,' the remains of ancient libraries. … The trustworthy

Oroses, in 415, is the last witness we have of the existence

of a library at Alexandria. The numerous Christian writers of

the fifth and sixth centuries, who have handed down to us so

many trifling facts, have not said a word upon this important

subject. We, therefore, have no certain documents upon the

fate of our library from 415 to 636, or, according to others,

640, when the Arabs took possession of Alexandria—a period of

ignorance and barbarism, of war and revolutions, and vain

disputes between a hundred different sects. Now, towards A. D.

636, or 640, the troops of the caliph, Omar, headed by his

lieutenant, Amrou, took possession of Alexandria. For more

than six centuries, nobody in Europe took the trouble of

ascertaining what had become of the library of Alexandria. At

length, in the year 1660, a learned Oxford scholar, Edward

Pococke, who had been twice to the East, and had brought back

a number of Arabian manuscripts, first introduced the Oriental

history of the physician Abulfarage to the learned world, in a

Latin translation. In it we read the following passage:—'In

those days flourished John of Alexandria, whom we have

surnamed the Grammarian, and who adopted the tenets of the

Christian Jacobites. … He lived to the time when Amrou

Ebno'l-As took Alexandria. He went to visit the conqueror; and

Amrou, who was aware of the height of learning and science

that John had attained, treated him with every distinction,

and listened eagerly, to his lectures on philosophy, which

were quite new to the Arabians. Amrou was himself a man of

intellect and discernment, and very clear-headed. He retained

the learned man about his person. John one day said to him,

"You have visited all the stores of Alexandria, and you have

put your seal on all the different things you found there. I

say nothing about those treasures which have any value for

you; but, in good sooth, you might leave us those of which you

make no use." "What then is it that you want?" interrupted

Amrou. "The books of philosophy that are to be found in the

royal treasury," answered John. "I can dispose of nothing,"

Amrou then said, "without the permission of the lord of all

true believers, Omar Ebno'l-Chattab." He therefore wrote to

Omar, informing him of John's request. He received an answer

from Omar in these words. "As to the books you mention,

either, they agree with God's holy book, and then God's book

is all-sufficient without them; or they disagree with God's

book, in which case they ought not to be preserved." And, in

consequence, Amrou Ebno'l-As caused them to be distributed

amongst the different baths of the city, to serve as fuel. In

this manner they were consumed in half-a-year.' When this

account of Abulfarage's was made known in Europe, it was at

once admitted as a fact, without the least question. … Since

Pococke, another Arab historian, likewise a physician, was

discovered, who gave pretty nearly the same account. This was

Abdollatif, who wrote towards 1200, and consequently prior to

Abulfarage. … Abdollatif does not relate any of the

circumstances accessory to the destruction of the library. But

what faith can we put in a writer who tells us that he has

actually seen what could no longer have been in existence in

his time? 'I have seen;' says he, 'the portico and the college

that Alexander the Great caused to be built, and which

contained the splendid library,' &c. Now, these buildings were

situated within the Bruchion; and since the reign of Aurelian,

who had destroyed it—that is to say, at least nine hundred

years before Abdollatif—the Bruchion was a deserted spot,

covered with ruins and rubbish.

{2004}

Abulfarage, on the other hand, places the library in the Royal

Treasury; and the anachronism is just as bad. The royal

edifices were all contained within the walls of the Bruchion;

and not one of them could then be left. … As a fact is not

necessarily incontestable because advanced as such by one or

even two historians, several persons of learning and research

have doubted the truth of this assertion. Renaudot (Hist. des

Patriarches d'Alexandrie) had already questioned its

authenticity, by observing: 'This account is rather

suspicious, as is frequently the case with the Arabians.' And,

lastly, Querci, the two Assemani, Villoison, and Gibbon,

completely declared themselves against it. Gibbon at once

expresses his astonishment that two historians, both of Egypt,

should not have said a word about so remarkable an event. The

first of these is Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria, who

lived in that city 500 years after it was taken by the

Saracens, and who gives a long and detailed account, in his

Annals, both of the siege and the succeeding events; the

second is Elmacin, a most veracious writer, the author of a

History of the Saracens, and who especially relates the life

of Omar, and the taking of Alexandria, with its minutest

circumstances. Is it conceivable or to be believed that these

two historians should have been ignorant of so important a

circumstance? That two learned men who would have been deeply

interested in such a loss should have made no mention of it,

though living and writing in Alexandria—Eutychius, too, at no

distant period from the event? and that we should learn it for

the first time from a stranger who wrote, six centuries after,

on the frontiers of Media? Besides, as Gibbon observes, why

should the Caliph Omar, who was no enemy to science, have

acted, in this one instance, in direct opposition to his

character. … To these reasons may be added the remark of a

German writer, M. Reinhard, who observes that Eutychius

(Annals of Eutychius, volume ii. page 316) transcribes the

very words of the letter in which Amrou gives the Caliph Omar

an account of the taking of Alexandria after a long and

obstinate siege. 'I have carried the town by storm,' says he,

'and without any preceding offer of capitulation. I cannot

describe all the treasures it contains; suffice it to say,

that it numbers 4,000 palaces, 4,000 baths, 40,000 taxable

Jews, 400 theatres, 12,000 gardeners who sell vegetables. Your

Mussulmans demand the privilege of pillaging the city, and

sharing the booty.' Omar, in his reply, disapproves of the

request, and expressly forbids all pillage or dilapidation. It

is plain that, in his official report, Amrou seeks to

exaggerate the value of his conquest, and to magnify its

importance, like the diplomatists of our times. He does not

overlook a single hovel, nor a Jew, nor a gardener. How then

could he have forgotten the library, he who, according to

Abulfarage, was a friend to the fine arts and philosophy? …

Elmacin in turn gives us Amrou's letter nearly in the same

terms, and not one word of the library. … We … run no

great risk in drawing the conclusion, from all these premises,

that the library of the Ptolemies no longer existed in 640 at

the taking of Alexandria by the Saracens. … If it be true,

as we have every reason to think, that in 640 … the

celebrated library no longer existed, we may inquire in what

manner it had been dispersed and destroyed since 415 when

Oroses affirms that he saw it? In the first place we must

observe that Oroses only mentions some presses which he saw in

the temples. It was not, therefore, the library of the

Ptolemies as it once existed in the Serapeum. Let us call to

mind, moreover, that ever since the first Roman emperors,

Egypt had been the theatre of incessant civil warfare, and we

shall be surprised that any traces of the library could still

exist in later times."

Historical Researches on the pretended burning

of the Library of Alexandria by the Saracens

(Fraser's Magazine. April, 1844).

"After summing up the evidence we have been able to collect in

regard to these libraries, we conclude that almost all the

700,000 volumes of the earlier Alexandrian libraries had been

destroyed before the capture of the city by the Arabs; that

another of considerable size, but chiefly of Christian

literature, had been collected in the 250 years just preceding

the Arab occupation; and that Abulpharaj, in a statement that

is not literally true, gives, in the main, a correct account

of the final destruction of the Alexandrian Library."

C. W. Super,

Alexandria and its Libraries

(National Quarterly Review, December, 1875).

ALSO IN:

E. Edwards,

Memoirs of Libraries,

book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).

E. Edwards,

Libraries and the Founders of Libraries,

chapter 1.

See, also,

EDUCATION, ANCIENT: ALEXANDRIA;

and ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246.

LIBRARIES:

Pergamum.

See PERGAMUM.

LIBRARIES:

Rome.

Pliny states that C. Asinius Pollio was the first who

established a Public Library in Rome. But "Lucullus was

undoubtedly before him in this claim upon the gratitude of the

lovers of books. Plutarch tells us expressly that not only was

the Library of Lucullus remarkable for its extent and for the

beauty of the volumes which composed it, but that the use he

made of them was even more to his honour than the pains he had

taken in their acquisition. The Library, he says, 'was open to

all. The Greeks who were at Rome resorted thither, as it were

to the retreat of the Muses.' It is important to notice that,

according to Pliny, the benefaction of Asinius Pollio to the

literate among the Romans was 'ex manubiis.' This expression,

conjoined with the fact that the statue of M. Varro was placed

in the Library of Pollio, has led a recent distinguished

historian of Rome under the Empire, Mr. Merivale, to suggest,

that very probably Pollio only made additions to that Library

which, as we know from Suetonius, Julius Cæsar had directed to

be formed for public use under the care of Varro. These

exploits of Pollio, which are most likely to have yielded him

the 'spoils of war,' were of a date many years subsequent to

the commission given by Cæsar to Varro. It has been usually,

and somewhat rashly perhaps, inferred that this project, like

many other schemes that were surging in that busy brain,

remained a project only. In the absence of proof either way,

may it not be reasonably conjectured that Varro's bust was

placed in the Library called Pollio's because Varro had in

truth carried out Cæsar's plan, with the ultimate concurrence

and aid of Pollio? This Library—by whomsoever formed—was

probably in the 'atrium libertatis' on the Aventine Mount.

{2005}

From Suetonius we further learn that Augustus added porticoes

to the Temple of Apollo on the Palatine Mount, with (as

appears from monumental inscriptions to those who had charge

of them) two distinct Libraries of Greek and Latin authors;

that Tiberius added to the Public Libraries the works of the

Greek poets Euphorion, Rhianus, and Parthenius,—authors whom

he especially admired and tried to imitate,—and also their

statues; that Caligula (in addition to a scheme for

suppressing Homer) had thoughts of banishing both the works

and the busts of Virgil and of Livy—characterizing the one

as a writer of no genius and of little learning, and the other

(not quite so unfortunately) as a careless and verbose

historian—from all the Libraries; and that Domitian early in

his reign restored at vast expense the Libraries in the

Capitol which had been burnt, and to this end both collected

MSS. from various countries, and sent scribes to Alexandria

expressly to copy or to correct works which were there

preserved. In addition to the Libraries mentioned by

Suetonius, we read in Plutarch of the Library dedicated by

Octavia to the memory of Marcellus; in Aulus Gellius of a

Library in the Palace of Tiberius and of another in the Temple

of Peace; and in Dion Cassius of the more famous Ulpian

Library founded by Trajan. This Library, we are told by

Vopiscus, was in his day added, by way of adornment, to the

Baths of Diocletian. Of private Libraries amongst the Romans

one of the earliest recorded is that which Emilius Paulus

found amongst the spoils of Perseus, and which he is said to

have shared between his sons. The collection of Tyrunnion,

some eighty years later (perhaps), amounted, according to a

passage in Suidas, to 30,000 volumes. That of Lucullus—which,

some will think, ought to be placed in this category—has been

mentioned already. With that—the most famous of all—which

was the delight and the pride of Cicero, every reader of his

letters has an almost personal familiarity, extending even to

the names and services of those who were employed in binding

and in placing the books. … Of the Libraries of the

long-buried cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum there is not a

scintilla of information extant, other than that which has

been gathered from their ruins. At one time great hopes were

entertained of important additions to classical learning from

remains, the discovery of which has so largely increased our

knowledge both of the arts and of the manners of the Romans.

But all effort in this direction has hitherto been either

fruitless or else only tantalizing, from the fragmentary

character of the results attained."

E. Edwards,

Memoirs of Libraries,

pages 26-29.

"Most houses had a library, which, according to Vitruvius,

ought to face the east in order to admit the light of the

morning, and to prevent the books from becoming mouldy. At

Herculaneum a library with bookcases containing 1,700 scrolls

has been discovered. The grammarian Epaphroditus possessed a

library of 30,000, and Sammanicus Serenus, the tutor of the

younger Gordian, one of 62,000 books. Seneca ridicules the

fashionable folly of illiterate men who adorned their walls

with thousands of books, the titles of which were the delight

of the yawning owner. According to Publius Victor, Rome

possessed twenty-nine public libraries, the first of which was

opened by Asinius Polio in the forecourt of the Temple of

Peace; two others were founded during the reign of Augustus,

viz., the Octavian and the Palatine libraries. Tiberius,

Vespasian, Domitian, and Trajan added to their number; the

Ulpian library, founded by the last-mentioned emperor, being

the most important of all."

E. Guhl and W. Koner,

The Life of the Greeks and Romans,

p. 531.

LIBRARIES:

Herculaneum.

"Herculaneum remained a subterranean city from the year 79 to

the year 1706. In the latter year some labourers who were

employed in digging a well came upon a statue, a circumstance

which led—not very speedily but in course of time … —to

systematic excavations. Almost half a century passed, however,

before the first roll of papyrus was discovered, near to

Portici at a depth from the surface of about 120 English feet.

In the course of a year or two, some 250 rolls—most of them

Greek—had been found. … In 1754, further and more careful

researches were made by Camillo Paderni, who succeeded in

getting together no less than 337 Greek volumes and 18 Latin

volumes. The latter were of larger dimensions than the Greek,

and in worse condition. Very naturally, great interest was

excited by these discoveries amongst scholars in all parts of

Europe. In the years 1754 and 1755 the subject was repeatedly

brought before the Royal Society by Mr. Locke and other of its

fellows, sometimes in the form of communications from Paderni

himself; at other times from the notes and observations of

travellers. In one of these papers the disinterred rolls are

described as appearing at first 'like roots of wood, all

black, and seeming to be only of one piece. One of them

falling on the ground, it broke in the middle, and many

letters were observed, by which it was first known that the

rolls were of papyrus. … They were in wooden cases, so much

burnt, … that they cannot be recovered.' … At the

beginning of the present century the attention of the British

government was, to some extent, attracted to this subject. …

Leave was at length obtained from the Neapolitan government

for a literary mission to Herculaneum, which was entrusted to

Mr. Hayter, one of the chaplains to the Prince Regent. But the

results were few and unsatisfactory. … The Commission

subsequently entrusted to Dr. Sickler of Hildburghausen was

still more unfortunate. … In 1818, a committee of the House

of Commons was appointed to inquire into the matter. It

reported that, after an expenditure of about £1,100, no useful

results had been attained. This inquiry and the experiments of

Sickler led Sir Humphrey Davy to investigate the subject, and

to undertake two successive journeys into Italy for its

thorough elucidation. His account of his researches is highly

interesting. … 'My experiments,' says Sir Humphrey Davy, …

'soon convinced me that the nature of these MSS. had been

generally misunderstood; that they had not, as is usually

supposed, been carbonized by the operation of fire, … but

were in a state analogous to peat or Bovey coal, the leaves

being generally cemented into one mass by a peculiar substance

which had formed during the fermentation and chemical change

of the vegetable matter comprising them, in a long course of

ages. The nature of this substance being known, the

destruction of it became a subject of obvious chemical

investigation; and I was fortunate enough to find means of

accomplishing this, without injuring the characters or

destroying the texture of the MSS.' These means Sir Humphrey

Davy has described very minutely in his subsequent

communications to the Royal Society.

{2006}

Briefly, they may be said to have consisted in a mixture of a

solution of glue with alcohol, enough to gelatinize it,

applied by a camel's hair brush, for the separation of the

layers. The process was sometimes assisted by the agency of

ether, and the layers were dried by the action of a stream of

air warmed gradually up to the temperature of boiling water.

'After the chemical operation, the leaves of most of the

fragments separated perfectly from each other, and the Greek

characters were in a high degree distinct. … The MSS. were

probably on shelves of wood, which were broken down when the

roofs of the houses yielded to the weight of the

superincumbent mass. Hence, many of them were crushed and

folded in a moist state, and the leaves of some pressed

together in a perpendicular direction … in confused heaps;

in these heaps the exterior MSS. … must have been acted on

by the water; and as the ancient ink was composed of finely

divided charcoal suspended in a solution of glue or gum,

wherever the water percolated continuously, the characters

were more or less erased.' … Sir Humphrey Davy proceeds to

state that, according to the information given him, the number

of MSS. and fragments of MSS. originally deposited in the

Naples Museum was 1,696; that of these 88 had then been

unrolled and found to be legible; that 319 others had been

operated upon, and more or less unrolled, but were illegible;

that 24 had been sent abroad as presents; and that of the

remaining 1,265—which he had carefully examined—the majority

were either small fragments, or MSS. so crushed and mutilated

as to offer little hope of separation; whilst only from 80 to

120 offered a probability of success (and he elsewhere

adds:—'this estimate, as my researches proceeded, appeared

much too high'). … 'Of the 88 unrolled MSS. … the great

body consists of works of Greek philosophers or sophists; nine

are of Epicurus; thirty-two bear the name of Philodemus, three

of Demetrius, one of each of these authors:—Colotes,

Polystratus, Carneades, Chrysippus; and the subjects of these

works, … and of those the authors of which are unknown, are

either Natural or Moral Philosophy, Medicine, Criticism, and

general observations on Arts, Life, and Manners.'"

E. Edwards,

Memoirs of Libraries,

volume 1, book 1, chapter 5.

LIBRARIES:

Constantinople.

"When Constantine the Great, in the year 336, made Byzantium

the seat of his empire, he in a great measure newly built the

city, decorated it with numerous splendid edifices, and called

it after his own name. Desirous of making reparation to the

Christians, for the injuries they had sustained during the

reign of his tyrannical predecessor, this prince commanded the

most diligent search to be made after those books which had been

doomed to destruction. He caused transcripts to be made of

such books as had escaped the Diocletian persecution; to these

he added others, and with the whole formed a valuable Library

at Constantinople. On the death of Constantine, the number of

books contained in the Imperial Library was only six thousand

nine hundred; but it was successively enlarged by the

emperors, Julian and Theodosius the younger, the latter of

whom augmented it to one hundred thousand volumes. Of these,

more than half were burnt in the seventh century, by command

of the emperor Leo III., in order to destroy all the monuments

that might be quoted in proof against his opposition to the

worship of images. In this library was deposited the only

authentic copy of the Council of Nice: it has also been

asserted that the works of Homer, written in golden letters,

were consumed at the same time, together with a magnificent

copy of the Four Gospels, bound in plates of gold to the

weight of fifteen pounds, and enriched with precious stones.

The convulsions that weakened the lower empire, were by no

means favourable to the interests of literature. During the

reign of Constantine Porphyrogennetus (in the eleventh entry)

literature flourished for a short time: and he is said to have

employed many learned Greeks in collecting books for a library,

the arrangement of which he superintended himself. The final

subversion of the Eastern Empire, and the capture of

Constantinople by Mohammed II., A. D. 1453, dispersed the

literati of Greece over Western Europe: but the Imperial

Library was preserved by the express command of the conqueror,

and continued to be kept in some apartments of the Seraglio;

until Mourad (or Amurath) IV., in a fit of devotion,

sacrificed (as it is reported) all the books in this Library

to his hatred against the Christians."

T. H. Horne,

Introduction to the Study of Bibliography,

pages 23-25.

LIBRARIES:

Tripoli.

Destruction of Library by Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.

LIBRARIES:

Mediæval.

Monastic Libraries.

"In every monastery there was established first a library,

then great studios, where, to increase the number of books,

skilful caligraphers transcribed manuscripts; and finally,

schools, open to all those who had need of, or desire for,

instruction. At Montierender, at Lorsch, at Corvey, at Fulda,

at St. Gall, at Reichenau, at Nonantula, at Monte Cassino, at

Wearmouth, at St. Albans, at Croyland, there were famous

libraries. At St. Michael, at Luneburg, there were two—one

for the abbot and one for the monks. In other abbeys, as at

Hirschau, the abbot himself took his place in the Scriptorium,

where many other monks were occupied in copying manuscripts.

At St. Riquier, books bought for high prices, or transcribed

with the utmost care, were regarded as the most valuable

jewels of the monastery. 'Here,' says the chronicler of the

abbey, counting up with innocent pride the volumes which it

contained—'here are the riches of the cloister, the treasures

of the celestial life, which fatten the soul by their

sweetness. This is how we fulfil the excellent precept, Love

the study of the Scriptures, and you will not love vice.' If

we were called upon to enumerate the principal centres of

learning in this century, we should be obliged to name nearly

all the great abbeys whose founders we have mentioned, for

most of them were great homes of knowledge. … The principal

and most constant occupation of the learned Benedictine nuns

was the transcription of manuscripts. It can never be known

how many services to learning and history were rendered by

their delicate hands throughout the middle ages. They brought

to the work a dexterity, an elegance, and an assiduity which

the monks themselves could not attain, and we owe to them some

of the most beautiful specimens of the marvellous caligraphy of

the period. … Nuns, therefore, were the rivals of monks in

the task of enlarging and fertilising the field of Catholic

learning.

{2007}

Every one is aware that the copying of manuscripts was one of

the habitual occupations of monks. By it they fed the

claustral libraries already spoken of, and which are the

principal source of modern knowledge. Thus we must again refer

to the first beginning of the Monastic Orders to find the

earliest traces of a custom which from that time was, as it

were, identified with the practices of religious life. In the

depths of the Thebaïde, in the primitive monasteries of

Tabenna, every house … had its library. There is express

mention made of this in the rule of St. Benedict. … In the

seventh century, St. Benedict Biscop, founder and abbot of

Wearmouth in England, undertook five sea-voyages to search for

and purchase books for his abbey, to which each time he

brought back a large cargo. In the ninth century, Loup of

Ferrières transformed his monastery of St. Josse-sur-Mer into

a kind of depot for the trade in books which was carried on

with England. About the same time, during the wars which

ravaged Lombardy, most of the literary treasures which are now

the pride of the Ambrosian library were being collected in the

abbey of Bobbio. The monastery of Pomposa, near Ravenna, had,

according to contemporaries, a finer library than those of

Rome or of any other town in the world. In the eleventh

century, the library of the abbey of Croyland numbered 3,000

volumes. The library of Novalese had 6,700, which the monks

saved at the risk of their lives when their abbey was

destroyed by the Saracens in 905. Hirschau contained an

immense number of manuscripts. But, for the number and value

of its books, Fulda eclipsed all the monasteries of Germany,

and perhaps of the whole Christian world. On the other hand,

some writers assure us that Monte Cassino, under the Abbot

Didier, the friend of Gregory VII., possessed the richest

collection which it was possible to find. The libraries thus

created by the labours of monks became, as it were, the

intellectual arsenals of princes and potentates. … There

were also collections of books in all the cathedrals, in all

the collegiate churches, and in many of the castles. Much has

been said of the excessive price of certain books during the

middle ages: Robertson and his imitators, in support of this

theory, are fond of quoting the famous collection of homilies

that Grecia Countess of Anjou bought, in 1056, for two hundred

sheep, a measure of wheat, one of millet, one of rye, several

marten-skins, and four pounds of silver. An instance like this

always produces its effect; but these writers forgot to say

that the books bought for such high prices were admirable

specimens of caligraphy, of painting, and of carving. It would

be just as reasonable to quote the exorbitant sums paid at

sales by bibliomaniacs of our days, in order to prove that

since the invention of printing, books have been excessive in

price. Moreover, the ardent fondness of the Countess Grecia

for beautiful books had been shared by other amateurs of a

much earlier date. Bede relates that Alfred, King of

Northumbria in the seventh century, gave eight hides of land

to St. Benedict Biscop in exchange for a Cosmography which

that book-loving abbot had bought at Rome. The monks loved

their books with a passion which has never been surpassed in

modern times. … It is an error to … suppose that books of

theology or piety alone filled the libraries of the monks.

Some enemies of the religious orders have, indeed, argued that

this was the case; but the proof of the contrary is evident in

all documents relating to the subject. The catalogues of the

principal monastic libraries during those centuries which

historians regard as most barbarous, are still in existence;

and these catalogues amply justify the sentence of the great

Leibnitz, when he said, 'Books and learning were preserved by

the monasteries.' It is acknowledged that if, on one hand, the

Benedictines settled in Iceland collected the Eddas and the

principal traditions of the Scandinavian mythology, on the

other all the monuments of Greece and Rome which escaped the

devastations of barbarians were saved by the monks of Italy,

France, and Germany, and by them alone. And if in some

monasteries the scarcity of parchment and the ignorance of the

superiors permitted the destruction, by copyists, of a certain

small number of precious works, how can we forget that without

these same copyists we should possess nothing—absolutely

nothing—of classic antiquity? … Alcuin enumerates among the

books in the library at York the works of Aristotle, Cicero,

Pliny, Virgil, Statius, Lucan, and of Trogus Pompeïus. In his

correspondence with Charlemagne he quotes Ovid, Horace,

Terence, and Cicero, acknowledging that in his youth he had

been more moved by the tears of Dido than by the Psalms of

David."

Count de Montalembert,

The Monks of the West,

book 18, chapter 4 (volume 6).

"It is in the great houses of the Benedictine Order that we

find the largest libraries, such as in England at Bury St.

Edmund's, Glastonbury, Peterborough, Heading, St. Alban's,

and, above all, that of Christ Church in Canterbury, probably

the earliest library formed in England. Among the other

English monasteries of the libraries of which we still possess

catalogues or other details, are St. Peter's at York,

described in the eighth century by Alcuin, St. Cuthbert's at

Durham, and St. Augustine's at Canterbury. At the dissolution

of the monasteries their libraries were dispersed, and the

basis of the great modern libraries is the volumes thus

scattered over England. In general, the volumes were disposed

much as now, that is to say, upright, and in large cases

affixed to a wall, often with doors. The larger volumes at

least were in many cases chained, so that they could only be

used within about six feet of their proper place; and since

the chain was always riveted on the fore-edge of one of the

sides of a book, the back of the volume had to be thrust first

into the shelf, leaving the front edge of the leaves exposed

to view. Many old volumes bear a mark in ink on this front

edge; and when this is the case, we may be sure that it was

once chained in a library; and usually a little further

investigation will disclose the mark of a rivet on one of the

sides. Regulations were carefully made to prevent the mixture

of different kinds of books, and their overcrowding or

inconvenient position; while an organized system of lending

was in vogue, by which at least once a year, and less formally

at shorter intervals, the monks could change or renew the

volumes already on loan. … Let us take an example of the

arrangement of a monastic library of no special distinction in

A. D. 1400,—that at Titchfield Abbey,—describing it in the

words of the register of the monastery itself, only

translating the Latin into English.

{2008}

'The arrangement of the library of the monastery of Tychefeld

is this:—There are in the library of Tychefeld four cases

(columnae) in which to place books, of which two, the first

and second, are on the eastern face; on the southern face is

the third, and on the northern face the fourth. And each of

them has eight shelves (gradus), marked with a letter and

number affixed on the front of each shelf, that is to say, on

the lower board of each of the aforesaid shelves; certain

letters, however, are excepted, namely A, H, K, L, M, O, P, Q,

which have no numbers affixed, because all the volumes to

which one of those letters belongs are contained in the shelf

to which that letter is assigned. [That is, the shelves with

the letters A, H, K, etc., have a complete class of books in

each, and in no case does that class overflow into a second

shelf, so there was no need of marking these shelves with

numbers as well as letters, in the way in which the rest were

marked. Thus we should find 'B 1,' 'B 2,' 'B 3,' … 'B 7,'

because B filled seven shelves; but 'A' only, because A filled

one shelf alone.] So all and singular the volumes of the said

library are fully marked on the first leaf and elsewhere on

the shelf belonging to the book, with certain numbered

letters. And in order that what is in the library may be more

quickly found, the marking of the shelves of the said library,

the inscriptions in the books, and the references in the

register, in all points agree with each other. Anno Domini

MCCCC.' … Titchfield Abbey was a Præmonstratensian house,

founded in the thirteenth century, and never specially rich or

prominent; yet we find it with a good library of sixty-eight

books in theology, thirty-nine in Canon and Civil Law,

twenty-nine in Medicine, thirty-seven in Arts, and in all

three hundred and twenty-six volumes, many containing several

treatises, so that the total number of works was considerably

over a thousand."

F. Madan,

Books in Manuscript,

pp. 76-79.

LIBRARIES:

Renaissance.

Italy.

On the revival of learning in Italy, "scarcity of books was at

first a chief impediment to the study of antiquity. Popes and

princes and even great religious institutions possessed far

fewer books than many farmers of the present age. The library

belonging to the Cathedral Church of S. Martino at Lucca in

the ninth century contained only nineteen volumes of

abridgements from ecclesiastical commentaries. The Cathedral

of Novara in 1212 could boast copies of Boethius, Priscian,

the Code of Justinian, the Decretals, and the Etymology of

Isidorus, besides a Bible and some devotional treatises. This

slender stock passed for great riches. Each of the precious

volumes in such a collection was an epitome of mediæval art.

Its pages were composed of fine vellum adorned with pictures.

The initial letters displayed elaborate flourishes and

exquisitely illuminated groups of figures. The scribe took

pains to render his caligraphy perfect, and to ornament the

margins with crimson, gold, and blue. Then he handed the

parchment sheets to the binder, who encased them in rich

settings of velvet or carved ivory and wood, embossed with

gold and precious stones. The edges were gilt and stamped with

patterns. The clasps were of wrought silver chased with

niello. The price of such masterpieces was enormous. … Of

these MSS. the greater part were manufactured in the

cloisters, and it was here too that the martyrdom of ancient

authors took place. Lucretius and Livy gave place to

chronicles, antiphonaries, and homilies. Parchment was

extremely dear, and the scrolls which nobody could read might

be scraped and washed. Accordingly, the copyist erased the

learning of the ancients, and filled the fair blank space he

gained with litanies. At the same time it is but just to the

monks to add that palimpsests have occasionally been found in

which ecclesiastical works have yielded place to copies of the

Latin poets used in elementary education. Another obstacle to

the diffusion of learning was the incompetence of the

copyists. It is true that at the great universities

'stationarii,' who supplied the text-books in use to students,

were certified and subjected to the control of special censors

called 'Preciani.' Yet their number was not large, and when

they quitted the routine to which they were accustomed their

incapacity betrayed itself by numerous errors. Petrarch's

invective against the professional copyists shows the depth to

which the art had sunk. 'Who,' he exclaims, 'will discover a

cure for the ignorance and vile sloth of these copyists, who

spoil everything and turn it to nonsense? If Cicero, Livy, and

other illustrious ancients were to return to life, do you

think they would understand their own works? There is no check

upon these copyists, selected without examination or test of

their capacity.' … At the same time the copyists formed a

necessary and flourishing class of craftsmen. They were well

paid. … Under these circumstances it was usual for even the

most eminent scholars, like Petrarch, Boccaccio, and Poggio,

to make their own copies of MSS. Niccolo de' Niccoli

transcribed nearly the whole of the codices that formed the

nucleus of the Library of the Mark. … It is clear that the

first step toward the revival of learning implied three

things: first, the collection of MSS. wherever they could be

saved from the indolence of the monks; secondly, the formation

of libraries for their preservation; and, thirdly, the

invention of an art whereby they might be multiplied cheaply,

conveniently, and accurately. The labour involved in the

collection of classical manuscripts had to be performed by a

few enthusiastic scholars, who received no help from the

universities and their academical scribes, and who met with no

sympathy in the monasteries they were bent on ransacking. …

The monks performed at best the work of earthworms, who

unwittingly preserve fragments of Greek architecture from

corrosion by heaping mounds of mould and rubbish round them.

Meanwhile the humanists went forth with the instinct of

explorers to release the captives and awake the dead. From the

convent libraries of Italy, from the museums of

Constantinople, from the abbeys of Germany and Switzerland and

France, the slumbering spirits of the ancients had to be

evoked. … This work of discovery began with Petrarch. … It

was carried on by Boccaccio. The account given by Benvenuto da

Imola of Boccaccio's visit to Monte Cassino brings vividly

before us both the ardour of these first explorers and the

apathy of the Benedictines (who have sometimes been called the

saviours of learning) with regard to the treasures of their

own libraries. …

{2009}

'Desirous of seeing the collection of books, which he

understood to be a very choice one, he modestly asked a

monk—for he was always most courteous in manners—to open the

library, as a favour, for him. The monk answered stiffly,

pointing to a steep staircase, "Go up; it is open." Boccaccio

went up gladly; but he found that the place which held so

great a treasure was without door or key. He entered, and saw

grass sprouting on the windows, and all the books and benches

thick with dust. In his astonishment he began to open and turn

the leaves of first one tome and then another, and found many

and divers volumes of ancient and foreign works. Some of them

had lost several sheets; others were snipped and pared all

round the text, and mutilated in various ways. At length,

lamenting that the toil and study of so many illustrious men

should have passed into the hands of most abandoned wretches,

he departed with tears and sighs. Coming to the cloister, he

asked a monk whom he met, why those valuable books had been so

disgracefully mangled. He answered that the monks, seeking to

gain a few soldi, were in the habit of cutting off sheets and

making psalters, which they sold to boys. The margins too they

manufactured into charms, and sold to women.' … What Italy

contained of ancient codices soon saw the light. The visit of

Poggio Bracciolini to Constance (1414) opened up for Italian

scholars the stores that lay neglected in transalpine

monasteries. … The treasures he unearthed at Reichenau,

Weingarten, and above all S. Gallen, restored to Italy many

lost masterpieces of Latin literature, and supplied students

with full texts of authors who had hitherto been known in

mutilated copies. The account he gave of his visit to S.

Gallen in a Latin letter to a friend is justly celebrated. …

'In the middle [he says] of a well-stocked library, too large

to catalogue at present, we discovered Quintilian, safe as yet

and sound, though covered with dust and filthy with neglect

and age. The books, you must know, were not housed according

to their worth, but were lying in a most foul and obscure

dungeon at the very bottom of a tower, a place into which

condemned criminals would hardly have been thrust; and I am

firmly persuaded that if anyone would but explore those

ergastula of the barbarians wherein they incarcerate such men,

we should meet with like good fortune in the case of many

whose funeral orations have long ago been pronounced. Besides

Quintilian, we exhumed the three first books and a half of the

fourth book of the Argonautica of Flaccus, and the

Commentaries of Asconius Pedianus upon eight orations of

Cicero.' … Never was there a time in the world's history

when money was spent more freely upon the collection and

preservation of MSS., and when a more complete machinery was

put in motion for the sake of securing literary treasures."

J. A. Symonds,

Renaissance in Italy: The Revival of Learning,

chapter 3.

LIBRARIES: Modern.

Europe: Rise and growth of the greater Libraries.

In a work entitled "Essai Statistique sur les Bibliothèques de

Vienne," published in 1835, M. Adrien Balbi entered into an

examination of the literary and numerical value of the

principal libraries of ancient and modern times. M. Balbi, in

this work, shows that "the Imperial Library of Vienna,

regularly increasing from the epoch of its formation, by means

equally honorable to the sovereign and to the nation, held,

until the French revolution, the first place among the

libraries of Europe. Since that period, several other

institutions have risen to a much higher numerical rank. …

No one of the libraries of the first class, now in existence,

dates beyond the fifteenth century. The Vatican, the origin of

which has been frequently carried back to the days of St.

Hilarius, in 465, cannot, with any propriety, be said to have

deserved the name of library before the reign of Martin the

Fifth, by whose order it was removed from Avignon to Rome in

1417. And even then, a strict attention to the force of the

term would require us to withhold from it this title, until

the period of its final organization by Nicholas the Fifth, in

1447. It is difficult to speak with certainty concerning the

libraries, whether public or private, which are supposed to

have existed previous to the fifteenth century, both on

account of the doubtful authority and indefiniteness of the

passages in which they are mentioned, and the custom which so

readily obtained, in those dark ages, of dignifying every

petty collection with the name of library. But many libraries

of the fifteenth century being still in existence, and others

having been preserved long enough to make them the subject of

historical inquiry before their dissolution, it becomes easier

to fix, with satisfactory accuracy, the date of their

foundation. We find accordingly, that, including the Vatican,

and the libraries of Vienna, Ratisbon, and the Laurentian of

Florence, which are a few years anterior to it, no less than

ten were formed between the years 1430 and 1500. The increase

of European libraries has generally been slowly progressive,

although there have been periods of sudden augmentation in

nearly all. Most of them began with a small number of

manuscripts, sometimes with a few printed volumes, and often

without any. To these, gradual accessions were made, from the

different sources, which have always been more or less at the

command of the sovereigns and nobles of Europe. In 1455, the

Vatican contained 5,000 manuscripts. … Far different was the

progress of the Royal Library of Paris. The origin of this

institution is placed in the year 1595, the date of its

removal from Fontainebleau to Paris by order of Henry the

Fourth. In 1660, it contained but 1,435 printed volumes. In

the course of the following year, this number was raised to

16,746, both printed volumes and manuscripts. During the

ensuing eight years the library was nearly doubled; and before

the close of the next century, it was supposed to have been

augmented by upwards of 100,000 volumes more."

G. W. Greene,

Historical Studies,

pages 278-281.

"The oldest of the great libraries of printed books is

probably that of Vienna, which dates from 1440, and is said to

have been opened to the public as early as 1575. The Town

Library of Ratisbon dates from 1430; St. Mark's Library at

Venice, from 1468; the Town Library of Frankfort, from 1484;

that of Hamburg, from 1529; of Strasburg, from 1531; of

Augsburg, from 1537; those of Berne and Geneva, from 1550;

that of Basel, from 1564. The Royal Library of Copenhagen was

founded about 1550. In 1671 it possessed 10,000 volumes; in

1748, about 65,000; in 1778, 100,000; in 1820, 300,000; and it

now contains 410,000 volumes. The National Library of Paris was

founded in 1595, but was not made public until 1737. In 1640

it contained about 17,000 volumes; in 1684, 50,000; in 1775,

150,000; in 1790, 200,000."

E. Edwards,

A Statistical View of the Principal Public Libraries in

Europe and the United States Of America,

(Journal of the Statistical Society, August., 1848).

{2010}

LIBRARIES: Modern.

Germany.

According to "Minerva" (the "Year-book of the Learned World"),

for 1893-94, the Royal Library at Berlin contains 850,000

printed books and 24,622 manuscripts; the Münich University

Library, 370,000 books and 50,000 pamphlets, including 2,101

incunabula; the Leipsic University Library, 500,000 printed

books, and 4,000 manuscripts; Heidelberg University Library,

400,000 bound volumes (including 1,000 incunabula), and

175,000 pamphlets and "dissertationen," with a large

collection of manuscripts; Dresden Royal Public Library,

300,000 printed books (including 2,000 incunabula), 6,000

manuscripts, and 20,000 maps; Freiburg University Library,

250,000 volumes and over 500 manuscripts; Königsberg

University Library, 220,000 volumes and 1,100 manuscripts;

Tübingen University Library, 300,000 volumes and 3,500

manuscripts; Jena University Library, 200,000 volumes and

100,000 "dissertationen"; Halle University Library, 182,000

books and 800 manuscripts, besides 12,800 books, 35,000

pamphlets and 1,040 manuscripts in the Ponickausche

Bibliothek, which is united with the University Library;

Hamburg City Library, about 500,000 printed books and 5,000

manuscripts; Frankfort City Library (April, 1893), 326,139

volumes; Cologne City Library, 105,000 volumes, including

2,000 incunabula; Augsburg City and Provincial Library, about

200,000 volumes (including 1,760 incunabula) and 2,000

manuscripts; Göttingen University Library, 456,000 volumes of

books and 5,300 manuscripts; Gotha Public Library, 200,000

printed books, including 1,029 incunabula, and 7,037

manuscripts, of which 3,500 are oriental; Greifswald

University Library, 143 volumes of printed books and about 800

manuscripts; Bamberg Royal Public Library, 300,000 volumes,

3,132 manuscripts; Berlin University Library, 142,129 volumes;

Bonn University Library, 219,000 volumes, including 1,235

incunabula, and 1,273 manuscripts; Bremen City Library,

120,000 volumes; Breslau University Library, 300,000 volumes,

including about 2,500 incunabula, and about 3,000 manuscripts;

Breslau City Library, 150,000 volumes and 3,000 manuscripts;

Erlangen University Library, 180,000 volumes; Hanover Royal

Public Library, 180,000 books and 3,500 manuscripts; Hanover

City Library, 47,000 volumes; Carlsruhe Grand-ducal Library,

159,842 books and 3,754 manuscripts; Kiel University Library,

217,039 volumes, 2,375 manuscripts; Colmar City Library,

80,000 volumes; Marburg University Library, 150,000 volumes;

Strasburg University Library, 700,000 volumes; Strasburg City

Library, 90,000 volumes; Weimar Grand-ducal Library, 223,000

volumes and 2,000 manuscripts; Würzburg University Library,

300,000 volumes.

Minerva, 1893-94.

"The Munich library, … in matter of administration,

resembles the British Museum. Here one finds carefully

catalogued that great wealth of material that appears only in

doctorate theses, and for this reason is most valuable to the

historic student. No tedious formalities are insisted upon,

and orders for books are not subjected to long delays. The

Vienna library moves slowly, as though its machinery were

retarded by the weight of its royal imperial name. The

catalogue is not accessible, the attendants are not anxious to

please, and the worker feels no special affection for the

institution. But at the royal library of Berlin there exists

an opposite state of affairs—with the catalogue at hand one

can readily give the information needful in filling up the

call card. This being a lending library, one occasionally

meets with disappointment, but, as the privilege of borrowing

is easily had, this feature can have a compensatory side. The

most marked peculiarity found here is the periodic delivery of

books. All books ordered before nine o'clock are delivered at

eleven; those before eleven, at one; those before one, at

three; and those after three are delivered the same day if

possible. This causes some delay, but as soon as the rule is

known it has no drawback for the continuous user, and for the

benefit of one who wants only a single order there is placed

at the outer door of the building a box into which one can

deposit the call card, and returning at the proper time find

the book waiting in the reading room above. This saves the

climbing of many steps, and enables one to perform other

duties between ordering and receiving. As far as I know, here

alone does one purchase the call cards, but as the price is

only twenty cents per hundred the cost is not an important

item."

J. H. Gore,

Library Facilities for Study in Europe

(Educational Review, June, 1893).

In Berlin, "the report of the city government for 1889-00

reckons 25 public free libraries; 334,837 books were read by

14,900 persons, i. e., 17,219 volumes less than last year. The

expenses were 26,490 marks, the allowance from the city

treasury 23,400 marks [less than $6,000]."

The Library Journal, May, 1892.

LIBRARIES: France:

The Bibliothèque Nationale.

"The history of the vast collection of books which is now,

after many wanderings, definitely located in the Rue de

Richelieu, divides itself naturally into three periods, which,

for the sake of convenience, may well be called by three of

the names under which the Library has, at different times,

been known. The first period is that in which the Library was

nothing more than the private collection of each successive

sovereign of France, which sometimes accompanied him in his

journeys, and but too often, as in the case of King John, or

that of Charles VII., shared in his misfortunes; it was then

fitly called the 'Bibliothèque du Roi.' This period may be

considered as ending in the time of Henry IV., who transferred

the royal collection from Fontainebleau to Paris, and gave it

a temporary home in the College de Clermont. Although its

abode has often been changed since, it has never again been

attached to a royal palace, or been removed from the capital.

The second period dates from this act of Henry the Fourth's,

and extends down to the Revolution of 1780, during which time

the Library, although open with but slight restrictions to all

men of letters who were well recommended, and to the general

public for two days a week, from the year 1692, was not

regarded as national property, but as an appendage of the

Crown, which was indeed graciously opened to the learned, but

was only national property in the same sense that the Queen's

private library at Windsor is national property.

{2011}

Although still called the Bibliothèque du Roi during this

period, it may well be here spoken of, for the sake of

distinction, as the Bibliothèque Royale down to the

Revolution. In 1791, the King's library was proclaimed

national property, and it was decreed that it should

henceforth be called 'Bibliothèque Nationale,' which name it

bore till the coronation of Napoleon as Emperor of the French,

in 1805, when it was styled 'Bibliothèque Impériale.' Of

course it was Bibliothèque Royale again in 1815, 'Nationale'

in 1848, and once again, in 1852, was declared to be the

'Bibliothèque Impériale.'"

Imperial Library of Paris

(Westminster Review, April, 1870).

After the fall of the Second Empire, the great library again

became "Nationale" in name. According to a report made in the

spring of 1894, the Bibliothèque Nationale of France

contained, at the end of the previous year, 1,934,154

"'numbers,' forming at least 2,600,000 volumes." This report

was made by a committee of twenty persons, appointed to

consider the advisability and method of printing the catalogue

of the library. The conclusions of the committee are favorable

to the printing of the catalogue.

The Nation,

May 17, 1894.

Books come to the National Library "in three ways: from (1)

gifts, about 3,000 a year; … (2) purchase, 4,500 (the

library has $20,000 a year to spend on books and binding); (3)

copyright, 22,000 articles and 6,000 pieces of music. The

printer, not the publisher, is bound to make the deposit, so

that if the text and the illustrations are printed at

different places there is a chance, unless everyone is

careful, that the library will have an imperfect copy. But the

greatest trouble comes from periodicals, of which the

Bibliothèque Nationale receives 3,000. What would some of our

librarians think of this who are inclined to boast or to

lament that they receive 300? Every number of every newspaper

in France must be received, sent for if it fails to come,

registered, put on its pile, and at the end of the year tied

up in a bundle and put away (for only the most important are

bound). … The titles of new books are printed in a bulletin

in two series, French and Foreign (causing a printer's bill of

5,000 francs a year). This began in 1875 for the foreign, and

in 1882 for the French. These bulletins are cut up and the

titles mounted on slips, which are fastened in a Leyden

binder, three making a small folio page. The result is a

series of 900 volumes, less easy to consult than a good card

catalog, very much less easy than the British Museum pasted

catalog, the Rudolph books, or the Rudolph machine. … The

books received at the Bibliothèque Nationale before 1875 and

1882 are entered on some 2,000,000 slips, which are divided

between two catalogs, that of the old library ('fonds

ancien'), and of the intermediate library ('fonds

intermédiarie'). In each of these catalogs they are arranged

in series according to the subject divisions given above and

under each subject alphabetically. There is no author catalog

and the public are not allowed to consult these catalogs. If

then a reader asks for a work received before 1875 the

attendant guesses in which 'fonds' it is and what subject it

treats of; if he does not find it where he looks first he

tries some other division. No wonder it takes on an average

half an hour for the reader to get his book. I must bear

witness to the great skill which necessity has developed in

the officials charged with this work. Some of their successes

in bringing me out-of-the-way books were marvellous. On the

other hand, when they reported certain works not in the

library I did not feel at all sure that they were right, and I

dare say they doubted themselves. All this will be changed

when the library gets a printed alphabetical catalog of

authors and has made from it a pasted alphabetical catalog of

subjects. The author catalog, by the way, is expected to fill

40,000 double-columned quarto pages. … The library now has

50 kilometres (31 miles) of shelves and is full. A new

store-house is needed and a public reading room ('salle de

lecture'), which can be lighted by electricity, and be opened,

like the British Museum, in the evening."

C. A. Cutter,

Notes on the Bibliothèque Nationale

(Library Journal, June, 1894).

LIBRARIES: France:

Paris Municipal Libraries.

"The Bibliothèques Municipales de Paris have undergone a rapid

development within the last few years. In 1878 there were only

nine altogether, of which five were little used, and four

practically unused. A special Bureau was then appointed by the

Municipal Council to take charge of them, with the result that

altogether 22 libraries have been opened, while the number of

volumes lent rose from 29,339 in 1878 to 57,840 in 1879, to

147,567 in 1880, to 242,738 in 1881, and to 363,322 in 1882.

… A sum of 3,050 francs is placed at the disposal of each

library by the Municipal Council, which is thus appropriated;

Books and Binding, Fr. 1,750; Librarian, 1,000; Attendant,

300. The amount of the sums thus voted by the Municipal

Council in the year 1883 was 110,150 fr. For the year of 1884

the sum of 171,700 fr. has been voted, the increase being

intended to provide for the establishment of fifteen new

libraries in Communal Schools, as well as for the growing

requirements of some of the libraries already established. The

individual libraries are not, of course, as yet very

considerable in point of numbers. The stock possessed by the

twenty-two Bibliothèques Municipales in 1882 was 87,831

volumes, of which 20,411 had been added during that year.

Information received since the publication of M. Dardenne's

Report places the number in 1883 at 98,843 volumes. … The

libraries are open to the public gratuitously every evening

from 8 to 10 o'clock, and are closed on five days only during

the whole year. Books may be read in the library or are lent

out for home use. … Music is lent as well as books, the

experiment having been first tried at the Mairie of the second

arrondissement, in 1879, and having proved so successful that

nine arrondissements have followed suit, and the total number

of musical issues from the ten libraries in 1882 was 9,085.

… Beside these libraries under the direction of the Mairies,

there are a certain number of popular free libraries

established and supported by voluntary efforts. Without

dwelling upon the history of these libraries, all of which

have been formed since 1860, it may be stated that there are

now fourteen such libraries in as many arrondissements."

E. C. Thomas,

The Popular Libraries of Paris

(Library Chronicle, volume 1, 1884, pages 13-14).

{2012}

"The Journal Officiel' contains in the number for August 29,

of this year (1891), the substance of the following account:

… The city of Paris has now 64 public libraries, all of

which send out books and accommodate readers in their halls;

they are open at the times when the factories and shops are

closed. … The libraries are kept in the mayoralty buildings

or ward district school-houses; a central office provides for

the administration and support, while in each precinct a

committee of superintendence attends to the choice and

ordering of new accessions. All expenses are paid by the city,

which, in its last budget, in 1890, appropriated therefor the

trifle of 225,000 francs. On every library in full use are

bestowed yearly about 2,400 francs, while 14,000 francs are

employed in founding new ones. The number of books circulated

in 1890 was 1,386,642, against 29,339 in 1878, in the nine

libraries then existing. In 1878 there was an average of only

3,259 readers for each library, and in the last year the

average was 23,500, which shows a seven-fold use of the

libraries."

Public Libraries in Paris;

translated from the Börsenblatt,

October 7, 1891

(Library Journal, May, 1892).

LIBRARIES: France:

Other Libraries.

A library of importance in Paris second only to the great

National is the Mazarin, which contains 300,000 volumes (1,000

incunabula), and 5,800 manuscripts. The Library of the

University has 141,678 volumes; the Library of the Museum of

Natural History has 140,850 books and 2,050 manuscripts; the

Sainte-Genevieve Library contains 120,000 volumes and 2,392

manuscripts; the Library of the City of Paris, 90,000 volumes

and 2,000 manuscripts. The principal libraries of the

provincial cities are reported as follows: Caen Municipal

Library, 100,000 volumes, 620 manuscripts; Dijon Municipal

Library, 100,000 volumes, 1,558 manuscripts; Marseilles City

Library, 102,000 volumes, 1,656 manuscripts; Montpelier City

Library, 120,000 volumes; Nantes City Library, 102,172

volumes, 2,231 manuscripts; Rheims Library, 100,000 books and

1,700 manuscripts; Lyons City Library and Library of the

Palace of Arts, 160,000 volumes and 1,900 manuscripts;

Toulouse City Library, 100,000 volumes and 950 manuscripts;

Rouen City Library, 132,000 printed books and 3,800

manuscripts; Avignon, 117,000 volumes and 3,300 manuscripts;

Bordeaux, 160,000 volumes, 1,500 manuscripts; Tours, 100,000

volumes and 1,743 manuscripts; Amiens, 80,000 volumes, 1,500

manuscripts; Besançon, 140,000 volumes and 1,850 manuscripts.

Minerva, 1893-94.

LIBRARIES:

Italy.

"There are in Italy between thirty and forty libraries which

the present National Government, in recognition of former

Governmental support, is committed to maintain, at least in

some degree. It is a division of resources which even a rich

country would find an impediment in developing a proper

National Library, and Italy, with its over-burdened Treasury,

is far from being in a position to offer the world a single

library of the first class. … Italy, to build up a library

which shall rank with the great national libraries of the

future, will need to concentrate her resources; for though she

has libraries now which are rich in manuscripts, she has not

one which is able to meet the great demands of modern

scholarship for printed books. … If with this want of

fecundity there went a corresponding slothfulness in

libraries, there would be little to be hoped of Italy in

amassing great collections of books. In some respects I have

found a more active bibliothecal spirit in Italy than

elsewhere in Europe, and I suspect that if Italian unification

has accomplished nothing else, it has unshackled the minds of

librarians, and placed them more in sympathy with the modern

gospel which makes a library more the servant than the master

of its users. I suspect this is not, as a rule, the case in

Germany. … I have certainly found in Italian librarians a

great alertness of mind and a marked eagerness to observe the

advances in library methods which have taken place elsewhere

during the last five and twenty years. But at the same time,

with all this activity, the miserable bureaucratic methods of

which even the chance stranger sees so much in Italy, are

allowed to embarrass the efforts of her best librarians. …

In the present condition of Italian finances nothing adequate

to the needs of the larger libraries can be allowed, and the

wonder is that so much is done as is apparent; and it is

doubtless owing to the great force of character which I find

in some of the leading librarians that any progress is made at

all. During the years when the new Italian kingdom had its

capital in Florence a certain amount of concentration started

the new Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale on its career; and when

later the Government was transferred to Rome, the new capital

was given another library, got together in a similar way,

which is called the Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele.

Neither collection is housed in any way suited to its

functions, and the one at Florence is much the most important;

indeed it is marvellously rich in early printed books and in

manuscripts."

J. Winsor,

The condition of Italian Libraries

(The Nation, July 9, 1891).

LIBRARIES:

The Vatican Library.

"Even so inveterate a hater of literature as the Calif, who

conquered Alexandria and gave its precious volumes to the

flames, would have appreciated such a library as the Vatican.

Not a book is to be seen—not a shelf is visible, and there is

nothing to inform the visitor that he is in the most famous

library in the world. … The eye is bewildered by innumerable

busts, statues, and columns. The walls are gay with brilliant

arabesques, and the visitor passes through lofty corridors and

along splendid galleries, finding in every direction something

to please and interest him. … The printed books number about

125,000 volumes and there are about 25,000 manuscripts. The

books and manuscripts are enclosed in low wooden cases around

the walls of the various apartments, the cases are painted in

white and gold colors, and thus harmonize with the gay

appearance of the walls and ceilings. … The honor of

founding the Vatican Library belongs to Pope Nicholas V., who,

in 1447, transferred to the Palace of the Vatican the

manuscripts which had been collected in the Lateran. At his

death the library contained 9,000 manuscripts, but many of

them were dispersed under his successor, Calixtus III. Sixtus

IV. was very active in restoring and increasing the library.

In 1588, the present library building was erected by Sixtus

V., to receive the immense collection obtained by Leo X. In

the year 1600 the value of the library was greatly augmented

by the acquisition of the collection of Fulvius Ursinus and

the valuable manuscripts from the Benedictine Monastery of

Bobbio, composed chiefly of palimpsests. …

{2013}

The next acquisition was the Library of the Elector Palatine,

captured in 1621, at Heidelberg, by De Tilley, who presented

it to Gregory XV. It numbered 2,388 manuscripts, 1,956 in

Latin, and 432 in Greek. In 1658 the Library founded by Duke

Federigo de Urbino—1,711 Greek and Latin manuscripts—was

added to the valuable collection. One of the most valuable

accessions was the collection of Queen Christina of Sweden,

containing all the literary works which her father, Gustavus

Adolphus, had captured at Prague, Bremen, etc., amounting to

2,291 manuscripts, Greek and Latin. In 1746 the magnificent

library of the Ottobuoni family, containing 3,862 Greek and

Latin manuscripts, enriched the Vatican collection. After the

downfall of Napoleon and the restoration of the peace of

Europe in 1815, the King of Prussia, at the suggestion of

Humboldt, applied to Pope Pius VII for the restoration of some

of the manuscripts which De Tilley had plundered from the

Heidelberg Library. The Pope, mindful of the prominent part

taken by Prussia in the restoration of the Papal See,

immediately complied with the royal request, and many

manuscripts of great value to the German historians were sent

back to Germany."

E. L. Didier,

The Vatican Library

(Literary World, June 28, 1884).

The following recent statistics of other Italian libraries are

from "Minerva," 1893-94: Florence National Central Library,

422,183 printed books, 398,845 pamphlets and 17,386

manuscripts; Rome, National Central Library of Victor

Emmanuel, 241,978 books, 130,728 pamphlets, 4,676 manuscripts;

Naples University Library, 181,072 printed books, 43,453

pamphlets, and 109 manuscripts; Bologna University Library,

251,700 books, 43,633 pamphlets and 5,000 manuscripts; Pavia

University Library, 136,000 books, 80,000 pamphlets and 1,100

manuscripts; Turin National Library, 196,279 printed books and

4,119 manuscripts; Venice, National Library of St. Mark,

401,652 printed and bound books, 80,450 pamphlets, and 12,016

manuscripts; Pisa University Library, 108,188 books, 22,960

pamphlets and 274 manuscripts; Genoa University Library,

106,693 books, 46,231 pamphlets, and 1,586 manuscripts;

Modena, the Este Library, 123,300 volumes, and 5,000

manuscripts; Padua University Library, 135,837 volumes, 2,326

manuscripts, and 63,849 pamphlets, etc.; Palermo National

Library, 177,892 volumes and pamphlets, and 1,527 manuscripts;

Palermo Communal Library, 209,000 books, 16,000 pamphlets,

etc., 3,000 manuscripts; Parma Palatine Library, 250,000

books, 20,313 pamphlets, etc., 4,769 manuscripts; Siena

Communal Library 67,966 volumes, 26,968 pamphlets, 4,890

manuscripts.

LIBRARIES:

Austria-Hungary.

The principal libraries in the Empire are reported to contain

as follows: Vienna University Library, 416,608 volumes, 373

incunabula, 498 manuscripts; Vienna Imperial and Royal Court

Library, 500,000 volumes, 6,461 incunabula, and 20,000

manuscripts; Budapest University Library, 200,000 volumes,

1,000 manuscripts; Hungarian National Museum, 400,000 volumes

and 63,000 manuscripts, mostly Hungarian; Czernowitz

University Library, 64,586 volumes and over 30,000 pamphlets,

etc.; Graz University 131,397 volumes of books and 1,708

manuscripts; Innspruck University Library, 135,000 printed

books, including 1,653 incunabula, and 1,046 manuscripts;

Cracow University Library, 283,858 volumes and 5,150

manuscripts; Lemberg University Library, 120,900 volumes;

Prague University Library, 211,131 volumes, 3,848 manuscripts.

Minerva, 1893-94.

LIBRARIES:

Switzerland.

The principal libraries of Switzerland are the following:

Basle Public Library, 170,000 volumes of printed books and

about 5,000 manuscripts; Berne City Library, 80,000 volumes

and a valuable manuscript collection; Berne University

Library, 35,000 volumes; St. Gall "Stiftsbibliothek," about

40,000 volumes, including l,584 incunabula, and 1,730

manuscripts; Lucerne Cantonal Library, 80,000 volumes; Zurich

City Library, 130,000 volumes.

Minerva, 1893-94.

LIBRARIES:

Holland.

The following statistics of libraries in Holland are given in

the German handbook, "Minerva," 1893-94: Leyden University

Library, 190,000 volumes of printed books and 5,400

manuscripts, of which latter 2,400 are oriental; Utrecht

University Library, 200,000 volumes, besides pamphlets;

Groningen University Library, 70,000 volumes.

LIBRARIES:

Belgium.

Brussels Royal Library, 375,000 volumes, and 27,000

manuscripts; Ghent, Library of the City and University of

Gand, 300,000 volumes.

LIBRARIES:

Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

The principal libraries of the Scandinavian kingdoms contain

as follows: Christiania University Library, 312,000 volumes;

Gothenburg City Library, about 60,000 volumes; Copenhagen

University Library 300,000 books and 5,000 manuscripts; Lund

University Library, 150,000 volumes; Stockholm Royal Library,

300,000 printed books and 11,000 manuscripts; Upsala

University Library, 275,000 volumes and 11,000 manuscripts.

Minerva, 1893-94.

LIBRARIES:

Spain.

The principal libraries in Spain are the following: Barcelona

Provincial and University Library, 54,000 volumes; Madrid

University Library, 200,761 volumes and 3,000 manuscripts;

Madrid National Library, 450,000 volumes and 10,000

manuscripts; Salamanca University Library, 72,000 volumes and

870 manuscripts; Seville University Library, 62,000 volumes;

Valencia University Library, 45,000 volumes; Valladolid

University Library, 32,000 volumes.

Minerva, 1893-94.

LIBRARIES:

Russia.

"The most notable [Russian] libraries are those founded by the

government. Of these, two deserve special attention: the

library of the Academy of Sciences and the Imperial Public

Library in St. Petersburg. Books taken by the Russian armies

from the Baltic provinces at the beginning of the eighteenth

century formed the foundation of the first. The Imperial

Library was the result of the Russian capture of Warsaw. Count

Joseph Zalussky, bishop of Kiev, spent forty-three years

collecting a rich library of 300,000 volumes and 10,000

manuscripts, devoting all his wealth to the purchase of books.

His brother Andrew further enriched the library with volumes

taken from the museum of the Polish king, John III. In 1747

Joseph Zalussky opened the library to the public, and in 1761

bequeathed it to a college of Jesuits in Warsaw. Six years

later (1767) Zalussky was arrested and his library removed to

St. Petersburg. The transfer took place in bad weather and

over poor roads, so that many books were injured and many lost

in transit. When the library reached St. Petersburg it

numbered 262,640 volumes and 24,500 estampes. Many had been

stolen during the journey, and years later there were to be

found in Poland books bearing the signature of Zalussky.

{2014}

To the Imperial Library Alexander I. added, in 1805, the

Dubrovsky collection. … Dubrovsky gathered his collection

during a twenty-five years' residence in Paris, Rome, Madrid,

and other large cities of Europe. He acquired many during the

French revolution. … The Imperial Library possesses many

palimpsests, Greek manuscripts of the second century, …

besides Slavonian, Latin, French, and Oriental manuscripts.

… The library is constantly growing, about 25,000 volumes

being added every year. In income, size, and number of readers

it vastly surpasses all private libraries in Russia, the

largest of which does not exceed 25,000 volumes. In later

years the village schools began to open libraries for limited

circles of readers. Small libraries were successfully

maintained in cities and the demand for good reading steadily

increased among the people."

A. V. Babine,

Libraries in Russia,

(Library Journal, March, 1893).

The principal libraries of Russia reported in the German

yearbook "Minerva" 1893-94 are the following: Charkow

University Library, 123,000 volumes; Dorpat University

Library, 170,000 volumes, and 104,700 dissertationen;

Helsingfors University Library 170,000 volumes; Kasan

University Library, 100,000 volumes; Kiev University Library,

118,000 volumes; Moscow University Library, 217,000 volumes;

Odessa University Library, 102,000 volumes; St. Petersburg

University Library, 215,700 volumes; St. Petersburg Imperial

Public Library, 1,050,000 volumes, 28,000 manuscripts.

LIBRARIES:

England: The King's Library and the British Museum.

"No monarch of England is known to have been an extensive

collector of books (in the modern acceptation of the term)

except George III., or, if the name of Charles I. should be

added, it must be in a secondary rank, and with some

uncertainty, because we have not the same evidence of his

collection of books as we have of his pictures, in the

catalogue which exists of them. A royal library had, indeed,

been established in the reign of Henry VII.; it was increased,

as noticed by Walpole, by many presents from abroad, made to

our monarchs after the restoration of learning and the

invention of printing; and naturally received accessions in

every subsequent reign, if it were only from the various

presents by which authors desired to show their respect or to

solicit patronage, as well as from the custom of making new

year's gifts, which were often books. There were also added to

it the entire libraries of Lord Lumley (including those of

Henry, Earl of Arundel, and Archbishop Cranmer), of the

celebrated Casaubon, of Sir John Morris, and the Oriental MSS.

of Sir Thomas Roe. Whilst this collection remained at St.

James's Palace, the number of books amassed in each reign

could have been easily distinguished, as they were classed and

arranged under the names of the respective sovereigns. In 1759

King George II. transferred the whole, by letters patent, to

the then newly-formed establishment of the British Museum; the

arrangement under reigns was some time after departed from,

and the several royal collections interspersed with the other

books obtained from Sir Hans Sloane, Major Edwards, and

various other sources. … George III., on his accession to

the crown, thus found the apartments which had formerly

contained the library of the Kings of England vacated by their

ancient tenants. … Sir F. A. Barnard states that 'to create

an establishment so necessary and important, and to attach it

to the royal residence, was one of the earliest objects which

engaged his majesty's attention at the commencement of his

reign;' and he adds that the library of Joseph Smith, Esq.,

the British Consul at Venice, which was purchased in 1762,

'became the foundation of the present Royal Library.' Consul

Smith's collection was already well known, from a catalogue

which had been printed at Venice in 1755, to be eminently rich

in the earliest editions of the classics, and in Italian

literature.' Its purchase was effected for about £10,000, and

it was brought direct to some apartments at the Queen's Palace

commonly called Buckingham House. Here the subsequent

collections were amassed; and here, after they had outgrown

the rooms at first appropriated to them, the King erected two

large additional libraries, one of which was a handsome

octagon. Latterly the books occupied no less than seven

apartments. … Early in the year 1823, it was made known to

the public that King George IV. had presented the Royal

Library to the British nation. … Shortly after, the

Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in the House of Commons

that it was his majesty's wish that the library should be

placed in the British Museum, but in a separate apartment from

the Museum Library."

Gentleman's Magazine, 1834,

pages 16-22.

"In the chief countries of the Continent of Europe … great

national Museums have, commonly, had their origin in the

liberality and wise foresight either of some sovereign or

other, or of some powerful minister whose mind was large

enough to combine with the cares of State a care for Learning.

In Britain, our chief public collection of literature and of

science originated simply in the public spirit of private

persons. The British Museum was founded precisely at that

period of our history when the distinctively national, or

governmental, care for the interests of literature and of

science was at its lowest, or almost its lowest, point. As

regards the monarchs, it would be hard to fix on any, since

the dawn of the Revival of Learning, who evinced less concern

for the progress and diffusion of learning than did the first

and second princes of the House of Hanover. As regards

Parliament, the tardy and languid acceptance of the boon

proffered, posthumously, by Sir Hans Sloane, constitutes just

the one exceptional act of encouragement that serves to give

saliency to the utter indifference which formed the ordinary

rule. Long before Sloane's time … there had been zealous and

repeated efforts to arouse the attention of the Government as

well to the political importance as to the educational value

of public museums. Many thinkers had already perceived that

such collections were a positive increase of public wealth and

of national greatness, as well as a powerful instrument of

popular education. It had been shewn, over and over again,

that for lack of public care precious monuments and treasures

of learning had been lost; sometimes by their removal to

far-off countries; sometimes by their utter destruction. Until

the appeal made to Parliament by the Executors of Sir Hans

Sloane, in the middle of the eighteenth century, all those

efforts had uniformly failed. But Sir Hans Sloane cannot claim

to be regarded, individually or very specially, as the Founder

of the British Museum. His last Will, indeed, gave an opportunity

for the foundation.

{2015}

Strictly speaking, he was not even the Founder of his own

Collection, as it stood in his lifetime. The Founder of the

Sloane Museum was William Courten, the last of a line of

wealthy Flemish refugees, whose history, in their adopted

country, is a series of romantic adventures. Parliament had

previously accepted the gift of the Cottonian Library, at the

hands of Sir John Cotton, third in descent from its Founder,

and its acceptance of that gift had been followed by almost

unbroken neglect, although the gift was a noble one. Sir John,

when conversing, on one occasion, with Thomas Carte, told the

historian that he had been offered £60,000 of English money,

together with a carte blanche for some honorary mark of royal

favour, on the part of Lewis XIV., for the Library which he

afterwards settled upon the British nation. It has been

estimated that Sloane expended (from first to last) upon his

various collections about £50,000; so that even from the

mercantile point of view, the Cotton family may be said to

have been larger voluntary contributors towards our eventual

National Museum than was Sir Hans Sloane himself. That point

of view, however, would be a very false, because very narrow,

one. Whether estimated by mere money value, or by a truer

standard, the third, in order of time, of the

Foundation-Collections,—that of the 'Harleian

Manuscripts,'—was a much less important acquisition for the

Nation than was the Museum of Sloane, or the Library of

Cotton; but its literary value, as all students of our history

and literature know, is, nevertheless, considerable. Its first

Collector, Robert Harley, the Minister of Queen Anne and the

first of the Harleian Earls of Oxford, is fairly entitled to

rank, after Cotton, Courten, and Sloane, among the virtual or

eventual co-founders of the British Museum. Chronologically,

then, Sir Robert Cotton, William Courten, Hans Sloane, and

Robert Harley, rank first as Founders; so long as we estimate

their relative position in accordance with the successive

steps by which the British Museum was eventually organized.

But there is another synchronism by which greater accuracy is

attainable. Although four years had elapsed between the

passing—in 1753—of 'An Act for the purchase of the Museum or

Collection of Sir Hans Sloane, and of the Harleian Collection

of Manuscripts, and for providing one general repository for

the better reception and more convenient use of the said

Collections, and of the Cottonian Library and of the additions

thereto,' and the gift—in 1757—to the Trustees of those

already united Collections by King George II. of the Old Royal

Library of the Kings his predecessors, yet that royal

collection itself had been (in a restricted sense of the

words) a Public and National possession soon after the days of

the first real and central Founder of the present Museum, Sir

Robert Cotton. But, despite its title, that Royal Library,

also, was—in the main—the creation of subjects, not of

Sovereigns or Governments. Its virtual founder Was Henry,

prince of Wales [son of James I.]. It was acquired, out of his

privy purse, as a subject, not as a Prince. He, therefore, has

a title to be placed among the individual Collectors whose

united efforts resulted—after long intervals of time—in the

creation, eventually, of a public institution second to none,

of its kind, in the world."

E. Edwards,

Founders of the British Museum,

book 1, chapter 1.

"Montague House was purchased by the Trustees in 1754 for a

general repository, and the collections were removed to it.

… On the 15th of January, 1750, the British Museum was

opened for the inspection and use of the public. At first the

Museum was divided into three departments, viz., Printed

Books, Manuscripts, and Natural History; at the head of each

of them was placed an officer designated as 'Under Librarian.'

The increase of the collections soon rendered it necessary to

provide additional accommodation for them, Montague House

proving insufficient. The present by George III. of Egyptian

Antiquities, and the purchase of the Hamilton and Townley

Antiquities, made it moreover imperative to create an

additional department—that of Antiquities and Art—to which

were united the Prints and Drawings, as well as the Medals and

Coins, previously attached to the library of Printed Books and

Manuscripts. The acquisition of the Elgin Marbles in 1816 made

the Department of Antiquities of the highest importance, and

increased room being indispensable for the exhibition of those

marbles, a temporary shelter was prepared for them. This was

the last addition to Montague House. When, in 1823, the

library collected by George III. was presented to the nation

by George IV. it became necessary to erect a building fit to

receive this valuable and extensive collection. It was then

decided to have an entirely new edifice to contain the whole

of the Museum collection, including the recently-acquired

library. Sir R. Smirke was accordingly directed by the

Trustees to prepare plans. The eastern side of the present

structure was completed in 1828, and the Royal Library was

then placed in it. The northern, southern, and western sides

of the building were subsequently added, and in 1845 the whole

of Montague House and its additions had disappeared; while the

increasing collections had rendered it necessary to make

various additions to the original design of Sir R. Smirke,

some of them even before it had been carried out."

J. W. Jones,

British Museum: a Guide,

pages ii-iii.

"The necessity of a general enlargement of the library led to

the suggestion of many plans—some impracticable—some too

expensive—and all involving a delay which would have been

fatal to the efficiency of the Institution. … Fortunately

… after much vigorous discussion, a plan which had been

suggested by the … Principal Librarian [Mr. Panizzi] for

building in the vacant quadrangle, was adopted and carried out

under his own immediate and watchful superintendence. … The

quadrangle within which the new library is built is 313 feet

in length by 235 wide, comprising an area of 73,555 square

feet. Of this space the building covers 47,472 feet, being 258

feet long by 184 feet in width, thus leaving an interval of

from 27 to 30 feet all round. By this arrangement, the light

and ventilation of the surrounding buildings is not interfered

with, and the risk of fire from the outer buildings is guarded

against. The Reading Boom is circular. The dome is 140 feet in

diameter, and its height 106 feet. The diameter of the lantern

is 40 feet. Light is further obtained from twenty

circular-headed windows, 27 feet high by 12 feet wide,

inserted at equal intervals round the dome at a height of 35

feet from the ground.

{2016}

In its diameter the dome of the Reading Room exceeds all

others, with the exception of the Pantheon of Rome, which is

about 2 feet wider. That of St. Peter's at Rome, and of Santa

Maria in Florence are each only 139 feet; that of the tomb of

Mahomet at Bejapore, 135; of St. Paul's, 112; of St. Sophia,

at Constantinople, 107; and of the church of Darmstadt, 105.

The new Reading Room contains 1,250,000 cubic feet of space,

and the surrounding libraries 750,000. These libraries are 24

feet in height, with the exception of that part which runs

round the outside of the Reading Room, which is 32 feet high;

the spring of the dome being 24 feet from the floor of the

Reading Room, and the ground excavated 8 feet below this

level. The whole building is constructed principally of iron.

… The Reading Room contains ample and comfortable

accommodation for 302 readers. There are thirty-five tables:

eight are 34 feet long, and accommodate sixteen readers, eight

on each side; nine are 30 feet long, and accommodate fourteen

readers, seven on each side; two are 30 feet long, and

accommodate eight readers each, viz., seven on one side and

one on the other—these two tables are set apart for the

exclusive use of ladies; sixteen other tables are 6 feet long,

and accommodate two readers each—these are fitted up with

rising desks of a large size for those readers who may have

occasion to consult works beyond the usual dimensions. Each

person has allotted to him, at the long tables, a space of 4

feet 3 inches in length by 2 feet 1 inch in depth. He is

screened from the opposite occupant by a longitudinal

division, which is fitted with a hinged desk graduated on

sloping racks, and a folding shelf for spare books. In the

space between the two, which is recessed, an inkstand is

fixed, having suitable penholders. … The framework of each

table is of iron, forming air-distributing channels, which are

contrived so that the air may be delivered at the top of the

longitudinal screen division, above the level of the heads of

the readers, or, if desired, only at each end pedestal of the

tables, all the outlets being under the control of valves. A

tubular foot-rail also passes from end to end of each table,

which may have a current of warm water through it at pleasure,

and be used as a foot-warmer if required. The pedestals of the

tables form tubes communicating with the air-chamber below,

which is 6 feet high, and occupies the whole area of the

Reading Room: it is fitted with hot-water pipes arranged in

radiating lines. The supply of fresh air is obtained from a

shaft 60 feet high. … The shelves within the Reading Room

contain about 60,000 volumes: the new building altogether will

accommodate about 1,500,000 volumes."

List of the Books of Reference in the Reading Room of the

British Museum; preface.

The number of volumes of printed books in the British Museum

in 1893 is reported to have been 1,600,000, the number of

manuscripts 50,000 and the maps and charts 200,000.

Minerva, 1893-94.

A purchase from the Duke of Bedford, of adjoining land, to the

extent of five and a half acres, for the enlargement of the

Museum, was announced by the London Times, March 18, 1894.

With this addition, the area of ground occupied by the Museum

will be fourteen acres.

LIBRARIES:

England: The Bodleian Library.

"Its founder, Sir Thomas Bodley, was a worthy of Devon, who

had been actively employed by Queen Elizabeth as a

diplomatist, and had returned tired of court life to the

University, where long before he had been Fellow of Merton

College. He found the ancient library of the University

(which, after growing slowly with many vicissitudes from small

beginnings, had suddenly been enriched in 1439-46 by a gift of

264 valuable MSS. from Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester) utterly

destroyed by Edward VI.'s Commissioners, and the room built

for its reception (still called 'Duke Humphrey's library')

swept clear even of the readers' desks. His determination to

refound the library of the University was actively carried

out, and on November 8, 1602, the new institution was formally

opened with about 2,000 printed and manuscript volumes. Two

striking advantages were possessed by the Bodleian almost from

the first. Sir Thomas Bodley employed his great influence at

court and with friends to induce them to give help to his

scheme, and accordingly we find not only donations of money

and books from personal friends, but 240 MSS. contributed by

the Deans and Chapters of Exeter and Windsor. Moreover, in

1610, he arranged with the Stationers' Company that they

should present his foundation with a copy of every printed

book published by a member of the Company; and from that time

to this the right to every book published in the kingdom has

been continuously enjoyed."

F. Madan,

Books in Manuscript,

page 84.

In 1891 the Bodleian Library was said to contain 400,000

printed books and 30,000 manuscripts. Under the copyright act

of Great Britain, the British Museum, the Bodleian Library,

Oxford, the Cambridge University Library, the Advocates

Library, Edinburgh, and the Trinity College Library, Dublin,

are each entitled to a copy of every work published in the

United Kingdom.

LIBRARIES:

England: Rise and Growth of Free Town-Libraries.

In the "Encyclopædia Britannica" (9th edition) we read, in the

article "Libraries," that "the fine old library instituted by

Humphrey Chetham in Manchester, in 1653, and which is still

'housed in the old collegiate buildings where Raleigh was once

entertained by Dr. Dee, might be said to be the first free

library' in England. Two centuries, however, before worthy

Chetham had erected his free fountain of knowledge for thirsty

souls, a grave fraternity known as the Guild of Kalendars had

established a free library, for all comers, in connection with

a church yet standing in one of the thoroughfares of Old

Bristol. … John Leland (temp. Henry VIII.) speaks of the

Kalendars as an established body about the year 1170: and when

in 1216 Henry III. held a Parliament in Bristol, the deeds of

the guild were inspected, and ratified on account of the

antiquity and high character of the fraternity ('propter

antiquitates et bonitates in eâ Gilda repertas'), and Gualo,

the Papal Legate, commended the Kalendars to the care of

William de Blois, Bishop of Worcester, within whose diocese

Bristol then lay. It was the office of the Kalendars to record

local events and such general affairs as were thought worthy

of commemoration, whence their name. They consisted of clergy

and laity, even women being admitted to their Order. …

{2017}

It was ordered by Wolstan, Bishop of Worcester, who in

visitation of this part of his diocese, July 10, 1340,

examined the ancient rules of the College, that a prior in

priest's orders should be chosen by the majority of the

chaplains and lay brethren, without the solemnity of

confirmation, consecration or benediction of superiors, and

eight chaplains who were not bound by monastic rules, were to

be joined with him to celebrate for departed brethren and

benefactors every day. By an ordinance of John Carpenter,

Bishop of Worcester, A. D. 1464, the Prior was to reside in

the college, and take charge of a certain library newly

erected at the Bishop's expense, so that every festival day

from seven to eleven in the forenoon admission should be

freely allowed to all desirous of consulting the Prior, to

read a public lecture every week in the library, and elucidate

obscure places of Scripture as well as he could to those

desirous of his teachings. … Lest, through negligence or

accident, the books should be lost, it was ordered that three

catalogues of them should be kept; one to remain with the Dean

of Augustinian Canons, whose 14th-century church is now

Bristol Cathedral, another with the Mayor for the time being,

and the third with the Prior himself. Unfortunately, they are

all three lost. … This interesting library was destroyed by

fire in 1466 through the carelessness of a drunken

'point-maker,' two adjoining houses against the steeple of the

church being at the same time burnt down."

J. Taylor,

The First English Free Library and its Founders

(Murray's Magazine, November, 1891).

"Free town-libraries are essentially a modern institution, and

yet can boast of a greater antiquity than is generally

supposed, for we find a town-library at Auvergne in 1540, and

one at a still earlier date at Aix. Either the munificence of

individuals or the action of corporate authorities has given

very many of the continental towns freely accessible

libraries, some of them of considerable extent. In England the

history of town-libraries is much briefer. There is reason to

believe that London at an early date was possessed of a common

library; and Bristol, Norwich, and Leicester, had each

town-libraries, but the corporations proved but careless

guardians of their trust, and in each case allowed it to be

diverted from the free use of the citizens for the benefit of

a subscription library. At Bristol, in 1613, Mr. Robert

Redwood 'gave his lodge to be converted into a library or

place to put books in for the furtherance of learning.' Some

few years after, Tobie Matthew, Archbishop of York, left some

valuable books in various departments of literature for free

access 'to the merchants and shopkeepers.' … The paucity of

our public libraries, twenty years ago, excited the attention

of Mr. Edward Edwards, to whose labours in this field the

country owes so much. Having collected a large amount of

statistics as to the comparative number of these institutions

in different States, he communicated the result of his

researches to the Statistical Society, in a paper which was

read on the 20th of March, 1848, and was printed in this

'Journal' in the August following. The paper revealed some

unpleasant facts, and showed that, in respect of the provision

of public libraries, Great Britain occupied a very unworthy

position. In the United Kingdom (including Malta) Mr. Edwards

could only discover 29 libraries having more than 10,000

volumes, whilst France could boast 107, Austria 41,

Switzerland 13. The number of volumes to every hundred of the

population of cities containing libraries, was in Great

Britain 43, France 125, Brunswick 2,353. Of the 29 British

libraries enumerated by Mr. Edwards, some had only doubtful

claims to be considered as public, and only one of them was

absolutely free to all comers, without influence or formality.

That one was the public library at Manchester, founded by

Humphrey Chetham in 1665. The paper read before this Society

twenty-two years ago was destined to be productive of great

and speedy results. From the reading of it sprang the present

system of free town-libraries. The seed was then sown, and it

is now fructifying in the libraries which are springing up on

every hand. The paper attracted the attention of the late

William Ewart, Esq., M. P., and ultimately led to the

appointment of a parliamentary committee on the subject of

public libraries. The report of this committee paved the way

for the Public Libraries Act of 1850."

W. E. A. Axon,

Statistical Notes on the Free Town-Libraries of Great

Britain and the Continent

(Journal of the Statistical Society,

September 1870, volume 33).

The progress of free public libraries in England under the Act

of 1850 was not, for a long time, very rapid. "In the 36 years

from 1850 onward—that is, down to 1886—133 places had

availed themselves of the benefits of the act. That was not a

very large number, not amounting quite, upon the average, to

four in each of those 36 years. … Now, see the change which

has taken place. We have only four years, from 1887 to 1890,

and in those four years no less than 70 places have taken

advantage of the act, so that instead of an average of less

than four places in the year, we have an average of more than

17 places."

W. E. Gladstone,

Address at the Opening of the Free Public Library of St.

Martin's-in-the-Fields.

"The Clerkenwell Library Commissioners draw attention to the

enormous strides London has made within the last five years in

the matter of public libraries. In 1886 four parishes had

adopted the Acts; by December, 1891, 29 parishes had adopted

them, and there are already 30 libraries and branches opened

throughout the County of London, possessing over 250,000

volumes, and issuing over 3,000,000 volumes per annum."

The Library Journal,

February, 1892.

Under a new law, which came into force in 1893, "any local

authority (i. e., town council or district board), save in the

County of London, may establish and maintain public libraries

without reference to the wishes of the rate payers."

The Library Journal,

October, 1893 (volume 18, page 442).

LIBRARIES:

United States of America:

Franklin and the first Subscription Library.

When Franklin's club, at Philadelphia, the Junto, was first

formed, "its meetings were held (as the custom of clubs was in

that clubbing age) in a tavern; and in a tavern of such humble

pretensions as to be called by Franklin an ale-house. But the

leathern-aproned philosophers soon removed to a room of their

own, lent them by one of their members, Robert Grace. It often

happened that a member would bring a book or two to the Junto,

for the purpose of illustrating the subject of debate, and

this led Franklin to propose that all the members should keep

their books in the Junto room, as well for reference while

debating as for the use of members during the week. The

suggestion being approved, one end of their little apartment

was soon filled with books; and there they remained for the

common benefit a year.

{2018}

But some books having been injured, their owners became

dissatisfied, and the books were all taken home. Books were

then scarce, high-priced, and of great bulk. Folios were still

common, and a book of less magnitude than quarto was deemed

insignificant. … Few books of much importance were published

at less than two guineas. Such prices as four guineas, five

guineas, and six guineas were not uncommon. Deprived of the

advantage of the Junto collection, Franklin conceived the idea

of a subscription library. Early in 1731 he drew up a plan,

the substance of which was, that each subscriber should

contribute two pounds sterling for the first purchase of

books, and ten shillings a year for the increase of the

library. As few of the inhabitants of Philadelphia had money

to spare, and still fewer cared for reading, he found very

great difficulty in procuring a sufficient number of

subscribers. He says: 'I put myself as much as I could out of

sight, and stated it as a scheme of a number of friends, who

had requested me to go about and propose it to such as they

thought lovers of reading. In this way my affairs went on more

smoothly, and I ever after practiced it on such occasions, and

from my frequent successes can heartily recommend it.' Yet it

was not until November, 1731, at least five months after the

project was started, that fifty names were obtained; and not

till March, 1732, that the money was collected. After

consulting James Logan, 'the best judge of books in these

parts,' the first list of books was made out, a draft upon

London of forty-five pounds was purchased, and both were

placed in the hands of one of the directors who was going to

England. Peter Collinson undertook the purchase, and added to

it presents of Newton's 'Principia,' and 'Gardener's

Dictionary.' All the business of the library Mr. Collinson

continued to transact for thirty years, and always swelled the

annual parcel of books by gifts of valuable works. In those

days getting a parcel from London was a tedious affair indeed.

All the summer of 1732 the subscribers were waiting for the

coming of the books, as for an event of the greatest interest.

… In October the books arrived, and were placed, at first,

in the room of the Junto. A librarian was appointed, and the

library was opened once a week for giving out the books. The

second year Franklin himself served as librarian. For many

years the secretary to the directors was Joseph Breintnal, by

whose zeal and diligence the interests of the library were

greatly promoted. Franklin printed a catalogue soon after the

arrival of the books, for which, and for other printing, he

was exempted from paying his annual ten shillings for two

years. The success of this library, thus begun by a few

mechanics and clerks, was great in every sense of the word.

Valuable donations of books, money and curiosities were

frequently made to it. The number of subscribers slowly, but

steadily, increased. Libraries of similar character sprung up

all over the country, and many were started even in

Philadelphia. Kalm, who was in Philadelphia in 1748, says that

then the parent library had given rise to 'many little

libraries,' on the same plan as itself. He also says that

non-subscribers were then allowed to take books out of the

library, by leaving a pledge for the value of the book, and

paying for a folio eight pence a week, for a quarto six pence,

and for all others four pence. 'The subscribers,' he says,

'were so kind to me as to order the librarian, during my stay

here, to lend me every book I should want, without requiring

any payment of me.' In 1764, the shares had risen in value to

nearly twenty pounds, and the collection was considered to be

worth seventeen hundred pounds. In 1785, the number of volumes

was 5,487; in 1807, 14,457; in 1861, 70,000. The institution

is one of the few in America that has held on its way,

unchanged in any essential principle, for a century and a

quarter, always on the increase, always faithfully

administered, always doing well its appointed work. There is

every reason to believe that it will do so for centuries to

come. The prosperity of the Philadelphia Library was owing to

the original excellence of the plan, the good sense embodied

in the rules, the care with which its affairs were conducted,

and the vigilance of Franklin and his friends in turning to

account passing events. Thomas Penn, for example, visited

Philadelphia a year or two after the library was founded; when

the directors of the library waited upon him with a dutiful

address, and received, in return, a gift of books and

apparatus. It were difficult to over-estimate the value to the

colonies of the libraries that grew out of Franklin's

original' conception. They were among the chief means of

educating the colonies up to Independence. 'Reading became

fashionable,' says Franklin; 'and our people having no public

amusements to divert their attention from study, became better

acquainted with books, and in a few years were observed, by

strangers, to be better instructed and more intelligent than

people of the same rank generally are in other countries.' …

What the Philadelphia Library did for Franklin himself, the

libraries, doubtless, did for many others. It made him a daily

student for twenty years. He set apart an hour or two every

day for study, and thus acquired the substance of all the most

valuable knowledge then possessed by mankind. Whether Franklin

was the originator of subscription libraries, and of the idea

of permitting books to be taken to the homes of subscribers, I

cannot positively assert. But I can discover no trace of

either of those two fruitful conceptions before his time."

J. Parton,

Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin,

pages 200-203.

"The books were at first kept in the house of Robert Grace,

whom Franklin characterizes as 'a young gentleman of some

fortune, generous, lively, and witty, a lover of punning and

of his friends.' Afterward they were allotted a room in the

State-House; and, in 1742, a charter was obtained from the

Proprietaries. In 1790, having in the interval absorbed

several other associations and sustained a removal to

Carpenter's Hall, where its apartment had been used as a

hospital for wounded American soldiers, the Library was at

last housed in a building especially erected for it at Fifth

and Chestnut streets, where it remained until within the last

few years. It brought only about eight thousand volumes into

its new quarters, for it had languished somewhat during the

Revolution and the war of words which attended our political

birth. But it had received no injury. … Two years after

removal to its quarters on Fifth street, the Library received

the most valuable gift of books it has as yet had. James

Logan, friend and adviser of Penn, … had gathered a most

important collection of books.

{2019}

Mr. Logan was translator of Cicero's 'Cato Major,' the first

classic published in America, besides being versed in natural

science. His library comprised, as he tells us, 'over one

hundred volumes of authors, all in Greek, with mostly their

versions; all the Roman classics without exception; all the

Greek mathematicians. … Besides there are many of the most

valuable Latin authors, and a great number of modern

mathematicians.' These, at first bequeathed as a public

library to the city, became a branch of the Philadelphia

Library under certain conditions, one of which was that,

barring contingencies, one of the donor's descendants should

always hold the office of trustee. And to-day his direct

descendant fills the position, and is perhaps the only example

in this country of an hereditary office-holder. … In 1869

died Dr. James Rush, son of Benjamin Rush, and himself well

known as the author of a work on the human voice, and as

husband of a lady who almost succeeded in naturalizing the

salon in this country. By his will about one million dollars

were devoted to the erection and maintenance of an isolated

and fire-proof library-building, which was to be named the

Ridgway Library, in memory of his wife. This building was

offered to the Philadelphia Company, and the bequest was

accepted. That institution had by this time accumulated about

one hundred thousand volumes. … A building of the Doric

order was erected, which with its grounds covers an entire

square or block, and is calculated to contain four hundred

thousand volumes, or three times as many as the Library at

present has, and to this building the more valuable books of

the Library were removed in 1878; the fiction and more modern

works being placed in another designed in imitation of the old

edifice, and nearer the center of the city."

B. Samuel,

The Father of American Libraries

(Century Magazine, May, 1883).

In 1893, the library of the Philadelphia Library Company

contained 171,069 volumes.

LIBRARIES:

The First Library in New York.

The New York Society Library is the oldest institution of the

kind in the city of New York. "In 1729, the Reverend Dr.

Millington, Rector of Newington, England, by his will,

bequeathed his library to the Society for the Propagation of

the Gospel in Foreign Parts. By this society the library of

Dr. Millington was presented to the corporation of the city,

for the use of the clergy and gentlemen of New-York and the

neighbouring provinces. … 'In 1754 [as related in Smith's

History of New York] a set of gentlemen undertook to carry

about a subscription towards raising a public library, and in

a few days collected near 600 pounds, which were laid out in

purchasing about 700 volumes of new, well-chosen books. Every

subscriber, upon payment of five pounds principal, and the

annual sum of ten shillings, is entitled to the use of these

books,—his right, by the articles, is assignable, and for

non-compliance with them may be forfeited. The care of this

library is committed to twelve trustees, annually elected by

the subscribers, on the last Tuesday of April, who are

restricted from making any rules repugnant to the fundamental

subscription. This is the beginning of a library which, in

process of time, will probably become vastly rich and

voluminous, and it would be very proper for the company to

have a Charter for its security and encouragement.' The

library of the corporation above alluded to, appearing to have

been mismanaged, and at length entirely disused, the trustees

of the New-York Society Library offered to take charge of it,

and to deposit their own collection with it, in the City-Hall.

This proposal having been acceded to by the corporation, the

Institution thenceforward received the appellation of 'The

City Library,' a name by which it was commonly known for a

long time. A good foundation having been thus obtained, the

library prospered and increased. … In 1772, a charter was

granted to it by the colonial government. The war of the

revolution, however, which soon after occurred, interfered

with these pleasing prospects; the city fell into the

possession of the enemy; the effect on all our public

institutions was more or less disastrous, and to the library

nearly fatal. An interval of no less than fourteen years, (of

which it possesses no record whatever,) here occurs in the

history of the society. At length it appears from the minutes,

that 'the accidents of the late war having nearly destroyed

the former library, no meeting of the proprietors for the

choice of trustees was held from the last Tuesday in April,

1774, until Saturday, the 21st December, 1788, when a meeting

was summoned.' In 1789, the original charter, with all its

privileges, was revived by the legislature of this state; the

surviving members resumed the payment of their annual dues, an

accession of new subscribers was obtained, and the society,

undeterred by the loss of its books, commenced almost a new

collection."

Catalogue of the New York Society Library:

Historical Notice.

LIBRARIES:

Redwood Library.

While Bishop Berkeley was residing, in 1729, on his farm near

Newport, Rhode Island, "he took an active share in forming a

philosophical society in Newport. … Among the members were

Colonel Updike, Judge Scott (a granduncle of Sir Walter

Scott), Nathaniel Kay, Henry Collins, Nathan Townsend, the

Reverend James Honeyman, and the Reverend Jeremiah Condy. …

The Society seems to have been very successful. One of its

objects was to collect books. It originated, in 1747, the

Redwood Library."

A. C. Fraser,

Life and Letters of George Berkeley

(volume 4 of Works), page 169.

The library thus founded took its name from Abraham Redwood,

who gave £500 to it in 1747. Other subscriptions were obtained

in Newport to the amount of £5,000, colonial currency, and a

building for the library erected in 1750.

United States of America: Free Public Libraries.

"Mr. Ewart, in his Report of the Select Committee on Public

Libraries, 1849, says: 'Our younger brethren, the people of

the United States, have already anticipated us in the

formation of libraries entirely open to the public.' No free

public library, however, was then in operation, in the United

States, yet one had been authorized by legislative action. The

movements in the same direction in England and the United

States seem to have gone on independently of each other; and

in the public debates and private correspondence relating to

the subject there seems to have been no borrowing of ideas, or

scarcely an allusion, other than the one quoted, to what was

being done elsewhere. In October, 1847, Josiah Quincy, Jr.,

Mayor of Boston, suggested to the City Council that a petition

be sent to the State legislature asking for authority to lay a

tax by which the city of Boston could establish a library free

to all its citizens. The Massachusetts legislature, in March,

1848, passed such an act, and in 1851 made the act apply to

all the cities and towns in the State.

{2020}

In 1849 donations of books were made to the Boston Public

Library. Late in the same year Mr. Edward Everett made to it

the donation of his very complete collection of United States

documents, and Mayor Bigelow a gift of $1,000. In May, 1852,

the first Board of Trustees, with Mr. Everett as president,

was organized, and Mr. Joshua Bates, of London, made his first

donation of $50,000 for the use of the library. It was

fortunate that the public-library system started where it did

and under the supervision of the eminent men who constituted

the first board of trustees of the Boston Public Library. Mr.

George Ticknor was the person who mapped out the sagacious

policy of that library—a policy which has never been

improved, and which has been adopted by all the public

libraries in this country, and, in its main features, by the

free libraries of England. For fifteen years or more Mr.

Ticknor gave the subject his personal attention. He went to

the library every day, as regularly as any of the employes,

and devoted several hours to the minutest details of its

administration. Before he had any official relations with it,

he gave profound consideration to, and settled in his own

mind, the leading principles on which the library should be

conducted. … Started as the public-library system was on

such principles, and under the guidance of these eminent men,

libraries sprang up rapidly in Massachusetts, and similar

legislation was adopted in other States. The first legislation

in Massachusetts was timid. The initiative law of 1848 allowed

the city of Boston to spend only $5,000 a year on its Public

Library, which has since expended $125,000 a year. The State

soon abolished all limitation to the amount which might be

raised for library purposes. New Hampshire, in 1849,

anticipated Massachusetts, by two years, in the adoption of a

general library law. Maine followed in 1854; Vermont in 1865;

Ohio in 1867; Colorado, Illinois, and Wisconsin in 1872;

Indiana and Iowa in 1873; Texas in 1874; Connecticut and Rhode

Island in 1875; Michigan and Nebraska in 1877; California in

1878; Missouri and New Jersey in 1885; Kansas in 1886. … The

public library law of Illinois, adopted in 1872, and since

enacted by other Western States, is more elaborate and

complete than the library laws of any of the New England

States. … The law of Wisconsin is similar to that of

Illinois. … New Jersey has a public-library law patterned

after that of Illinois."

W. F. Poole,

President's Address at the annual meeting of

the American Library Association, 1887.

The State of New York adopted a library law in 1892, under

which the creation of free libraries has been promisingly

begun. A law having like effect was adopted in New Hampshire

in 1891.

LIBRARIES:

United States of America:

Library Statistics of 1891.

"As to the early statistics of libraries in this country but

little can be found. Prof. Jewett, in his 'Notices of Public

Libraries,' published by the Smithsonian Institution in 1850,

gave a summary of public libraries, amounting to 694 and

containing at that time 2,201,632 volumes. In the census of

1850 an attempt was made to give the number of libraries and

the number of volumes they contained, exclusive of school and

Sunday school libraries. This number was 1,560; the number of

volumes, 2,447,086. In 1856 Mr. Edward Edwards in his summary

of libraries gave a much smaller number of libraries, being

only 341, but the number of volumes was nearly the same, being

2,371,887, and was also based upon the census of 1850. Mr.

William J. Rhees, in his 'Manual of Public Libraries,' which

was printed in 1859, gave a list of 2,902 libraries, but of

all this number only 1,312 had any report whatever of the

number of volumes they contained. From these meager statistics

it is seen that the reports do not vary very much, giving

about the same number of libraries and number of volumes in

them, taking account of the changes that would occur from the

different classifications as to what was excepted or omitted

as a library. The annual reports of the Bureau from 1870 to

1874 contained limited statistics of only a few hundred

libraries, and little more is shown than the fact that there

were about 2,000 public libraries of all kinds in the United

States. About five years of labor was expended in collecting

material for the special report of the Bureau upon public

libraries, which was printed in 1876, and this gave a list of

3,649 libraries of over 300 volumes, and the total number of

volumes was 12,276,964, this being about the first fairly

complete collection of library statistics. In the report of

the Bureau for 1884-85, after considerable correspondence and

using the former work as a basis, another list of public

libraries was published, amounting to 5,388 libraries of over

300 volumes, an increase of 1,869 libraries in ten years, or

almost 54 per cent. The number of volumes contained in these

libraries at that time was 20,622,076, or an increase of about

66 per cent, and showing that the percentage of increase in

the number of volumes was even greater than that of the number

of libraries. An estimate of the proportion of smaller

libraries under 500 volumes in that list indicates that these

smaller libraries included only about 20 per cent of the

books, so that this list could be said to fairly show the

extent of the libraries at that time. In the report for

1886-87, detailed statistics of the various classes of

libraries were given, except those of colleges and schools,

which were included in the statistics of those institutions.

From the uncertainty of the data and the imperfect records

given of the very small libraries, it was deemed best to

restrict the statistics to collections of books that might be

fairly called representative, and as those having less than

1,000 volumes made but a proportionally small percentage of

the whole number of books the basis of 1,000 volumes or over

was taken. This list includes the statistics only of libraries

of this size and amounted to 1,777 libraries, containing

14,012,370 volumes, and were arranged in separate lists by

classes as far as it could be done. … The number of

libraries and of volumes in each of the seven special classes

in the report made in 1887 was as follows: Free public lending

libraries, 434; volumes, 3,721,191; free public reference

libraries, 153; volumes, 3,075,099; free public school

libraries, 93; volumes, 177,560; free corporate lending

libraries, 241; volumes 1,727,870; libraries of clubs,

associations, etc., 341; volumes, 2,460,334; subscription

corporate libraries, 452; volumes, 2,644,929; and circulating

libraries proper, 751; volumes, 215,487. The statistics [now]

given … are for the year 1891, and include only libraries of

1,000 volumes and over, thus differing from the complete report

of 1885. …

{2021}

There were, in 1891, 3,804 libraries. Of these, 3 contain over

500,000 volumes; 1 between 300,000 and 500,000; 26 between

100,000 and 300,000; 68 between 50,000 and 100,000; 128

between 25,000 and 50,000; 383 between 10,000 and 25,000; 565

between 5,000 and 10,000; and 2,360 between 1,000 and 5,000.

… The North Atlantic Division contains 1,913 libraries, or

50.3 per cent of the whole number; the South Atlantic, 339, or

8.88 per cent; the South Central, 256, or 6.73 per cent; the

North Central, 1,098, or 28.87 per cent, and the Western, 198,

or 5.22 per cent. Of the distribution of volumes in the

libraries, the North Atlantic Division has 16,605,286 or 53.34

per cent; the South Atlantic, 4,276,894, or 13.71 per cent;

the South Central 1,345,708, or 4.03 per cent; the North

Central, 7,320,045, or 23.32 per cent; and the Western,

1,593,974, or 5.34 per cent. … From [1885 to 1891] the

increase in the United States in the number of libraries was

from 2,987 to 3,804, an increase of 817, or 27.35 per cent; in

the North Atlantic, from 1,543 to 1,913, an increase of 370,

or 24 per cent; in the South Atlantic, from 289 to 338, an

increase of 49, or 17 per cent; in the South Central, from 201

to 256, an increase of 55, or 27.5 per cent; in the North

Central, from 813 to 1,099, an increase of 286, or 35.18 per

cent; and in the Western, from 141 to 198, an increase of 57,

or 40.43 per cent. These figures show that, comparatively, the

largest increase in the number of libraries was in the Western

Division, and of the number of volumes the greatest increase

was in the North Central Division. The percentage of increase

in the whole country was 66.3 for six years, or an average of

over 11 per cent each year, which at this rate would double

the number of volumes and libraries every nine years. … In

the United States in 1885 there was one library to each 18,822

of the population, while in 1891 there was one to every

16,462, or a decrease of population to a library of 2,360, or

12.5 percent; in the North Atlantic Division the decrease was

from 10,246 to 9,096, 1,150, or 11.2 per cent; in the South

Atlantic, from 28,740 to 26,206, 2,534, or 8.08 per cent; in

the South Central, from 48,974 to 42,863, 6,111, or 12.5 per

cent; in the North Central, from 24,807 to 20,348, 4,459, or

18 per cent; and in the Western, from 15,557 to 15,290, 277 or

1.8 per cent. The distribution of libraries in the North

Atlantic Division shows the smallest average population to a

library and the least change in the number, except the Western

Division, where the increase of population from immigration

has been greater than the increase in the number of libraries.

But, generally, the establishment and growth in the size of

libraries have been very large in nearly every section. …

This shows that in 1885 there were in the United States in the

libraries of the size mentioned 34 books to every 100 of the

population, while in 1891 this number was 50, or an increase

of 16 books, or 47 per cent. In the North Atlantic Division

the increase was from 66 to 95, an increase of 29 books, or 34

per cent; in the South Atlantic, from 34 to 48, an increase of

14, or 41 per cent; in the South Central, from 9 to 12, an

increase of 3, or 33.33 per cent; in the North Central, from

20 to 33, an increase of 13, or 65 per cent; and in the

Western, from 43 to 53, an increase of 10, or 23 per cent.

These figures show that, comparatively, the largest increase

of books to population has been in the great Northwest, over

11 per cent each year. In the whole country there has been an

average increase of 7.8 per cent per annum; that is, the

increase of the number of books in the libraries of the

country has been 7.8 per cent greater than the increase of the

population during the past six years."

W. Flint,

Statistics of Public Libraries

(United States Bureau of Education,

Circ. of Information Number 7, 1893).

LIBRARIES:

United States of America:

Massachusetts Free Libraries.

"In 1839 the Hon. Horace Mann, then Secretary of the Board of

Education, stated as the result of a careful effort to obtain

authentic information relative to the libraries in the State,

that there were from ten to fifteen town libraries, containing

in the aggregate from three to four thousand volumes, to which

all the citizens of the town had the right of access; that the

aggregate number of volumes in the public libraries, of all

kinds, in the State was about 300,000; and that but little

more than 100,000 persons, or one-seventh of the population of

the State, had any right of access to them. A little over a

half century has passed. There are now 175 towns and cities

having free public libraries under municipal control, and 248

of the 351 towns and cities contain libraries in which the

people have rights or free privileges. There are about

2,500,000 volumes in these libraries, available for the use of

2,104,224 of the 2,238,943 inhabitants which the State

contains according to the census of 1890. The gifts of

individuals in money, not including gifts of books, for

libraries and library buildings, exceed five and a half

million dollars. There are still 103 towns in the State, with

an aggregate population of 134,719, which do not have the

benefit of the free use of a public library. These are almost

without exception small towns, with a slender valuation, and

67 of them show a decline in population in the past five

years. The State has taken the initiative in aiding the

formation of free public libraries in such towns."

First Report of the Free Public Library

Commission of Massachusetts, 1891, pref.

The second report of the Commissioners, 1892, showed an

addition of 36 to the towns which have established free public

libraries.

LIBRARIES:

United States of America:

The American Library Association.

A distinctly new era in the history of American libraries—and

in the history, it may be said, of libraries throughout the

English-speaking world,—was opened, in 1876, by the meeting

of a conference of librarians at Philadelphia, during the

Centennial Exhibition of the summer of that year. The first

fruit of the conference was the organization of a permanent

American Library Association, which has held annual meetings

since, bringing large numbers of the librarians of the country

together every year, making common property of their

experience, their knowledge, their ideas,—animating them with

a common spirit, and enlisting them in important undertakings

of cooperative work. Almost simultaneously with the

Philadelphia meeting, but earlier, there was issued the first

number of a "Library Journal," called into being by the

sagacious energy of the same small band of pioneers who

planned and brought about the conference. The Library Journal

became the organ of the American Library Association, and each

was stimulated and sustained by the other: Their combined

influence has acted powerfully upon those engaged in the work

of American libraries, to elevate their aims, to increase

their efficiency, and to make their avocation a recognized

profession, exacting well-defined qualifications.

{2022}

The general result among the libraries of the country has been

an increase of public usefulness beyond measure. To this

renaissance in the library world many persons contributed; but

its leading spirits were Melvil Dewey, latterly Director of

the New York State Library; Justin Winsor, Librarian of

Harvard University, formerly of the Boston Public Library; the

late William F. Poole, LL.D., Librarian of the Newberry

Library and formerly of the Chicago Public Library; Charles A.

Cutter, lately Librarian of the Boston Athenæum; the late

Frederick Leypoldt, first publisher of the "Library Journal,"

and his successor, R. R. Bowker. The new library spirit was

happily defined by James Russell Lowell, in his address

delivered at the opening of a free public library in Chelsea,

Massachusetts, and published in the volume of his works

entitled "Democracy and other Addresses"; "Formerly," he said,

"the duty of a librarian was considered too much that of a

watch-dog, to keep people as much as possible away from the

books, and to hand these over to his successor as little worn

by use as he could. Librarians now, it is pleasant to see,

have a different notion of their trust, and are in the habit

of preparing, for the direction of the inexperienced, lists of

such books as they think best worth reading. Cataloguing has

also, thanks in great measure to American librarians, become a

science, and catalogues, ceasing to be labyrinths without a

clew, are furnished with finger-posts at every turn. Subject

catalogues again save the beginner a vast deal of time and

trouble by supplying him for nothing with one at least of the

results of thorough scholarship, the knowing where to look for

what he wants. I do not mean by this that there is or can be

any short cut to learning, but that there may be, and is, such

a short cut to information that will make learning more easily

accessible."

The organization of the American Library Association led to

the formation, in 1877, of the Library Association of the

United Kingdom, which was incident to the meeting of an

international conference of Librarians held in London.

LIBRARIES:

United States of America:

Principal Libraries.

The following are the libraries in the United States which

exceeded 100,000 volumes in 1891, as reported in the

"Statistics of Public Libraries" published by the Bureau of

Education. The name of each library is preceded by the date of

its foundation:

1638. Harvard University Library,

292,000 volumes; 278,097 pamphlets.

1701. Yale College Library, New Haven,

185,000 volumes; 100,000 pamphlets.

1731. Philadelphia Library Company,

165,487 volumes; 30,000 pamphlets.

1749. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,

100,000 volumes; 100,000 pamphlets.

1754. Columbia College Library, New York,

135,000 volumes.

1789. Library of the House of Representatives, Washington,

125,000 volumes.

1800. Library of Congress, Washington,

659,843 volumes; 210,000 pamphlets.

1807. Boston Athenæum,

173,831 volumes; 70,000 pamphlets.

1818. New York State Library, Albany,

157,114 volumes.

1820. New York Mercantile Library, New York,

239,793 volumes.

1821. Philadelphia Mercantile Library,

166,000 volumes; 10,000 pamphlets.

1826. Maryland State Library, Annapolis,

100,000 volumes.

1849. Astor Library, New York,

238,946 volumes; 12,000 pamphlets.

1852. Boston Public Library,

556,283 volumes.

1857. Brooklyn Library,

113,251 volumes; 21,500 pamphlets.

1857. Peabody Institute, Baltimore,

110,000 volumes; 13,500 pamphlets.

1865. Library of the Surgeon-General's Office, Washington,

104,300 volumes; 161,700 pamphlets.

1865. Detroit Public Library,

108,720 volumes.

1867. Cincinnati Public Library,

156,673 volumes; 18,326 pamphlets.

1868. Cornell University Library, Ithaca, New York,

111,007 volumes; 25,000 pamphlets.

1872. Chicago Public Library,

175,874 volumes; 25,293 pamphlets.

1882. Enoch Pratt Free Library, Baltimore,

106,663 volumes; 1,500 pamphlets.

1890. University of Chicago Library,

280,000 volumes.

1891. Sutro Library, San Francisco,

200,000 volumes.

LIBRARIES:

United States of America:

Library Gifts.

A remarkable number of the free public libraries of the United

States are the creations of private wealth, munificently

employed for the common good. The greater institutions which

have this origin are the Astor Library in New York, founded by

John Jacob Astor and enriched by his descendants; the Lenox

Library in New York, founded by James Lenox; the Peabody

Institute, in Baltimore, founded by George Peabody; the Enoch

Pratt Free Library, in Baltimore, founded by the gentleman

whose name it bears; the Newberry Library, in Chicago, founded

by the will of Walter L. Newberry, who died in 1868; the Sutro

Library in San Francisco, founded by Adolph Sutro, and the

Carnegie Libraries founded at Pittsburg, Alleghany City and

Braddock by Andrew Carnegie. By the will of John Crerar, who

died in 1889, trustees for Chicago are in possession of an

estate estimated at $2,500,000 or $3,000,000, for the

endowment of a library which will soon exist. The intention of

the late Samuel J. Tilden, former Governor of the State of New

York, to apply the greater part of his immense estate to the

endowment of a free library in the City of New York, has been

partially defeated by contesting heirs; but the just feeling

of one among the heirs has restored $2,000,000 to the purpose

for which $5,000,000 was appropriated in Mr. Tilden's intent.

Steps preparatory to the creation of the library are in

progress. The lesser libraries, and institutions including

libraries of considerable importance, which owe their origin

to the public spirit and generosity of individual men of

wealth, are quite too numerous in the country to be catalogued

in this place. In addition to such, the bequests and gifts

which have enriched the endowment of libraries otherwise

founded are beyond computation.

{2023}

LIBRARIES:

United States of America:

Government Departmental Libraries at Washington.

A remarkable creation of special libraries connected with the

departments and bureaus of the national Government, has

occurred within a few years past. The more important among

them are the following:

Department of Agriculture,

20,000 volumes and 15,000 pamphlets;

Department of Justice, 21,500 volumes;

Department of State, 50,000 volumes;

Department of the Interior, 11,500;

Navy Department, 24,518;

Post Office Department, 10,000;

Patent Office Scientific Library,

50,000 volumes and 10,000 pamphlets;

Signal Office, 10,540 volumes;

Surgeon General's Office,

104,300 volumes and 161,700 pamphlets (reputed to be the best

collection of medical literature, as it is certainly the best

catalogued medical library, in the world);

Treasury Department, 21,000 volumes;

Bureau of Education,

45,000 volumes and 120,000 pamphlets;

Coast and Geodetic Survey,

12,000 volumes and 4,000 pamphlets;

Geological Survey,

30,414 volumes, and 42,917 pamphlets;

Naval Observatory,

13,000 volumes and 3,000 pamphlets;

United States Senate, 72,592 volumes;

United States House of Representatives,

125,000 (both of these being distinct from the great Library

of Congress, which contained, in 1891, 659,843 volumes);

War Department, 30,000 volumes.

LIBRARIES:

Canada.

"In 1779 a number of the officers stationed at Quebec, and of

the leading merchants, undertook the formation of a

subscription library. The Governor, General Haldimand, took an

active part in the work, and ordered on behalf of the

subscribers £500 worth of books from London. The selection was

entrusted to Richard Cumberland, the dramatist: and an

interesting letter from the Governor addressed to him,

describing the literary wants of the town and the class of

books to be sent, is now in the Public Archives. A room for

their reception was granted in the Bishop's Palace; and as

late as 1806, we learn from Lambert's Travels that it was the

only library [?] in Canada. Removed several times, it slowly

increased, until in 1882 it numbered 4,000 volumes. The list

of subscribers having become very much reduced, it was leased

to the Quebec Literary Association in 1843. In 1854 a portion

of it was burnt with the Parliament Buildings, where it was

then quartered; and finally in 1866 the entire library,

consisting of 6,990 volumes, were sold, subject to conditions,

to the Literary and Historical Society for a nominal sum of

$500. … Naturally on the organization of each of the

provinces, libraries were established in connection with the

Parliaments. We have therefore the following:

Nova Scotia, Halifax, 25,319;

New Brunswick, Fredericton, 10,850;

Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, 4,000;

Quebec, Quebec, 17,400;

Ontario, Toronto, 40,000;

Manitoba, Winnipeg, 10,000;

Northwest Territory, Regina, 1,480;

British Columbia, Victoria, 1,200;

Dominion of Canada, Ottawa, 120,000.

Total volumes in Parliamentary libraries, 230,249.

By far the most important of our Canadian libraries is the

Dominion Library of Parliament at Ottawa. Almost corresponding

with the Congressional Library at Washington in its sources of

income and work, it has grown rapidly during the past ten

years, and now numbers 120,000 volumes. Originally established

on the union of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada in

1841, it was successively removed with the seat of government

from Kingston to Montreal, to Quebec, to Toronto, again to

Quebec, and finally to Ottawa. … The 38 colleges in Canada

are provided with libraries containing 429,470 volumes, or an

average of 11,302. The senior of these, Laval College, Quebec,

is famous as being, after Harvard, the oldest on the

continent, being founded by Bishop Laval in 1663. … In 1848

the late Dr. Ryerson, Superintendent of Education from

1844-1876, drafted a school bill which contained provisions

for school and township libraries, and succeeded in awakening

a deep interest in the subject. … In 1854 Parliament passed

the requisite act and granted him the necessary funds to carry

out his views in the matter. The regulations of the department

authorized each county council to establish four classes of

libraries—

1. An ordinary common school library in each schoolhouse for

the use of the children and rate-payers.

2. A general public lending library available to all the

ratepayers in the municipality.

3. A professional library of books on teaching, school

organization, language, and kindred subjects, available for

teachers only.

4. A library in any public institution under the control of

the municipality, for the use of the inmates, or in any county

jail, for the use of the prisoners. …

The proposal to establish the second class was however

premature; and accordingly, finding that mechanics institutes

were being developed throughout the towns and villages, the

Educational Department wisely aided the movement by giving a

small grant proportionate to the amount contributed by the

members and reaching a maximum of $200, afterwards increased

to $400 annually. In 1869 these had grown to number 26; in

1880, 74; and in 1886, 125. The number of volumes possessed by

these 125 is 206,146, or an average of 1,650. … In the

cities, however, the mechanics institute, with its limited

number of subscribers, has been found unequal to the task

assigned it, and accordingly, in 1882, the Free Libraries Act

was passed, based upon similar enactments in Britain and the

United States. … By the Free Libraries Act, the maximum of

taxation is fixed at ½ a mill on the annual assessment. …

None of the other provinces have followed Ontario in this

matter."

J. Bain,

Brief Review of the Libraries of Canada

(Thousand Islands Conference of Librarians, 1887).

"The total number of public libraries in Canada of all kinds

containing 1,000 or more volumes is 202, and of this number

the Province of Ontario alone has 152, or over three-fourths

of all, while Quebec has 27 or over one-half of the remaining

fourth, the other provinces having from 2 to 6 libraries each.

The total number of volumes and pamphlets in all the libraries

reported is 1,478,910, of which the Province of Ontario has

863,332 volumes, or almost 60 per cent, while the Province of

Quebec has 490,354, or over 33 percent; Nova Scotia, 48,250

volumes, or 3½ per cent; New Brunswick, 34,894 volumes, a

little over 2.3 per cent; Manitoba, 31,025 volumes, or 2.1 per

cent; British Columbia, 10,225 volumes, or not quite 0.7 per

cent; and Prince Edward Island, 5,200 volumes, or over 0.3 per

cent of the total number."

V. Flint,

Statistics [1891] of Public Libraries

in the United States and Canada

(United States Bureau of Education, Circular

of Information No.7, 1893).

LIBRARIES:

Mexico.

The National Library of Mexico contains 155,000 books, besides

manuscripts and pamphlets.

{2024}

LIBRARIES:

China.

The Imperial Library.

"It would be surprising if a people like the Chinese, who have

the literary instinct so strongly developed, had not at an

early date found the necessity of those great collections of

books which are the means for carrying on the great work of

civilization. China had her first great bibliothecal

catastrophe two centuries before the Christian era, when the

famous edict for the burning of the books was promulgated.

Literature and despotism have never been on very good terms,

and the despot of Tsin, finding a power at work which was

unfavorable to his pretensions, determined to have all books

destroyed except those relating to agriculture, divination and

the history of his own house. His hatred to books included the

makers of them, and the literati have not failed to make his

name execrated for his double murders of men and books. When

the brief dynasty of Tsin passed, the Princes of Han showed

more appreciation of culture, and in 190 B. C. the atrocious

edict was repealed, and the greatest efforts made to recover

such literary treasures as had escaped the destroyer. Some

classics are said to have been rewritten from the dictation of

scholars who had committed them to memory. Some robbers broke

open the tomb of Seang, King of Wei, who died B. C. 295, and

found in it bamboo tablets containing more than 100,000 peen

[bamboo slips]. These included a copy of the Classic of

Changes and the Annals of the Bamboo Books, which indeed take

their title from this circumstance. This treasure trove was

placed in the Imperial Library. So the Shoo-king is said to

have been found in a wall where it had been hidden by a

descendant of Confucius, on the proclamation of the edict

against books. Towards the close of the first century a

library had been formed by Lew Heang and his son Lew Hin. …

Succeeding dynasties imitated more or less this policy, and

under the later Han dynasty great efforts were made to restore

the library. … In the troubles at the close of the second

century the palace at Lo-Yang was burned, and the greater part

of the books destroyed. … Another Imperial collection at

Lo-Yang, amounting to 29,945 books, was destroyed A. D. 311.

In A. D. 431, Seäy Ling-Yuen, the keeper of the archives, made

a catalogue of 4,582 books in his custody. Another catalogue

was compiled in 473, and recorded 5,704 books. Buddhism and

Taouism now began to contribute largely to the national

literature. Amongst the other consequences of the overthrow of

the Tse dynasty at the end of the fifth century was the

destruction of the royal library of 18,010 books. Early in the

next century a collection of 33,106 books, not including the

Buddhist literature, was made chiefly, it is said, by the

exertions of Jin Fang, the official curator. The Emperor

Yuen-te removed his library, then amounting to 70,000 books,

to King Chow, and the building was burnt down when he was

threatened by the troops of Chow. The library of the later Wei

dynasty was dispersed in the insurrection of 531, and the

efforts made to restore it were not altogether successful. The

later Chow collected a library of 10,000 books, and, on the

overthrow of the Tse dynasty, this was increased by a mass of

5,000 mss. obtained from the fallen dynasty. When towards the

close of the sixth century the Suy became masters of the

empire they began to accumulate books. … The Tang dynasty

are specially remarkable for their patronage of literature.

Early in the eighth century the catalogue extended to 53,915

books, and a collection of recent authors included 28,469

books. Printing began to supersede manuscript in the tenth

century, plentiful editions of the classics appeared and

voluminous compilations. Whilst the Sung were great patrons of

literature, the Leaou were at least lukewarm, and issued an

edict prohibiting the printing of books by private persons.

The Kin had books translated into their own tongue, for the

benefit of the then Mongolian subjects. A similar policy was

pursued by the Yuen dynasty, under whom dramatic literature

and fiction began to flourish. In the year 1406, the printed

books in the Imperial Library are said to have amounted to

300,000 printed books and twice the number of mss. … The

great Imperial Library was founded by K'in Lung in the last

century. In response to an imperial edict, many of the

literati and book-lovers placed rare editions at the service

of the government, to be copied. The Imperial Library has many

of its books, therefore, in mss. Chinese printing, however, is

only an imperfect copy of the caligraphy of good scribes. Four

copies were made of each work. One was destined for the Wan

Yuen Repository at Peking; a second for the Wan-tsung

Repository at Kang-ning, the capital of Kiang-su province; a

third for the Wan-hwui Repository at Yang-chou-fu, and the

fourth for the Wan-lan Repository at Hong-Chou, the capital of

Cheh-Kiang. A catalogue was published from which it appears

that the library contained from ten to twelve thousand

distinct works, occupying 168,000 volumes. The catalogue is in

effect an annotated list of Chinese literature, and includes

the works which were still wanting to the library and deemed

essential to its completion. Dr. D. J. McGowan, who visited

the Hong-Chou collection, says that it was really intended for

a public library, and that those who applied for permission to

the local authorities, not only were allowed access, but were

afforded facilities for obtaining food and lodging, 'but from

some cause or other the library is rarely or never consulted.'

Besides the Imperial, there are Provincial, Departmental and

District Libraries. Thus, the examination hall of every town

will contain the standard classical and historical books. At

Canton and other cities there are extensive collections, but

their use is restricted to the mandarins. There are

collections of books and sometimes printing presses in

connection with the Buddhist monasteries."

W. E. A. Axon,

Notes on Chinese Libraries

(Library Journal, January and February, 1880).

For an account of the ancient library of Chinese classics in

stone,

See EDUCATION, ANCIENT: CHINA.

{2025}

LIBRARIES:

Japan.

"The Tokyo Library is national in its character, as the

Congressional Library of the United States, the British Museum

of Great Britain, etc. It is maintained by the State, and by

the copyright Act it is to receive a copy of every book,

pamphlet, etc., published in the empire. The Tokyo Library was

established in 1872 by the Department of Education with about

70,000 volumes. In 1873 it was amalgamated with the library

belonging to the Exhibition Bureau and two years later it was

placed under the control of the Home Department, while a new

library with the title of Tokyo Library was started by the

Education Department at the same time with about 28,000

volumes newly collected. Thus the Tokyo Library began its

career on a quite slender basis; but in 1876, the books

increased to 68,953, and in 1877 to 71,853. Since that time,

both the numbers of books and visitors have steadily

increased, so much so that in 1884 the former reached 102,350

and latter 115,986, averaging 359 persons per one day. The

library was then open free to all classes; but the presence of

too many readers of the commonest text-books and light

literature was found to have caused much hindrance to the

serious students. … This disadvantage was somewhat remedied

by introducing the fee system, which, of course, placed much

restriction to the visitors of the library. … It is very

clear from the character of the library that it is a reference

library and not a circulating library. But as there are not

any other large and well-equipped libraries in Tokyo, a system

of 'lending out' is added, something like that of Königliche

Bibliothek zu Berlin, with a subscription of 5 yen (about $5)

per annum. … The Tokyo Library now contains 97,550 Japanese

and Chinese books and 25,559 European books, besides about

100,000 of duplicates, popular books, etc., which are not

used. The average number of books used is 337,262 a year. …

The Library of the Imperial University, which is also under my

charge, comprises all the books belonging to the Imperial

University of Japan. These books are solely for the use of the

instructors, students, and pupils, no admittance being granted

to the general public. The library contains 77,991 European

books and 101,217 Japanese and Chinese books. As to other

smaller libraries of Japan, there are eight public and ten

private libraries in different parts of the empire. The books

contained in them are 66,912 Japanese and Chinese books and

4,731 European books with 43,911 visitors! Besides these, in

most of towns of respectable size, there are generally two or

three small private circulating libraries, which contain books

chiefly consisting of light literature and historical works

popularly treated."

I. Tanaka,

Tokyo Library

(San Francisco Conference of Librarians, 1891).

LIBRARIES:

India.

The first free library in a native state of India was opened

in 1892, with 10,000 volumes, 7,000 being in English. It was

founded by the brother of the Maharajah.

Library Journal,

volume 17, page 395.

----------LIBRARIES: End----------

LIBURNIANS, The.

See KORKYRA.

LIBYAN SIBYL.

See SIBYLS.

LIBYANS, The.

"The name of Africa was applied by the ancients only to that

small portion of country south of Cape Bon; the rest was

called Libya. The bulk of the population of the northern

coast, between Egypt and the Pillars of Hercules, was of the

Hamitic race of Phut, who were connected with the Egyptians

and Ethiopians, and to whom the name of Libyans was not

applied until a later date, as this name was originally

confined to some tribes of Arian or Japhetic race, who had

settled among the natives. From these nations sprung from Phut

descended the races now called Berbers, who have spread over

the north of Africa, from the northernmost valleys of the

Atlas to the southern limits of the Sahara, and from Egypt to

the Atlantic; perhaps even to the Canaries, where the ancient

Guanches seem to have spoken a dialect nearly approaching that

of the Berbers of Morocco. These Berbers—now called Amazigh,

or Shuluh, in Morocco; Kabyles, in the three provinces of

Algeria, Tunis, and Tripoli; Tibboos, between Fezzan and

Egypt; and Tuariks in the Sahara—are the descendants of the

same great family of nations whose blood, more or less pure,

still runs in the veins of the tribes inhabiting the different

parts of the vast territory once possessed by their ancestors.

The language they still speak, known through the labours of

learned officers of the French army in Africa, is nearly

related to that of Ancient Egypt. It is that in which the few

inscriptions we possess, emanating from the natives of Libya,

Numidia, and Mauritania in olden times, are written. The

alphabet peculiar to these natives, whilst under the

Carthaginian rule, is still used by the Tuariks. Sallust, who

was able to consult the archives of Carthage, and who seems

more accurate than any other classical writer on African

history, was acquainted with the annals of the primitive

period, anterior to the arrival of the Arian tribes and the

settlement of the Phœnician colonies. Then only three races,

unequally distributed in a triple zone, were to be met with

throughout Northern Africa. Along the shore bordering the

Mediterranean were the primitive Libyans, who were Hamites,

descendants of Phut; behind them, towards the interior, but on

the western half only, were the Getulians … ; further still

in the interior, and beyond the Sahara, were the negroes,

originally called by the Greek name 'Ethiopians, which was

afterwards erroneously applied to the Cushites of the Upper

Nile. Sallust also learnt, from the Carthaginian traditions,

of the great Japhetic invasion of the coast of Africa. … The

Egyptian monuments have acquainted us with the date of the

arrival of these Indo-Europeans in Africa, among whom were the

Libyans, properly so called, the Maxyans, and Macæ. It was

contemporary with the reigns of Seti I. and Ramses II."

F. Lenormant,

Manual of Ancient History of the East,

book 6, chapter 5 (volume 2).

See, also, NUMIDIANS; and AMORITES.

LICINIAN LAWS, The.

See ROME: B. C. 376-367.

LICINIUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 307-323.

LICTORS.

FASCES.

"The fasces were bundles of rods (virgæ) of elm or birchwood,

tied together round the handle of an axe (securis) with (most

likely red) straps. The iron of the axe, which was the

executioner's tool, protruded from the sticks. The fasces were

carried on their left shoulders by the lictors, who walked in

front of certain magistrates, making room for them, and

compelling all people to move out of the way (summovere),

barring Vestals and Roman matrons. To about the end of the

Republic, when a special executioner was appointed, the

lictors inflicted capital punishment. The king was entitled to

twelve fasces, the same number being granted to the consuls.

… The dictator was entitled to twenty-four lictors. …

Since 42 B. C. the Flamen Dialis and the Vestals also were

entitled to one lictor each. In case a higher official met his

inferior in the street, he was saluted by the lictors of the

latter withdrawing the axe and lowering the fasces."

E. Guhl and W. Koner,

Life of the Greeks and Romans,

section 107, foot-note.

{2026}

LIDUS,

LEUD,

LATT, The.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

----------LIÈGE: Start--------

LIÈGE:

The Episcopal Principality.

"Liège lies on the borderland of the French and German

speaking races. … It was the capital of an ecclesiastical

principality, whose territory extended some distance up the

river and over the wooded ridges and green valleys of the

Ardennes. The town had originally sprung up round the tomb of

St. Lambert—a shrine much frequented by pilgrims. … The

Prince Bishop of Liège was the vassal of the emperor, but his

subjects had long considered the kings of France their natural

protectors. It was in France that they found a market for

their manufactures, from France that pilgrims came to the tomb

of St. Lambert or to the sylvan shrine of St. Hubert.

Difference of language and rivalry in trade separated them

from their Dutch-speaking neighbours. We hear, as early as the

10th century, of successful attempts on the part of the people

of Liège, supported and directed by their bishops, to subdue

the lords of the castles in their neighbourhood. A population

of traders, artizans, and miners, were unlikely to submit to

the pretensions of a feudal aristocracy. Nor was there a

burgher oligarchy, as in many of the Flemish and German towns.

Every citizen was eligible to office if he could obtain a

majority of the votes of the whole male population.

Constitutional limits were imposed on the power of the bishop;

but he was the sole fountain of law and justice. By suspending

their administration he could paralyse the social life of the

State, and by his interdicts annihilate its religious life.

Yet the burghers were involved in perpetual disputes with

their bishop. When the power of the Dukes of Burgundy was

established in the Low Countries, it was to them that the

latter naturally applied for assistance against their unruly

flock. John the Fearless defeated the citizens with great

slaughter in 1408. He himself reckoned the number of slain at

25,000. In 1431 Liège was compelled to pay a fine of 200,000

crowns to the Duke of Burgundy." The Duke—Philip the

Good—afterwards forced the reigning bishop to resign in favor

of a brother of the Duke of Bourbon, a dissolute boy of

eighteen, whose government was reckless and intolerable.

P. F. Willert,

Reign of Lewis XI.,

pages 93-94.

ALSO IN:

J. F. Kirk,

History of Charles the Bold,

book 1, chapter 7.

LIÈGE: A. D. 1467-1468.

War with Charles the Bold of Burgundy

and destruction of the city.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467-1468;

also, DINANT.

LIÈGE: A. D. 1691.

Bombardment by the French.

The Prince-bishop of Liège having joined the League of

Augsburg against Louis XIV., and having received troops of the

Grand Alliance into his city, the town was bombarded in May,

1691, by the French General Boufflers. There was no attempt at

a siege; the attack was simply one of destructive malice, and

the force which made it withdrew speedily.

H. Martin,

History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,

volume 2, chapter 2.

LIÈGE: A. D. 1702.

Reduced by Marlborough.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

LIÈGE: A. D. 1792-1793.

Occupation and surrender by the French.

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

and 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

----------LIÈGE: Start--------

----------LIEGNITZ: Start----------

LIEGNITZ, The Battle of (1241).

On the 9th of April, A. D. 1241, the Mongols, who had already

overrun a great part of Russia, defeated the combined forces

of Poland, Moravia and Silesia in a battle which filled all

Europe with consternation. It was fought near Lignitz (or

Liegnitz), on a plain watered by the river Keiss, the site

being now occupied by a village called Wahlstadt, i. e.,

"Field of Battle." "It was a Mongol habit to cut off an ear

from each corpse after a battle, so as to have a record of the

number slain; and we are told they filled nine sacks with

these ghastly trophies," from the field of Lignitz.

H. H. Howorth,

History of the Mongols,

part 1, page 144.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.

LIEGNITZ:

Battle of (1760).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1760.

----------LIEGNITZ: End----------

LIGERIS, The.

The ancient name of the river Loire.

LIGHT BRIGADE, The Charge of the.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

LIGII, The.

See LYGIANS.

LIGNY, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

LIGONIA.

See MAINE: A. D. 1629-1631; and 1643-1677.

LIGURIAN REPUBLIC, The.

The mediæval republic of Genoa is often referred to as the

Ligurian Republic; but the name was distinctively given by

Napoleon to one of his ephemeral creations in Italy.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER), and 1804-1805.

LIGURIANS, The.

"The whole of Piedmont in its present extent was inhabited by

the Ligurians: Pavia, under the name of Ticinum, was founded

by a Ligurian tribe, the Lævians. When they pushed forward

their frontier among the Apennines into the Casentino on the

decline of the Etruscans, they probably only recovered what

had before been wrested from them. Among the inhabitants of

Corsica there were Ligurians. … The Ligurians and Iberians

were anciently contiguous; whereas in aftertimes they were

parted by the Gauls. We are told by Scylax, that from the

borders of Iberia, that is, from the Pyrenees, to the Rhone,

the two nations were dwelling intermixed. … But it is far

more probable that the Iberians came from the south of the

Pyrenees into Lower Languedoc, as they did into Aquitaine, and

that the Ligurians were driven back by them. When the Celts,

long after, moving in an opposite direction, reached the shore

of the Mediterranean, they too drove the Ligurians close down

to the coast, and dwelt as the ruling people amongst them, in

the country about Avignon, as is implied by the name

Celto-Ligurians. … Of their place in the family of nations

we are ignorant: we only know that they were neither Iberians

nor Celts."

G. B. Niebuhr,

History of Rome,

volume 1.

"On the coast of Liguria, the land on each side of the city of

Genoa, a land which was not reckoned Italian in early times,

we find people who seem not to have been Aryan. And these

Ligurians seem to have been part of a race which was spread

through Italy and Sicily before the Aryan settlements, and to

have been akin to the non-Aryan inhabitants of Spain and

southern Gaul, of whom the Basques … remain as a remnant."

E. A. Freeman,

Historical Geography of Europe,

chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

I. Taylor,

Origin of the Aryans,

chapter 2, section 7.

See, also, APPENDIX A, VOLUME 1.

{2027}

----------LILLE: Start--------

LILLE: A. D. 1583.

Submission to Spain.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585

LIMITS OF THE UNITED PROVINCES.

LILLE: A. D. 1667.

Taken by the French.

See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

LILLE: A. D. 1668.

Ceded to France.

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

LILLE: A. D. 1708.

Siege and capture by Marlborough and Prince Eugene.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.

LILLE: A. D. 1713.

Restoration to France.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

----------LILLE: End--------

LILLEBONNE, Assembly of.

A general assembly of Norman barons convened by Duke William,

A. D. 1066, for the considering of his contemplated invasion

of England.

E. A. Freeman,

Norman Conquest,

chapter 13, section 3 (volume 3).

LILLIBULLERO.

"Thomas Wharton, who, in the last Parliament, had represented

Buckinghamshire, and who was already conspicuous both as a

libertine and as a Whig, had written [A. D. 1688, just prior

to the Revolution which drove James II. from the English

throne] a satirical ballad on the administration of Tyrconnel

[Richard Talbot, Earl of Tyrconnel, James' Lord Deputy in

Ireland.]

See IRELAND: A. D. 1685-1688.

In this little poem an Irishman congratulates a brother

Irishman, in a barbarous jargon, on the approaching triumph of

Popery and of the Milesian race. … These verses, which were

in no respect above the ordinary standard of street poetry,

had for burden some gibberish which was said to have been used

as a watchword by the insurgents of Ulster in 1641. The verses

and the tune caught the fancy of the nation. From one end of

England to the other all classes were constantly singing this

idle rhyme. It was especially the delight of the English army.

More than seventy years after the Revolution, a great writer

delineated, with exquisite skill, a veteran who had fought at

the Boyne and at Namur. One of the characteristics of the good

old soldier is his trick of whistling Lillibullero. Wharton

afterwards boasted that he had sung a King out of three

kingdoms. But in truth the success of Lillibullero was the

effect, and not the cause, of that excited state of public

feeling which produced the Revolution. … The song of

Lillibullero is among the State Poems. In Percy's Relics the

first part will be found, but not the second part, which was

added after William's landing."

Lord Macaulay,

History of England,

chapter 9, with foot-note.

ALSO IN:

W. W. Wilkins,

Political Ballads of the 17th and 18th Centuries,

volume 1, page 275.

LILY OF FLORENCE, The.

See FLORENCE: ORIGIN AND NAME.

----------LILYBÆUM: Start--------

LILYBÆUM: B. C. 368.

Siege by Dionisius.

"This town, close to the western cape of Sicily, appears to

have arisen as a substitute for the neighbouring town of Motye

(of which we hear little more since its capture by Dionysius

in 396 B. C.), and to have become the principal Carthaginian

station." Lilybæum was first besieged and then blockaded by

the Syracuse tyrant, Dionysius, B. C. 368; but he failed to

reduce it. It was made a powerful stronghold by the

Carthaginians.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 83.

LILYBÆUM: B. C. 277.

Siege by Pyrrhus.

See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

LILYBÆUM: B. C. 250-241.

Siege by the Romans.

See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

----------LILYBÆUM: End--------

LIMA:

Founded by Pizarro (1535).

See PERU: A. D. 1533-1548.

LIMBURG:

Capture by the Dutch (1632).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

----------LIMERICK: Start--------

LIMERICK: A. D. 1690-1691.

Sieges and surrender.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

LIMERICK: A. D. 1691.

The treaty of surrender and its violation.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1691.

----------LIMERICK: End--------

LIMES, The.

This term was applied to certain Roman frontier-roads. "Limes

is not every imperial frontier, but only that which is marked

out by human hands, and arranged at the same time for being

patrolled and having posts stationed for frontier-defence,

such as we find in Germany and in Africa. … The Limes is

thus the imperial frontier-road, destined for the regulation

of frontier-intercourse, inasmuch as the crossing of it was

allowed only at certain points corresponding to the bridges of

the river boundary, and elsewhere forbidden. This was

doubtless effected in the first instance by patrolling the

line, and, so long as this was done, the Limes remained a

boundary road. It remained so, too, when it was fortified on

both sides, as was done in Britain and at the mouth of the

Danube; the Britannic wall is also termed Limes."

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 8, chapter 4, foot-note.

LIMIGANTES, The.

The Limigantes were a tribe occupying, in the fourth century,

a region of country between the Danube and the Theiss, who

were said to have been formerly the slaves of a Sarmatian

people in the same territory and to have overpowered and

expelled their masters. The latter, in exile, became

dependents of the warlike nation of the Quadi. At the end of a

war with the latter, A. D. 357-359, in which they were greatly

humbled, the Emperor Constantius commanded the Limigantes to

surrender their stolen territory to its former owners. They

resisted the mandate and were exterminated.

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapters 18-19.

The Limigantes were a branch of the Iazyges or Jazyges, a

nomadic Sarmatian or Sclavonic people who were settled in

earlier times on the Palus Mæotis.

LIMISSO.

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1118-1310.

----------LIMOGES: Start--------

LIMOGES,

Origin of the town.

See LEMOVICES.

LIMOGES, A. D. 1370.

Massacre by the Black Prince.

A foul crime which stains the name of "the Black Prince."

Taking the city of Limoges, in France, after a short siege, A.

D. 1370, he ordered a promiscuous massacre of the population,

and more than 3,000 men, women and children were slain, while

the town was pillaged and burned.

Froissart,

Chronicles

(translated by Johnes),

book 1, chapters 288, 290.

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.

----------LIMOGES: End--------

LIMONUM.

See POITIERS.

LIMOUSIN,

Early inhabitants of the.

See LEMOVICES.

{2028}

LINCOLN, Abraham.

Election to the Presidency.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

LINCOLN, Abraham.

Inauguration and Presidential administration.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-MARCH), to 1865 (APRIL).

LINCOLN, Abraham.

Gettysburg address.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (NOVEMBER).

LINCOLN, Abraham.

Reëlection to the Presidency.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MAY-NOVEMBER).

LINCOLN, Abraham.

Visit to Richmond.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).

LINCOLN, Abraham.

Assassination.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).

LINCOLN, General Benjamin,

in the War of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1778-1779 THE WAR CARRIED INTO THE SOUTH;

1779 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER);

1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

LINCOLN, Battle of.

See LAMBETH, TREATY OF.

LINCOLN, Origin of.

See LINDUM.

LINDISWARA,

LINDESFARAS.

"Dwellers about Lindum," or Lincoln; a name given for a time

to the Angles who seized and settled in that English district.

J. R. Green,

The Making of England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

LINDSEY, Kingdom of.

One of the small and transient kingdoms of the Angles in early

England.

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 7, section 70 (volume 1).

LINDUM.

The Roman city from which sprang the English city of Lincoln.

T. Wright,

Celt, Roman and Saxon,

chapter 5.

LINGONES, The.

A tribe in ancient Gaul whose territory embraced parts in the

modern French departments of the Haute-Marne, the Aube, the

Yonne and the Côte-d'Or.

Napoleon III.,

History of Cæsar,

book 3, chapter 2, foot-note (volume 2).

See, also, ROME: B. C. 390-347.

LINKÖPING, Battle of (1598).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1523-1604.

LION AND THE SUN, The Order of the.

A Persian order, instituted in 1808.

LION OF ST. MARK, The Winged.

The standard of the Venetian republic. "Historians have failed

or omitted to fix the precise time when this ensign of the

lion was first adopted by the Republic. But when the two

granite columns ['trophies of a successful raid in the

Archipelago'], still the conspicuous ornaments of the Piazetta

of St. Mark, were erected, in or about 1172, a winged lion in

bronze was placed on one of them, and a statue of St.

Theodore, a patron of earlier standing, on the other."

The Republic of Venice

(Quarterly Review, Oct., 1874),

page 423.

See, also, VENICE: A. D. 829.

LIPAN, Battle of (1434).

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

----------LISBON: Start--------

LISBON:

Origin and early history.

See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

LISBON: A. D. 1147.

Capture from the Moors.

Made the capital of Portugal.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

LISBON: A. D. 1755.

The great Earthquake.

"On the morning of the 1st of November in this year, at the

same period, though in less or greater degree a far-spreading

earthquake ran through great part both of Europe and Barbary.

In the north its effects, as usual with earthquakes in that

region, were happily slight and few. Some gentle vibrations

were felt as far as Dantzick. … In Madrid a violent shock

was felt, but no buildings, and only two human beings,

perished. In Fez and in Morocco, on the contrary, great

numbers of houses fell down, and great multitudes of people

were buried beneath the ruins. But the widest and most fearful

destruction was reserved for Lisbon. Already, in the year

1531, that city had been laid half in ruins by an earthquake.

The 1st of November 1755 was All Saints' Day, a festival of

great solemnity; and at nine in the morning all the churches

of Lisbon were crowded with kneeling worshippers of each sex,

all classes, and all ages, when a sudden and most violent

shock made every church reel to its foundations. Within the

intervals of a few minutes two other shocks no less violent

ensued, and every church in Lisbon—tall column and towering

spire—was hurled to the ground. Thousands and thousands of

people were crushed to death, and thousands more grievously

maimed, unable to crawl away, and left to expire in lingering

agony. The more stately and magnificent had been the fabric,

the wider and more grievous was the havoc made by its ruin.

About one fourth, as was vaguely computed, of all the houses

in the city toppled down. The encumbered streets could scarce

afford an outlet to the fugitives; 'friends,' says an

eye-witness, 'running from their friends, fathers from their

children, husbands from their wives, because every one fled

away from their habitations full of terror, confusion, and

distraction.' The earth seemed to heave and quiver like an

animated being. The sun was darkened with the clouds of lurid

dust that arose. Frantic with fear a headlong multitude rushed

for refuge to a large and newly built stone pier which jutted

out into the Tagus, when a sudden convulsion of the stream

turned this pier bottom uppermost, like a ship on its keel in

the tempest, and then engulphed it. And of all the living

creatures who had lately thronged it,—full 3,000, it is

said,—not one, even as a corpse, ever rose again. From the

banks of the river other crowds were looking on in speechless

affright, when the river itself came rushing in upon them like

a torrent, though against wind and tide. It rose at least

fifteen feet above the highest spring tides, and then again

subsided, drawing in or dashing to pieces every thing within

its reach, while the very ships in the harbour were violently

whirled around. Earth and water alike seemed let loose as

scourges on this devoted city. 'Indeed every clement,' says a

person present, 'seemed to conspire to our destruction … for

in about two hours after the shock fires broke out in three

different parts of the city, occasioned from the goods and the

kitchen fires being all jumbled together.' At this time also

the wind grew into a fresh gale, which made the fires spread

in extent and rage with fury during three days, until there

remained but little for them to devour. Many of the maimed and

wounded are believed to have perished unseen and unheeded in

the flames; some few were almost miraculously rescued after

being for whole days buried where they fell, without light or

food or hope. The total number of deaths was computed at the

time as not less than 30,000."

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),

History of England, 1713-1783,

chapter 32 (volume 4).

LISBON: A. D. 1807.

Occupied by the French.

Departure of the Royal Family for Brazil.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.

----------LISBON: End--------

{2029}

LISLE.

See LILLE.

LISSA, Battle of (1866).

See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

LIT DE JUSTICE.

See BED OF JUSTICE.

----------LITHUANIA: Start--------

LITHUANIA: A. D. 1235.

Formation of the Grand Duchy.

"From 1224 [when Russia was prostrated by the Mongol conquest]

to 1487 … is a period of obscuration in Russian history,

during which Russia is nothing in the Slavonian world. The

hour of Russia's weakness was that in which the Lithuanians,

formerly a mere chaos of Slavo-Finnish tribes, assumed

organization and strength. Uniting the original Lithuanian

tribes into one government, and extending his sway over those

territories, formerly included in the Russian Empire, which

the Mongolian destruction of the Russian power had left

without a ruler, a native chief, named Ringold, founded (1235)

a new state called the Grand-Duchy of Lithuania. The limits of

this state extended from the Baltic coast, which it touched at

a single point, across the entire continent, almost to the

Black Sea, with Lithuania proper as its northern nucleus, and

the populations along the whole course of the Dnieper as its

subjects. The Lithuanians, thus made formidable by the extent

of their dominion, were at this time still heathens."

Poland: Her History and Prospects

(Westminster Review, January, 1855),

page 119.

See, also, RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

LITHUANIA: A. D. 1386. Union with Poland under the Jagellon

kings.

See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.

----------LITHUANIA: End--------

LITHUANIANS.

LETTS.

"They and the Slavonians are branches of the same Sarmatian

family; so, of course, their languages, though different, are

allied. But next to the Slavonic what tongues are nearest the

Lithuanic? Not the speech of the Fin, the German, or the Kelt,

though these are the nearest in geography. The Latin is liker

than any of these; but the likest of all is the ancient sacred

language of India—the Sanskrit of the Vedas, Puranas, the

Mahabharata, and the Ramayana. And what tongue is the nearest

to the Sanskrit? Not those of Tibet and Armenia, not even

those of Southern India. Its nearest parallel is the obscure

and almost unlettered languages of Grodno, Wilna, Vitepsk,

Courland, Livonia, and East Prussia. There is a difficult

problem here. … The present distribution of the Lithuanian

populations is second only in importance to that of the

Ugrians. Livonia is the most convenient starting-point. Here

it is spoken at present; though not aboriginal to the

province. The Polish, German, and Russian languages have

encroached on the Lithuanian, the Lithuanian on the Ugrian. It

is the Lett branch of the Lithuanian which is spoken by the

Letts of Livonia (Liefland), but not by the Liefs. The same is

the case in Courland. East Prussia lies beyond the Russian

empire, but it is not unnecessary to state that, as late as

the sixteenth century, a Lithuanian tongue was spoken there.

Vilna, Grodno, and Vitepsk are the proper Lithuanian

provinces. There, the original proper Lithuanic tongue still

survives; uncultivated, and day by day suffering from the

encroachment of the Russian, but, withal, in the eyes of the

ethnologist, the most important language in Europe."

R. G. Latham,

Ethnology of Europe,

chapter 6.

LITTLE BIG HORN, Battle of the.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876.

LITTLE BRETHREN.

See BEGUINES, &c.

LITTLE ROCK, Federal occupation of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

LITTLE RUSSIA.

See RUSSIA, GREAT.

LITTLE YAHNI, Battle of (1877).

See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

LITURGIES.

"It was not only by taxation of its members that the

[Athenian] State met its financial needs, but also by many

other kinds of services which it demanded from them, and

which, though not, like the former, producing an income, yet

nevertheless saved an expense. Such services are called

Liturgies [i. e.; properly, services for the

people.'—Footnote]. They are partly ordinary or 'encyclic'—

such, that is, as occurred annually, even in times of peace,

according to a certain order, and which all bore some relation

to worship and to the celebration of festivals—and partly

extraordinary, for the needs of war. Among the former class

the most important is the so-called Choregia, i. e., the

furnishing of a chorus for musical contests and for festivals.

… A similar though less burdensome Liturgy was the

Gymnasiarchy for those feasts which were celebrated with

gymnastic contests. The gymnasiarch, as it seems, was

compelled to have all who wished to come forward as

competitors trained in the gymnasia, to furnish them with

board during the time of training, and at the games themselves

to furnish the necessary fittings and ornaments of the place

of contest. … More important and more costly than all these

ordinary or encyclic Liturgies was the extraordinary Liturgy

of trierarchy, i. e., the equipment of a ship of war."

G. F. Schumann,

Antiquity of Greece: The State,

part 3, chapter 3.

"The Liturgiæ, which are sometimes considered as peculiar to

the Athenians, … were common to all democracies at least [in

the Greek states], and even to certain aristocracies or

oligarchies. … The Liturgiæ of the Greeks were distinguished

by a much more generous and noble characteristic than the

corresponding services and contributions of the present day.

They were considered honorable services. … Niggardliness in

the performance of them was considered disgraceful. The state

needed no paid officer, or contractors to superintend or

undertake their execution. … The ordinary Liturgiæ … are

principally the choregia, the gymnasiarchia, and the feasting

of the tribes [or hestiasis]. … The lampadarchy, if not the

only kind, was certainly the most important and expensive kind

of gymnasiarchy. The race on foot with a torch in the hand was

a common game. The same kind of race was run with horses for

the first time at Athens in the time of Socrates. The art

consisted, besides other particulars, in running the fastest,

and at the same time not extinguishing the torch. … Since

the festivity was celebrated at night, the illumination of the

place which was the scene of the contest was necessary. Games

of this kind were celebrated specially in honor of the gods of

light and fire. … The expenses of the feasting of the tribes

were borne by a person selected for this purpose from the

tribe. … The entertainments, the expenses of which were

defrayed by means of this liturgia, were different from the

great feastings of the people, the expenses of which were paid

from the treasury of the theorica. They were merely

entertainments at the festivals of the tribes."

A. Boeckh,

Public Economy of the Athenians

(translated by Lamb),

book 3, chapters 1 and 21-23.

ALSO IN:

E. G. Bulwer-Lytton,

Athens,

book 5, chapter 2.

{2030}

LITUS, The.

In the Salic law, of the Franks, the litus appears as

representing a class in that Germanic nation. He "was no doubt

identical with the serf whom Tacitus represents as cultivating

the soil, and paying a rent in kind to his lord. That the

litus was not free is evident from the mention of his master

and the fact that he could be sold; though we find a weregild

set upon his life equal to that of a free Roman."

W. C. Perry,

The Franks,

chapter 10.

LIVERPOOL AND MANCHESTER RAILWAY, The.

See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

LIVERPOOL MINISTRY, The,

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1813.

LIVERY, Origin of the term.

"After an ancient custom, the kings of France, at great

solemnities, gave such of their subjects as were at court

certain capes or furred mantles, with which the latter

immediately clothed themselves before leaving the court. In

the ancient 'comptes' (a sort of audits) these capes were

called 'livrées' (whence, no doubt, our word livery), because

the monarch gave them ('les livrait') himself."

J. F. Michaud,

History of the Crusades,

book 13.

LIVERY COMPANIES.

See GUILDS, MEDIÆVAL.

LIVERY OF SEIZIN.

See FEUDAL TENURES.

LIVINGSTON MANOR, The.

Robert Livingston, "secretary of Albany," son of a Scotch

clergyman, began to acquire a landed estate, by purchases from

the Indians, soon after his arrival in America, which was

about 1674. "The Mohegan tribes on the east side of the Hudson

had become reduced to a few old Indians and squaws, who were

ready to sell the lands of which they claimed the ownership.

Livingston's position as clerk of Indian affairs gave him

exceptional opportunities to select and to purchase the best

lands in desirable localities. … In 1702, Lord Bellomont

[then governor of New York] writes, 'I am told Livingston has

on his great grant of 16 miles long and 24 broad, but four or

five cottages, occupied by men too poor to be farmers, but are

his vassals.' After the close of the war [Queen Anne's War],

Livingston made more rapid progress in his improvements. He

erected flour and timber mills, and a new manor-house." In

1715 Livingston obtained from Governor Hunter a confirmatory

patent, under an exact and careful survey of his estate.

"Although it does not give the number of acres, the survey

computes the area of the manor to contain 160,240 acres. It

was now believed to be secure against any attack. … Philip,

the second proprietor, was not disturbed as to title or

limits. He was a merchant, and resided in New York, spending

his summers at the Manor House. … His son, Robert, succeeded

him as the third proprietor, but he had hardly come into

possession before he began to be harassed by his eastern

neighbors, the people of Massachusetts. … Massachusetts, by

her charter, claimed the lands lying west of her eastern

boundary to the Pacific Ocean. She had long sought to make

settlements within the province of New York. Now as her

population increased she pushed them westward, and gradually

encroached on lands within the limits of a sister province. In

April, 1752, Livingston wrote to Governor Clinton, and entered

complaint against the trespassers from Massachusetts. A long

correspondence between the governors of the two provinces

followed, but settled nothing. The trouble continued," for a

number of years, and frequent riots were incident to it, in

which several men were killed. At length, "the boundary

between New York and Massachusetts was finally settled, and

the claimants ceased their annoyance. … The Revolution was

approaching. The public mind was occupied with politics. …

Land titles ceased to be topics of discussion. The proprietors

of the old manor, and all bearing their name, with a few

unimportant exceptions, took a decided stand in favor of

independence. During the war that followed, and for some years

after its close, their title and possession of their broad

acres were undisputed. But in 1795 another effort was made to

dispossess them. The old methods of riots and arrests were

abandoned. The title was now attacked by the tenants, incited

and encouraged by the envious and disaffected. A petition,

numerously signed by the tenants of the manor, was sent to the

Legislature. … The committee to which the petition was

referred reported adversely, and this was approved by the

House on March 23, 1795. … After the failure of 1795 to

break the title, there was a season of comparative quiet

continued for nearly forty years. Then a combination was

formed by the tenants of the old manorial estates, including

those of large landed proprietors in other parts of the State,

termed 'anti-renters.' It was a civil association with a

military organization. It was their purpose to resist the

payment of rents. The tenants of the Van Rensselaer and the

Livingston Manors, being the most numerous, were the

projectors and leaders, giving laws and directions. …

Landlords and officers were intimidated by bands disguised as

Indians, and some property was destroyed. The anti-renters

carried their grievances into politics, throwing their votes

for the party which would give them the most favorable

legislation. In 1844, they petitioned the Legislature to set

aside as defective the Van Rensselaer title, and put the

tenants in legal possession of the farms they occupied. The

petition was referred to the Judiciary Committee of the

Assembly, the late Judge William Allen being chairman.

Anti-renters of known ability were on the committee, and a

favorable report was anticipated. But after a long and

thorough investigation of the title … the committee

unanimously reported against the prayer of the petition. This

put an end to the combination, and to the anti-rent war,

although resistance to the collection of rents in isolated

cases, with bloodshed and loss of life, is still [1885]

continued. The landlords, however, particularly the

Livingstons, were tired of the strife. They adopted measures

of compromise, selling to their tenants the lands they

occupied at reduced valuations. Only small portions of the old

manor now remain in the hands of Robert Livingston's

descendants."

G. W. Schuyler,

Colonial New York,

volume I, pages 243-285.

ALSO IN:

E. P. Cheyney,

Anti-Rent Agitations in New York

(University of Pennsylvania Pubs.).

{2031}

LIVONIA: 12th-13th Centuries.

First introduction of Commerce and Christianity.

"Till the year A. D. 1158 … Livonia was well-nigh utterly

unknown to the rest of Europe. Some traders of Bremen then

visited it, and formed several settlements along the coast.

These commercial relations with their western neighbours first

opened up the country to missionary enterprise, and in the

year A. D. 1186 one of the merchant-ships of Bremen brought to

the mouth of the Düna a venerable canon named Meinhard."

Meinhard died in 1196, having accomplished little. He was

succeeded by a Cistercian abbot named Berthold, who, being

driven away by the obstinate pagans, returned wrathfully in

1198, with a crusading army, which Pope Innocent III. had

commissioned him to lead against them. This was the beginning

of a long and merciless crusading warfare waged against the

Livonians, or Lieflanders, and against their Prussian and

other Sclavonic neighbors, until all were forced to submit to

the religious rites of their conquerors and to call themselves

Christians. For the furthering of this crusade, Berthold's

successor, Albert von Apeldern, of Bremen (who founded the

town of Riga), "instituted, in the year A. D. 1201, with the

concurrence of the emperor Otho IV. and the approbation of the

Pope, the knightly 'Order of the Sword,' and placed it under

the special protection of the Virgin Mary. The members of this

order bound themselves by solemn vows to hear mass frequently,

to abstain from marriage, to lead a sober and chaste life, and

to fight against the heathen. In return for these services

they were to have and to enjoy whatever lands they might wrest

with their swords from their pagan adversaries. … Albert von

Apeldern made Riga the starting-point of his operations.

Thence, aided by Waldemar II. king of Denmark, he directed the

arms of his crusaders against Esthonia, and the neighbouring

countries of Semgallen and Courland. On these war-wasted

districts he succeeded in imposing a nominal form of

Christianity." The Order of the Sword was subsequently united

with the Teutonic Order, which turned its crusading energies

from the Moslems of the Holy Land to the heathendom of the

Baltic.

G. F. Maclear,

Apostles of Mediæval Europe,

chapters 15-16.

ALSO IN:

A. Rambaud,

History of Russia,

volume 1, chapter 9.

See, also

PRUSSIA: 13TH CENTURY.

LLANOS.

See PAMPAS.

LLORENS, Battle of (1645).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.

LOANO, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

LOBBY, The.

"'The Lobby' is the name given in America to persons, not

being members of a legislature, who undertake to influence its

members, and thereby to secure the passing of bills. The term

includes both those who, since they hang about the chamber,

and make a regular profession of working upon the members, are

called 'lobbyists,' and those persons who on any particular

occasion may come up to advocate, by argument or solicitation,

any particular measure in which they happen to be interested.

The name, therefore, does not necessarily impute any improper

motive or conduct, though it is commonly used in what Bentham

calls a dyslogistic sense."

J. Bryce,

The American Commonwealth,

volume 1, appendix note (B) to chapter 16.

LOBOSITZ, OR LOWOSITZ, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.

LOCH LEVEN, Mary Stuart's captivity at.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

LOCHLANN.

The Celtic name for Norway, meaning Lakeland.

LOCKE'S CONSTITUTION FOR THE CAROLINAS.

See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.

LOCOFOCOS.

"In 1835, in the city and county of New York, a portion of the

democrats organized themselves into the 'equal rights' party.

At a meeting in Tammany Hall they attempted to embarrass the

proceedings of the democratic nominating committee, by

presenting a chairman in opposition to the one supported by

the regular democrats. Both parties came to a dead lock, and,

in the midst of great confusion, the committee extinguished

the lights. The equal rights men immediately relighted the

room with candles and locofoco matches, with which they had

provided themselves. From this they received the name of

locofocos, a designation which, for a time, was applied to the

whole democratic party by the opposition."

W. R. Houghton,

History of American Politics,

page 219.

LOCRI.

The city of Locri, or Locri Epizephyrii, an ancient Greek

settlement in Southern Italy, was founded by the Locrians as

early as B. C. 683. The elder Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse,

married a Locrian woman and showed great favor to the city, of

which he acquired control; but it suffered terribly from his

son, the younger Dionysius, who transferred his residence to

Locri when first driven from Syracuse.

LOCRIANS, The.

See LOKRIANS.

LODGER FRANCHISE.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

LODI, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

LODI, Treaty of (1454).

See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454;

and ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

LOEN, OR STADTLOHN, Battle of (1623).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

LŒTIC COLONIES.

During and after the civil wars of the declining years of the

Roman empire, large numbers of Germans were enlisted in the

service of the rival factions, and were recompensed by gifts

of land, on which they settled as colonists. "They were called

Lœti, and the colonies lœtic colonies, probably from the

German word 'leute,' people, because they were regarded as the

people or men of the empire."

P. Godwin,

History of France: Ancient Gaul,

book 3, chapter 9, foot-note.

LOG, The.

See EPHAH.

LOG CABIN AND HARD CIDER CAMPAIGN.

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

LOGAN CROSS ROADS, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

LOGAN'S WRONGS.

LOGAN'S WAR.

LOGAN'S FAMOUS SPEECH.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

LÖGBERG, The.

See THING.

LOGI, The.

See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

LOGISTÆ AND EUTHYNI, The.

"In Athens, all accounts, with the exception of those of the

generals, were rendered to the logistæ and euthyni. Both

authorities, before and after the archonship of Euclid,

existed together at the same time. Their name itself shows

that the logistæ were auditors of accounts. The euthyni were

in immediate connection with them. … The logistæ were the

principal persons in the auditing board."

A. Boeckh,

Public Economy of Athens

(translated by Lamb),

book 2, chapter 8.

{2032}

LOGOGRAPHI, The.

The earlier Ionian Greek historians "confined their attention

to the circle of myths and antiquities connected with single

families, single cities and districts. These were the Ionic

'logographi,' so called because they noted down in easy

narrative the remarkable facts that they had collected and

obtained by inquiry as to the foundation of the cities, the

myths of the prehistoric age, and the natural, political, and

social condition of different countries."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).

LOGOTHETES.

A class of officers created under Justinian for the

administration of the imperial finances in Italy, after its

conquest from the Goths. Their functions corresponded with

those of a modern auditor, or comptroller.

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 5, chapter 15 (volume 4).

LOGSTOWN.

About the middle of the 18th century, Logstown was "an

important Indian village a little below the site of the

present city of Pittsburg. Here usually resided Tanacharisson,

a Seneca chief of great note, being head sachem of the mixed

tribes which had migrated to the Ohio and its branches. He was

generally surnamed the half-king, being subordinate to the

Iroquois confederacy."

W. Irving,

Life of Washington,

volume 1, chapter 5.

LOIDIS.

See ELMET.

LOJA: Sieges and capture by the Spaniards (1482-1483).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

LOJERA, Battle of (1353).

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

LOKRIANS, The.

"The coast [of Greece, in ancient times] opposite to the

western side of Eubœa, from the neighbourhood of Thermopylæ as

far as the Bœotian frontier at Anthedon, was possessed by the

Lokrians, whose northern frontier town, Alpeni, was

conterminous with the Malians. There was, however, one narrow

strip of Phokis—the town of Daphnus, where the Phokians also

touched the Eubœan sea—which broke this continuity and

divided the Lokrians into two sections,—Lokrians of Mount

Knemis, or Epiknemidian Lokrians, and Lokrians of Opus, or

Opuntian Lokrians. … Besides these two sections of the

Lokrian name, there was also a third, completely separate, and

said to have been colonised from Opus,—the Lokrians surnamed

Ozolæ,—who dwelt apart on the western side of Phokis, along

the northern coast of the Corinthian Gulf. … Opus prided

itself on being the mother-city of the Lokrian name. … The

whole length of this Lokrian coast is celebrated for its

beauty and fertility, both by ancient and modern observers."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 3 (volume 2).

LOLLARDS. The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414;

and BEGUINES.—BEGHARDS.

LOLLARDS' TOWER.

When the persecution of the Lollards, or disciples of Wyclif,

began in England, under Henry IV., the prisons were soon

crowded, and the Archbishop of Canterbury found need of

building an additional tower to his palace at Lambeth for the

custody of them. The Lollards' Tower, as it was named, is

still standing, with the rings in its walls to which the

captives were chained.

LOMBARDS, OR LANGOBARDI.

Early history.

"The Langobardi … are ennobled by the smallness of their

numbers; since, though surrounded by many powerful nations,

they derive security, not from obsequiousness, but from their

martial enterprise."

Tacitus,

Germany,

Oxford translation,

chapter 40.

"In the reign of Augustus, the Langobardi dwelt on this side

the Elbe, between Luneburg and Magdeburg. When conquered and

driven beyond the Elbe by Tiberius, they occupied that part of

the country where are now Prignitz, Ruppin, and part of the

Middle Marche. They afterward founded the Lombard kingdom in

Italy."

Tacitus,

Germany,

Oxford translation,

Translator's note.

The etymology which explains the name of the Lombards or

Langobardi by finding in it a reference to the length of their

beards is questioned by some modern writers. Sheppard ("Fall

of Rome") conjectures that the name originally meant

"long-spears" rather than "long-beards." Other writers derive

the name "from the district they inhabited on the banks of the

Elbe, where Börde (or Bord) still signifies 'a fertile plain

by the side of a river,' and a district near Magdeburg is

still called the lange Börde. According to this view,

Langobardi would signify 'inhabitants of the long bord of the

river'; and traces of their name are supposed still to occur

in such names as Bardengau and Bardewick, in the neighbourhood

of the Elbe."

Dr. W. Smith,

Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 42.

From the Elbe the Langobardi moved in time to the Danube.

"Here they encountered the Gepidæ, who, … after having taken

a leading part in the defeat and dispersion of the Huns in the

great battle of Netad [A. D. 453], had settled in the plains

of Upper Hungary and on the Transylvanian hills. For thirty

years these two powerful tribes continued a contest in which

both sides sought the assistance of the Greek emperor, and

both were purposely encouraged in their rivalry with a view to

their common destruction." In 566 the struggle was decided by

a tremendous battle in which the Gepidæ were crushed. The

Lombards, in this last encounter, had secured the aid of the

pretended Avars, then lately arrived on the Danube; but the

prestige of the overwhelming victory attached itself to the

name of the young Lombard king, Alboin. "In the days of

Charlemagne, the songs of the German peasant still told of his

beauty, his heroic qualities, and the resistless vigour of his

sword. His renown crossed the Alps, and fell, with a

foreboding sound, upon the startled ears of the Italians, now

experienced in the varied miseries of invasion."

J. G. Sheppard,

Fall of Rome,

lecture 6.

LOMBARDS: A. D. 568-573.

Conquests and settlement in Italy.

When the Lombards and the Avars crushed the nation of the

Gepidæ (see AVARS), in 566, it was one of the terms of the

bargain between them that the former should surrender to the

Avars, not only the conquered territory—in Wallachia,

Moldavia, Transylvania and part of Hungary—but, also, their

own homes in Pannonia and Noricum. No doubt the ambitious

Lombard king, Alboin, had thoughts of an easy conquest of

Italy in his mind when he assented to so strange an agreement.

Fourteen years before, the Lombard warriors had traversed the

sunny peninsula in the army of Narses, as friends and allies

of the Roman-Greeks.

{2033}

The recollection of its charms, and of its still surviving

wealth, invited them to return. Their old leader, Narses, had

been deposed from the exarchate at Ravenna; it is possible

that he encouraged their coming. "It was not an army, but an

entire nation, which descended the Alps of Friuli in the year

568. The exarch Longinus, who had succeeded Narses, shut

himself up within the walls of Ravenna, and offered no other

resistance. Pavia, which had been well fortified by the kings

of the Ostrogoths, closed its gates, and sustained a siege of

four years. Several other towns, Padua, Monzelice, and Mantua,

opposed their isolated forces, but with less perseverance. The

Lombards advanced slowly into the country, but still they

advanced; at their approach, the inhabitants fled to the

fortified towns upon the sea coast in the hope of being

relieved by the Greek fleet, or at least of finding a refuge

in the ships, if it became necessary to surrender the place.

… The islands of Venice received the numerous fugitives from

Venetia, and at their head the patriarch of Aquileia, who took

up his abode at Grado; Ravenna opened its gates to the

fugitives from the two banks of the Po; Genoa to those from

Liguria; the inhabitants of La Romagna, between Rimini and

Ancona, retired to the cities of the Pentapolis; Pisa, Rome,

Gaeta, Naples, Amalfi, and all the maritime towns of the south

of Italy were peopled at the same time by crowds of

fugitives."

J. C. L. de Sismondi,

Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 11 (volume 1).

"From the Trentine hills to the gates of Ravenna and Rome, the

inland regions of Italy became, without a battle or a siege,

the lasting patrimony of the Lombards. … One city, which had

been diligently fortified by the Goths, resisted the arms of a

new invader; and, while Italy was subdued by the flying

detachments of the Lombards, the royal camp was fixed above

three years before the western gate of Ticinum, or Pavia. …

The impatient besieger had bound himself by a tremendous oath

that age, and sex, and dignity should be confounded in a

general massacre. The aid of famine at length enabled him to

execute his bloody vow; but as Alboin entered the gate his

horse stumbled, fell, and could not be raised from the ground.

One of his attendants was prompted by compassion, or piety, to

interpret this miraculous sign of the wrath of Heaven: the

conqueror paused and relented. … Delighted with the

situation of a city which was endeared to his pride by the

difficulty of the purchase, the prince of the Lombards

disdained the ancient glories of Milan; and Pavia during some

ages was respected as the capital of the kingdom of Italy."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 45.

LOMBARDS: A. D. 573-754.

Their kingdom.

Alboin survived but a short time the conquest of his Italian

kingdom. He was murdered in June, 573, at the instigation of

his wife, the Gepid princess Rosamond, whose alliance with him

had been forced and hateful. His successor, Clef, or Clepho, a

chief elected by the assembly of the nation at Pavia, reigned

but eighteen months, when he, too, was murdered. After a

distracted period of ten years, in which there was no king,

the young son of Clepho, named Autharis, came to manhood and

was raised to the throne. "Under the standard of their new

king, the conquerors of Italy withstood three successive

invasions [of the Franks and the Alemanni], one of which was

led by Childebert himself, the last of the Merovingian race

who descended from the Alps. … During a period of 200 years

Italy was unequally divided between the kingdom of the

Lombards and the exarchate of Ravenna. … From Pavia, the

royal seat, their kingdom [that of the Lombards] was extended

to the east, the north, and the west, as far as the confines

of the Avars, the Bavarians, and the Franks of Austrasia and

Burgundy. In the language of modern geography, it is now

represented by the Terra Firma of the Venetian republic,

Tyrol, the Milanese, Piedmont, the coast of Genoa, Mantua,

Parma, and Modena, the grand duchy of Tuscany, and a large

portion of the ecclesiastical state from Perugia to the

Adriatic. The dukes, and at length the princes, of Beneventum,

survived the monarchy, and propagated the name of the

Lombards. From Capua to Tarentum, they reigned near 500 years

over the greatest part of the present kingdom of Naples."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 45.

LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774.

The Fall of their monarchy.

Charlemagne's conquest.

Until 754 the Lombard kings pursued a generally prosperous

career of aggrandizement, in Italy. They had succeeded, at the

last, in expelling the exarchs of the Eastern Empire from

Ravenna and in taking possession of that capital, with much of

the territory and many of the cities in central Italy which

depended on it. These successes inflamed their determination

to acquire Rome, which had practically resumed its

independence, and theoretically reconstituted itself a

republic, with the Pope, in fact, ruling it as an actual

prince. In 753 the Papal chair was filled by Stephen II. and

the Lombard throne by King Aistaulf, or Astolphus. The former,

being newly threatened by the latter, made a journey to the

court of the Frank king, Pippin, to solicit his aid. Pippin

was duly grateful for the sanction which the preceding pope

had given to his seizure of the Merovingian crown, and he

responded to the appeal in a vigorous way. In a short campaign

beyond the Alps, in 754, he extorted from the Lombard king a

promise to make over the cities of the exarchate to the Pope

and to respect his domain. But the promise was broken as soon

as made. The Franks were hardly out of Italy before Aistulf

was ravaging the environs of Rome and assailing its gates. On

this provocation Pippin came back the next year and humbled

the Lombard more effectually, stripping him of additional

territory, for the benefit of the Pope, taking heavy ransom

and tributes from him, and binding him by oaths and hostages

to acknowledge the supremacy of the king of the Franks. This

chastisement sufficed for nearly twenty years; but in 773 the

Pope (now Hadrian) was driven once more to appeal to the Frank

monarch for protection against his northern neighbors. Pippin

was dead and his great son Charles, or Charlemagne, had

quarrels of his own with Lombardy to second the Papal call. He

passed the Alps at the head of a powerful army, reduced Pavia

after a year-long siege and made a complete conquest of the

kingdom, immuring its late king in a cloister for the

remainder of his days. He also confirmed, it is said, the

territorial "donations" of his father to the Holy See and

added some provinces to them. "Thus the kingdom of the

Lombards, after a stormy existence of over two hundred years,

was forever extinguished.

{2034}

Comprising Piedmont, Genoa, the Milanese, Tuscany, and several

smaller states, it constituted the most valuable acquisition,

perhaps, the Franks had lately achieved. Their limits were

advanced by it from the Alps to the Tiber; yet, in the

disposal of his spoil, the magnanimous conqueror regarded the

forms of government which had been previously established. He

introduced no changes that were not deemed indispensable. The

native dukes and counts were confirmed in their dignities; the

national law was preserved, and the distributions of land

maintained, Karl receiving the homage of the Lombard lords as

their feudal sovereign, and reserving to himself only the name

of King of Lombardy."

P. Godwin,

History of France: Ancient Gaul,

chapters 15-16.

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 49.

J. I. Mombert,

Charlemagne,

book 1, chapter 2,

and book 2, chapter 2.

J. Bryce,

The Holy Roman Empire,

chapters 4-5.

See, also,

PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

----------LOMBARDY: Start--------

LOMBARDY: A. D. 754.

Charlemagne's reconstitution of the kingdom.

See LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 961-1039.

The subjection to Germany.

See ITALY: A. D. 961-1039.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1056-1152.

The rise of the Republican cities.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1154-1183.

The wars of Frederick Barbarossa against the Communes.

The League of Lombardy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to 1174-1183;

and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:

MEDIÆVAL LEAGUE OF LOMBARDY.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1183-1250.

The conflict with Frederick II.

See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1250-1520.

The Age of the Despots.

See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1520.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1277-1447.

Rise and domination of the Visconti of Milan, and the

dissolution of their threatening tyranny.

See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1310-1313.

Visit of the Emperor Henry VII.

His coronation with the Iron Crown.

See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1327-1330.

Visit and coronation of Louis IV. of Bavaria.

See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1360-1391.

The Free Companies and the wars with Florence

and with the Pope.

See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1412-1422.

Reconquest by Filippo Maria Visconti, third duke of Milan.

See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1447-1454.

Disputed succession of the Visconti in Milan.

The duchy seized by Francesco Sforza.

War of Venice, Naples, and other States against Milan and

Florence.

See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1492-1544.

The struggle for the Milanese territory, until its acquisition

by the Spanish crown.

See references under MILAN: A. D. 1492-1496, to 1544.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1713.

Cession of the duchy of Milan to Austria.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1745-1746.

Occupied by the Spaniards and French

and recovered by the Austrians.

See ITALY: A. D. 1745; and 1746-1747.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1749-1792.

Under Austrian rule, after the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle.

See ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1796-1797.

Conquest by Bonaparte.

Creation of the Cisalpine Republic.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);

1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);

and 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1799.

French evacuation.

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

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1800.

Recovery by the French.

See FRANCE: A: D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1805.

The Iron Crown bestowed on Napoleon, as King of Italy.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1814.

French evacuation.

See ITALY: A. D. 1814.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1814-1815.

Restored to Austria.

Formation of the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);

VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF;

ITALY: A. D. 1814-1815;

and AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1848-1849.

The struggle for freedom from Austrian misrule

and its failure.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

LOMBARDY: A. D. 1859.

Emancipation from the Austrians.

Absorption in the kingdom of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

----------LOMBARDY: End----------

LOMBARDY, The iron crown of.

The crown of the Lombard kings was lined with an iron band,

believed to have been wrought of the nails used in the

Crucifixion. Hence it was called the Iron Crown.

J. I. Mombert,

History of Charles the Great,

book 2, chapter 2.

LONATO, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

LONDINIUM.

The Roman name of the city of London.

See LONDON.

----------LONDON: Start----------

LONDON:

The origin of the city and its name.

"When Plautius [Aulus Plautius, who, in the reign of the

Emperor Claudius, A. D. 43, led the second Roman invasion of

Britain, that of Cæsar having been the first] withdrew his

soldiers from the marshes they had vainly attempted to cross,

he, no doubt, encamped them somewhere in the neighbourhood. I

believe the place was London. The name of London refers

directly to the marshes, though I cannot here enter into a

philological argument to prove the fact. At London the Roman

general was able both to watch his enemy and to secure the

conquests he had made, while his ships could supply him with

all the necessaries he required. When, in the autumn of the

year 43, he drew the lines of circumvallation round his camp,

I believe he founded the present metropolis of Britain. The

notion entertained by some antiquaries that a British town

preceded the Roman camp has no foundation to rest upon, and is

inconsistent with all we know of the early geography of this

part of Britain."

E. Guest,

Origines Celticæ,

volume 2, part 2, chapter 13.

"Old as it is, London is far from being one of the oldest of

British cities; till the coming of the Romans, indeed, the

loneliness of its site seems to have been unbroken by any

settlement whatever. The 'dun' was, in fact, the centre of a

vast wilderness. … We know nothing of the settlement of the

town; but its advantages as the first landing-place along the

Thames secured for it at once the command of all trading

intercourse with Gaul, and through Gaul with the empire at

large. So rapid was its growth that only a few years after the

landing of Claudius [who joined Aulus Plautius in the autumn of

43] London had risen into a flourishing port."

J. R. Green,

The Making of England,

chapter 3.

{2035}

"The derivation of 'Londinium' from 'Llyn-din,' the lake fort,

seems to agree best with the situation and the history. The

Roman could not frame to pronounce the British word 'Llyn,' a

word which must have sounded to his ears very much like

'Clun,' or 'Lun,' and the fact, if it is a fact, that Llyn was

turned into Lon, goes to increase the probability that this is

the correct derivation of the name. The first founder called

his fastness the 'Fort of the Lake,' and this is all that

remains of him or it. … London was in those days

emphatically a Llyndin, the river itself being more like a

broad lake than a stream, and behind the fortress lying the

great northern lake,' as a writer so late as Fitzstephen calls

it, where is now Moorfields. I take it, it was something very

like an island, if not quite—a piece of high ground rising

out of lake, and swamp, and estuary."

W. J. Loftie,

History of London,

chapter 1, and foot-note.

LONDON: A. D. 61.

Destruction by the Iceni.

Londinium was one of the Roman towns in Britain destroyed by

the Iceni, at the time of the furious insurrection to which

they were incited by their outraged queen Boadicea, A. D. 61.

It "was crowded with Roman residents, crowded still more at

this moment with fugitives from the country towns and villas:

but it was undefended by walls, its population of traders was

of little account in military eyes, and Suetonius sternly

determined to leave it, with all the wealth it harboured, to

the barbarians, rather than sacrifice his soldiers in the

attempt to save it. … Amidst the overthrow of the great

cities of southern Britain, not less than 70,000 Roman

colonists … perished. The work of twenty years was in a

moment undone. Far and wide every vestige of Roman

civilization was trodden into the soil. At this day the

workmen who dig through the foundations of the Norman and the

Saxon London, strike beneath them on the traces of a double

Roman city, between which lies a mass of charred and broken

rubbish, attesting the conflagration of the terrible

Boadicea."

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 51.

LONDON: 4th Century.

The Roman Augusta and its walls.

"It is certain that, either under Constantine [the emperor]

himself, or under one of his immediate successors, the outer

wall was built. Though the building of the Roman wall, which

still in a sense defines the city boundaries, is an event in

the history of London not second in importance even to its

foundation, since it made a mere village and fort with a 'tête

du pont' into a great city and the capital of provincial

Britain, yet we have no records by which an exact date can be

assigned to it. All we know is that in 350 London had no wall:

and in 369 the wall existed. The new wall must have taken in

an immense tract of what was until then open country,

especially along the Watling Street, towards Cheap and

Newgate. It transformed London into Augusta; and though the

new name hardly appears on the page of history, and never

without a reference to the older one, its existence proves the

increase in estimation which was then accorded to the place.

The object of this extensive circumvallation is not very

clear. The population to be protected might very well have

been crowded into a much smaller space. … The wall enclosed

a space of 380 acres, being 5,485 yards in length, or 3 miles

and 205 yards. The portion along the river extended from

Blackfriars to the Tower."

W. J. Loftie,

History of London,

chapter 2 (volume 1).

"The historian Ammianus Marcellinus, who wrote about A. D.

380, in the reign of Gratian, states that Londinium (he calls

it Lundinium) was in his days called Augusta. From him we

learn that Lupicinus, who was sent by Julian to repress the

inroads of the Scots and Picts, made Londinium his head

quarters, and there concerted the plan of the campaign. In the

reign of Valentinian Britain was again disturbed, not only by

the northern barbarians, but also by the Franks and Saxons.

Theodosius, who was appointed commander of the legions and

cohorts selected for this service, came from Boulogne, by way

of Rutupiæ, to Londinium, the same route taken a few years

previously by Lupicinus, and there he also matured his plan

for the restoration of the tranquillity of the province. It is

on this occasion that Marcellinus speaks twice of Londinium as

an ancient town, then called Augusta. By the anonymous

chorographer of Ravenna it is called Londinium Augusta; and it

is in this sense, a cognomen or distinguishing appellation, as

applied to a pre-eminent town or capital, that we must

probably understand the term as used by Marcellinus in

relation to Londinium. … The extent of Londinium, from

Ludgate on the west to the Tower on the east, was about a

mile, and about half a mile from the wall on the north (London

Wall) to the Thames, giving dimensions far greater than those

of any other Roman town in Britain. These were the limits of

the city when the Romans relinquished the dominion of the

island."

Charles Roach Smith,

Illustrations of Roman London,

pages 11-12.

LONDON: 4th Century.

The growth of the Roman city.

"That London gradually increased in importance beyond the

dignity of a commercial city is plain, from the mention of it

in the Itinera, which show the number of marching roads

beginning and terminating there. … London then [in the times

of Julian and Theodosius] bore the name of 'Augusta,' or

'Londinium Augusta,' and this title is only applied to cities

of pre-eminent importance. The area of Roman London was

considerable, and, from discoveries made at different times,

appears to have extended with the growth of Roman power. The

walls when the Romans left Britain reached from Ludgate, on

the west, to the Tower on the east, about one mile in length,

and from London Wall to the Thames. … It also extended

across the river on the Kentish side."

H. M. Scarth,

Roman Britain,

chapter 15.

"Roman Loudon was built on the elevated ground on both sides

of a stream, known in after time by the name of Wallbrook,

which ran into the Thames not far from Southwark Bridge. …

Its walls were identical with those which enclosed the

mediæval city of London. … The northern and north-eastern

parts of the town were occupied with extensive and—to judge

by the remains which have been brought to light—magnificent

mansions. … At the period to which our last chapter had

brought us [A. D. 353], the city had extended to the other

side of the Thames, and the borough of Southwark stands upon

ground which covers the floors of Roman houses and the pavings

of Roman streets."

T. Wright,

Celt, Roman and Saxon,

chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

C. Roach Smith,

Antiquities of Roman London.

{2036}

LONDON: 6th-9th Centuries.

During the Saxon conquest and settlement.

For nearly half a century after its conquest by the

East-Saxons (which took place probably about the middle of the

6th century) London "wholly disappears from our view." "We

know nothing of the circumstances of its conquest, of the fate

of its citizens, or of the settlement of the conquerors within

its walls. That some such settlement had taken place, at least

as early as the close of the seventh century, is plain from

the story of Mellitus, when placed as bishop within its walls

[see ENGLAND: A. D. 597-685]; but it is equally plain that the

settlement was an English one, that the provincials had here

as elsewhere disappeared, and that the ruin of the city had

been complete. Had London merely surrendered to the

East-Saxons and retained its older population and municipal

life, it is hard to imagine how, within less than half a

century, its burghers could have so wholly lost all trace of

Christianity that not even a ruined church, as at Canterbury,

remained for the use of the Christian bishop, and that the

first care of Mellitus was to set up a mission church in the

midst of a heathen population. It is even harder to imagine

how all trace of the municipal institutions to which the Roman

towns clung so obstinately should have so utterly disappeared.

But more direct proofs of the wreck of the town meet us in the

stray glimpses which we are able to get of its earlier

topographical history. The story of early London is not that

of a settled community slowly putting off the forms of Roman

for those of English life, but of a number of little groups

scattered here and there over the area within the walls, each

growing up with its own life and institutions, gilds, sokes,

religious houses, and the like, and only slowly drawing

together into a municipal union which remained weak and

imperfect even at the Norman Conquest. … Its position indeed

was such that traffic could not fail to recreate the town; for

whether a bridge or a ferry existed at this time, it was here

that the traveller from Kent or Gaul would still cross the

Thames, and it was from London that the roads still diverged

which, silent and desolate as they had become, furnished the

means of communication to any part of Britain."

J. R. Green,

The Conquest of England,

pages 149 and 452-459.

"London may be said after this time [early in the 9th century]

to be no longer the capital of one Saxon kingdom, but to be

the special property of whichever king of whichever kingdom

was then paramount in all England. When the supremacy of

Mercia declined, and that of Wessex arose, London went to the

conqueror. In 823, Egbert receives the submission of Essex,

and in 827 he is in London, and in 833 a Witan is held there,

at which he presides. Such are the scanty notes from which the

history of London during the so-called Heptarchy must be

compiled. … London had to bear the brunt of the attack [of

the Danes] at first. Her walls wholly failed to protect her.

Time after time the freebooters broke in. If the Saxons had

spared anything of Roman London, it must have disappeared now.

Massacre, slavery, and fire became familiar in her streets. At

last the Danes seemed to have looked on her as their

headquarters, and when, in 872, Alfred was forced to make

truce with them, they actually retired to London as to their

own city, to recruit. To Alfred, with his military experience

and political sagacity, the possession of London was a

necessity; but he had to wait long before he obtained it. His

preparations were complete in 884. The story of the conflict

is the story of his life. His first great success was the

capture of London after a short siege: to hold it was the task

of all his later years."

W. J. Loftie,

History of London,

chapter 3 (volume 1).

See, also,

ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

LONDON: A. D. 1013-1016.

Resistance to the Danes.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.

LONDON: 12th Century.

Magnitude and importance of the city.

"We find them [the Londoners] active in the civil war of

Stephen and Matilda. The famous bishop of Winchester tells the

Londoners that they are almost accounted as noblemen on

account of the greatness of their city; into the community of

which it appears that some barons had been received. Indeed,

the citizens, themselves, or at least the principal of them,

were called barons. It was certainly by far the greatest city

in England. There have been different estimates of its

population, some of which are extravagant; but I think it

could hardly have contained less than 30,000 or 40,000 souls

within its walls; and the suburbs were very populous."

H. Hallam,

The Middle Ages,

chapter 8, part 3 (volume 3).

LONDON: 14th Century.

Guilds.

Livery Companies.

See GUILDS.

LONDON: A. D. 1381.

In the hands of the followers of Wat Tyler and John Ball.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1381.

LONDON: 16th Century.

In Shakespeare's time.

"The London of those days did not present the gigantic

uniformity of the modern metropolis, and had not as yet become

wholly absorbed in the whirl of business life. It was not as

yet a whole province covered with houses, but a city of

moderate size, surveyable from end to end, with walls and

gates, beyond which lay pleasant suburbs. … Compared with

the London of today, it possessed colour and the stamp of

originality; for, as in the southern climes, business and

domestic operations were carried on in the streets—and then

the red houses with their woodwork, high gables, oriel windows

and terraces, and the inhabitants in picturesque and gay

attire. The upper circles of society did not, as yet, live

apart in other districts; the nobility still had their

mansions among the burgher class and the working people. Queen

Elizabeth might be seen driving in an unwieldy gilt coach to

some solemn service in St. Paul's Cathedral, or riding through

the city to the Tower, to her hunting grounds, to a review of

her troops, or might be seen starting for Richmond or

Greenwich, accompanied by a brilliant retinue, on one of her

magnificent barges that were kept in readiness close to where

the theatres stood. Such a scene, with but little stretch of

the imagination, might have led Shakespeare to think of the

brilliant picture of Cleopatra on the Cydnus. The Thames was

crossed by one bridge only, and was still pure and clear as

crystal; swans swam about on it, and gardens and meadows lined

its banks where we now have dusty wharfs and warehouses.

Hundreds of boats would be skimming up and down the stream,

and incessant would be the calls between the boatmen of

'Westward ho!' or 'Eastward ho!' And yet the loungers in the

Temple Gardens and at Queenhithe could amuse themselves by

catching salmon.

{2037}

In the streets crowds would be passing to and fro; above all,

the well-known and dreaded apprentices, whose business it was

to attract customers by calling out in front of the shops:

'What d'ye lack, gentles? what d'ye lack? My ware is best!

Here shall you have your choice!' &c. Foreigners, too, of

every nationality, resident in London, would be met with. Amid

all this life every now and again would be seen the

perambulation of one or other of the guilds, wedding

processions, groups of country folk, gay companies of

train-bands and archers. … The city was rich in springs and

gardens, and the inhabitants still had leisure to enjoy their

existence; time had not yet come to be synonymous with money,

and men enjoyed their gossip at the barbers' and tobacconists'

shops; at the latter, instruction was even given in the art of

smoking, and in 1614 it is said that there were no less than

7,000 such shops in London. St. Paul's was a rendezvous for

promenaders and idle folk; and on certain days, Smithfield and

its Fair would be the centre of attraction; also Bartholomew

Fair, with its puppet-shows and exhibitions of curiosities,

where Bankes and his dancing-horse Morocco created a great

sensation for a long time; Southwark, too, with its Paris

Garden, attracted visitors to see the bear-baiting; it was

here that the famous bear Sackerson put the women in a

pleasant state of flutter; Master Slender had seen the bear

loose twenty times, and taken it by the chain. No less

attractive were the bowling-alleys, the fights at the Cock-pit

and the tent-pegging in the tiltyard; and yet all these

amusements were even surpassed by the newly-risen star of the

theatre. … The population of London during the reign of the

Bloody Mary is estimated by the Venetian ambassador, Giovanni

Micheli, at 150,000, or, according to other MS. reports of

his, at 180,000 souls. The population must have increased at

an almost inconceivable rate, if we are to trust the reports

of a second Venetian ambassador, Marc Antonio Correr, who, in

1610, reckoned the number of inhabitants at 300,000 souls;

however, according to Raumer, another Venetian, Molino,

estimated the population at 300,000 in 1607. The number of

foreigners in London was extremely large, and in 1621 the

colony of foreigners of all nations found settled there

amounted to no less than 10,000 persons. Commerce, trade, and

the industries were in a very flourishing state. The Thames

alone, according to John Norden in his MS. description of

Essex (1594), gave occupation to 40,000 men as boatmen,

sailors, fishermen, and others. Great political and historical

events had put new life into the English nation, and given it

an important impetus, which manifested itself in London more

especially, and exercised a stimulating influence upon

literature and poetry. Indeed, it may be said that Shakespeare

had the good fortune of having his life cast in one of the

greatest historical periods, the gravitating point of which

lay principally in London."

K. Elze,

William Shakespeare,

chapter 3.

LONDON: A. D. 1647.

Outbreak against the Independents and the Army.

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

LONDON: A. D. 1665

The Great Plague.

"The water supply, it is now generally acknowledged, is the

first cause of epidemic disease. In London, at the beginning

of the reign of James I., it was threefold. Some water came to

public conduits, like those in Cheap, by underground pipes

from Tyburn. Some was drawn by water-wheels and other similar

means from the Thames, polluted as it was, at London Bridge. A

third source of supply was still more dangerous: in all the

suburbs, and probably also in most houses in the city itself,

people depended on wells. What wells among habitations, and

especially filthy habitations, become, we know now, but in the

17th century, and much later, the idea of their danger had not

been started. Such being the conditions of existence in

London; the plague now and then smouldering for a year or two,

now and then breaking out as in 1603, 1625, and 1636, a long

drouth, which means resort to half dry and stagnant

reservoirs, was sufficient to call it forth in all its

strength. The heat of the summer weather in 1665 was such that

the very birds of the air were imagined to languish in their

flight. The 7th of June, said Pepys, was the hottest day that

ever he felt in his life. The deaths from the plague, which

had begun at the end of the previous year, in the suburb of

St. Giles' in the Fields, at a house in Long Acre, where two

Frenchmen had died of it, rose during June from 112 to 268.

The entries in the diary are for four months almost continuous

as to the progress of the plague. Although it was calculated

that not less than 200,000 people had followed the example of

the king and court, and fled from the doomed city, yet the

deaths increased daily. The lord mayor, Lawrence, held his

ground, as did the brave earl of Craven and General Monk, now

became duke of Albemarle. Craven provided a burial-ground, the

Pest Field, with a kind of cottage-hospital in Soho; but the

only remedy that could be devised by the united wisdom of the

corporation, fortified by the presence of the duke and the

earl, was to order fires in all the streets, as if the weather

was not already hot enough. Medical art seems to have utterly

broken down. Those of the sick who were treated by a

physician, only died a more painful death by cupping,

scarifying and blistering. The city rectors, too, who had come

back with the king, fled from the danger, as might be expected

from their antecedents, and the nonconformist lecturers who

remained had overwhelming congregations wherever they preached

repentence to the terror-stricken people. … The symptoms

were very distressing. Fever and vomiting were among the

first, and every little ailment was thought premonitory, so

that it was said at the time that as many died of fright as of

the disease itself. … The fatal signs were glandular

swellings which ran their course in a few hours, the plague

spots turning to gangrene almost as soon as they appeared. The

patients frequently expired the same day that they were

seized. … The most terrible stories of premature burial were

circulated. All business was suspended. Grass grew in the

streets. No one went about. The rumbling wheels of the cart,

and the cry, 'Bring out your dead!' alone broke the stillness

of the night. … In the first weeks of September the number

of fatal cases rose to 1,500 a day, the bills of mortality

recording 24,000 deaths between the 1st and 21st of that

month. Then at last it began to decline, but rose again at the

beginning of October.

{2038}

A change of weather at length occurred, and the average

declined so rapidly that, by the beginning of November, the

number of deaths was reduced to 1,200, and before Christmas

came it had fallen to the usual number of former years. In

all, the official statements enumerated 97,306 deaths during

the year, and, if we add those unrecorded, a very moderate

estimate of the whole mortality would place it at the

appalling figure of 100,000 at least."

W. J. Loftie,

History of London,

chapter 11 (volume 1).

ALSO IN;

S. Pepys,

Diary, 1665.

LONDON: A. D. 1666.

The Great Fire.

"While the war [with the Dutch] continued without any decisive

success on either side, a calamity happened in London which

threw the people into great consternation. Fire, breaking out

[September 2, 1666] in a baker's house near the bridge, spread

itself on all sides with such rapidity that no efforts could

extinguish it, till it laid in ashes a considerable part of

the city. The inhabitants, without being able to provide

effectually for their relief, were reduced to be spectators of

their own ruin; and were pursued from street to street by the

flames which unexpectedly gathered round them. Three days and

nights did the fire advance; and it was only by the blowing up

of houses that it was at last extinguished. … About 400

streets and 13,000 houses were reduced to ashes. The causes of

the calamity were evident. The narrow streets of London, the

houses built entirely of wood, the dry season, and a violent

east wind which blew; these were so many concurring

circumstances which rendered it easy to assign the reason of

the destruction that ensued. But the people were not satisfied

with this obvious account. Prompted by blind rage, some

ascribed the guilt to the republicans, others to the

Catholics. … The fire of London, though at that time a great

calamity, has proved in the issue beneficial both to the city

and the kingdom. The city was rebuilt in a very little time,

and care was taken to make the streets wider and more regular

than before. … London became much more healthy after the

fire."

D. Hume,

History of England,

chapter 64.

"I went this morning [September 7] on foot from Whitehall as

far as London Bridge, thro' the late Fleete-street, Ludgate

hill, by St. Paules, Cheapeside, Exchange, Bishopsgate,

Aldersgate, and out to Moorefields, thence through Cornehill,

&c., with extraordinary difficulty, clambering over heaps of

yet smoking rubbish, and frequently mistaking where I was. The

ground under my feete so hot, that it even burnt the soles of

my shoes. … At my returne I was infinitely concerned to find

that goodly Church St. Paules now a sad ruine. … Thus lay in

ashes that most venerable church, one of the most ancient

pieces of early piety in ye Christian world, besides neere 100

more. … In five or six miles traversing about I did not see

one loade of timber unconsum'd, nor many stones but what were

calcin'd white as snow. … I then went towards Islington and

Highgate, where one might have seen 200,000 people of all

ranks and degrees dispers'd and lying along by their heaps of

what they could save from the fire, deploring their losse, and

tho' ready to perish for hunger and destitution, yet not

asking one penny for reliefe, which to me appear'd a stranger

sight than any I had yet beheld."

J. Evelyn,

Diary,

September 7, 1666 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

S. Pepys,

Diary, September 2-15, 1666

(volume 4).

L. Phillimore,

Sir Christopher Wren,

chapters 6-7.

LONDON: A. D. 1685.

The most populous capital in Europe.

The first lighting of the streets.

"There is reason to believe that, in 1685, London had been,

during about half a century, the most populous capital in

Europe. The inhabitants, who are now [1848] at least

1,900,000, were then probably little more than half a million.

London had in the world only one commercial rival, now long

ago outstripped, the mighty and opulent Amsterdam. … There

is, indeed, no doubt that the trade of the metropolis then

bore a far greater proportion than at present to the whole

trade of the country; yet to our generation the honest

vaunting of our ancestors must appear almost ludicrous. The

shipping which they thought incredibly great appears not to

have exceeded 70,000 tons. This was, indeed, then more than a

third of the whole tonnage of the kingdom. … It ought to be

noticed that, in the last year of the reign of Charles II.

[1685], began a great change in the police of London, a change

which has perhaps added as much to the happiness of the body

of the people as revolutions of much greater fame. An

ingenious projector, named Edward Heming, obtained letters

patent conveying to him, for a term of years, the exclusive

right of lighting up London. He undertook, for a moderate

consideration, to place a light before every tenth door, on

moonless nights, from Michaelmas to Lady Day, and from six to

twelve of the clock."

Lord Macaulay,

History of England,

chapter 3 (volume 1).

LONDON: A. D. 1688.

The Irish Night.

The ignominious flight of James II. from his capital, on the

morning of December 11, 1688, was followed by a wild outbreak

of riot in London, which no effective authority existed to

promptly repress. To the cry of "No Popery," Roman Catholic

chapels and the residences of ambassadors of Roman Catholic

States, were sacked and burned. "The morning of the 12th of

December rose on a ghastly sight. The capital in many places

presented the aspect of a city taken by storm. The Lords met

at Whitehall, and exerted themselves to restore tranquillity.

… In spite, however, of the well-meant efforts of the

provisional government, the agitation grew hourly more

formidable. … Another day of agitation and terror closed,

and was followed by a night the strangest and most terrible

that England had ever seen." Just before his flight, King

James had sent an order for the disbanding of Ins army, which

had been composed for the most part of troops brought over

from Ireland. A terrifying rumor that this disbanded Irish

soldiery was marching on London, and massacring men, women and

children on the road, now spread through the city. "At one in

the morning the drums of the militia beat to arms. Everywhere

terrified women were weeping and wringing their hands, while

their fathers and husbands were equipping themselves for

fight. Before two the capital wore a face of stern

preparedness which might well have daunted a real enemy, if

such an enemy had been approaching. Candles were blazing at

all the windows. The public places were as bright as at

noonday. All the great avenues were barricaded. More than

20,000 pikes and muskets lined the streets. The late daybreak

of the winter solstice found the whole City still in arms.

During many years the Londoners retained a vivid recollection

of what they called the Irish Night. … The panic had not

been confined to London. The cry that disbanded Irish soldiers

were coming to murder the Protestants had, with malignant

ingenuity, been raised at once in many places widely distant

from each other."

Lord Macaulay,

History of England,

chapter 10.

{2039}

LONDON: A. D. 1780.

The Gordon No-Popery Riots.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.

LONDON: A. D. 1848.

The last Chartist demonstration.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1848.

LONDON: A. D. 1851.

The great Exhibition.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851.

----------LONDON: End----------

LONDON COMPANY FOR VIRGINIA, A. D. 1606-1625.

Charter and undertakings in Virginia.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607, and after.

LONDON COMPANY FOR VIRGINIA. D. 1619.

The unused patent granted to the Pilgrims at Leyden.

See INDEPENDENTS OR SEPARATISTS: A. D. 1617-1620;

and, also, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620, and 1621.

----------LONDONDERRY: Start--------

LONDONDERRY:

Origin and Name.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1607-1611.

LONDONDERRY: A. D. 1688.

The shutting of the gates by the Prentice Boys.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1685-1688.

LONDONDERRY: A. D. 1689.

The Siege.

James II. fled in December, 1688, to France, from the

Revolution in England which gave his throne to his daughter

Mary, and her husband, William of Orange. He received aid from

the French king and was landed in Ireland the following March,

to attempt the maintenance of his sovereignty in that kingdom,

if no more. Almost immediately upon his arrival he led his

forces against Londonderry, where a great part of the

Protestants of Ulster had taken refuge, and William and Mary

had been proclaimed. "The city in 1689 was contained within

the walls; and it rose by a gentle ascent from the base to the

summit of a hill. The whole city was thus exposed to the fire

of an enemy. There was no moat nor counterscarp. A ferry

crossed the river Foyle from the east gate, and the north gate

opened upon a quay. At the entrance of the Foyle was the

strong fort of Culmore, with a smaller fort on the opposite

bank. About two miles below the city were two forts—Charles

Fort and Grange Fort. The trumpeter sent by the king with a

summons to the obstinate city found the inhabitants 'in very

great disorder, having turned out their governor Lundy, upon

suspicion.' The cause of this unexpected reception was the

presence of 'one Walker, a minister.' He was opposed to Lundy,

who thought the place untenable, and counselled the townsmen

to make conditions; 'but the fierce minister of the Gospel,

being of the true Cromwellian or Cameronian stamp, inspired

them with bolder resolutions.' The reverend George Walker and

Major Baker were appointed governors during the siege. They

mustered 7,020 soldiers, dividing them into regiments under

eight colonels. In the town there were about 30,000 souls; but

they were reduced to a less burdensome number, by 10,000

accepting an offer of the besieging commander to restore them

to their dwellings. There were, according to Lundy's

estimation, only provisions for ten days. The number of cannon

possessed by the besieged was only twenty. On the 20th of

April the city was invested, and the bombardment was begun.

… No impression was made during nine days upon the

determination to hold out; and on the 29th King James retraced

his steps to Dublin, in considerable ill humour. The siege

went on for six weeks with little change. Hamilton was now the

commander of James's forces. The garrison of Londonderry and

the inhabitants were gradually perishing from fatigue and

insufficient food. But they bravely repelled an assault, in

which 400 of the assailants fell. … Across the narrow part

of the river, from Charles Fort to Grange Fort, the enemy

stretched a great boom of fir-timber, joined by iron chains,

and fastened on either shore by cables of a foot thick. On the

15th of June an English fleet of thirty sail was descried in

the Lough. Signals were given and answered; but the ships lay

at anchor for weeks. At the end of June, Baker, one of the

heroic governors, died. Hamilton had been superseded in his

command by Rosen, who issued a savage proclamation, declaring

that unless the place were surrendered by the 1st of July, he

would collect all the Protestants from the neighbouring

districts, and drive them under the walls of the city to

starve with those within the walls. A famished troop came thus

beneath the walls of Londonderry, where they lay starving for

three days. The besieged immediately threatened to hang all

the prisoners within the city. This threat had its effect, and

the famished crowd wended back their way to their solitary

villages. It is but justice to James to say that he expressed

his displeasure at this proceeding."

C. Knight,

Crown History of England,

chapter 34.

"The state of the city was, hour by hour, becoming more

frightful. The number of the inhabitants had been thinned more

by famine and disease than by the fire of the enemy. Yet that

fire was sharper and more constant than ever. … Every attack

was still repelled. But the fighting men of the garrison were

so much exhausted that they could scarcely keep their legs.

Several of them, in the act of striking at the enemy, fell

down from mere weakness. A very small quantity of grain

remained, and was doled out by mouthfuls. The stock of salted

hides was considerable, and by gnawing them the garrison

appeased the rage of hunger. Dogs, fattened on the blood of

the slain who lay unburied round the town, were luxuries which

few could afford to purchase. The price of a whelp's paw was

five shillings and sixpence. Nine horses were still alive, and

but barely alive. They were so lean that little meat was

likely to be found upon them. It was, however, determined to

slaughter them for food. … The whole city was poisoned by

the stench exhaled from the bodies of the dead and of the half

dead. … It was no slight aggravation of the sufferings of

the garrison that all this time the English ships were seen

far off in Lough Foyle." At length, positive orders from

England compelled Kirke, the commander of the relieving

expedition "to make an attempt which, as far as appears, he

might have made, with at least an equally fair prospect of

success, six weeks earlier." Two merchant ships, the Mountjoy

and the Phœnix, loaded with provisions, and the Dartmouth, a

frigate of thirty-six guns, made a bold dash up the river,

broke the great boom, ran the gauntlet of forts and batteries,

and reached the city at ten o'clock in the evening of the 28th

of July.

{2040}

The captain of the Mountjoy was killed in the heroic

undertaking, but Londonderry, his native town, was saved. The

enemy continued their bombardment for three days more. "But,

on the third night, flames were seen arising from the camp;

and, when the first of August dawned, a line of smoking ruins

marked the site lately occupied by the huts of the besiegers.

… So ended this great siege, the most memorable in the

annals of the British isles. It had lasted 105 days. The

garrison had been reduced from about 7,000 effective men to

about 3,000. The loss of the besiegers cannot be precisely

ascertained. Walker estimated it at 8,000 men."

Lord Macaulay,

History of England,

chapter 12.

ALSO in:

W. H. Torriano,

William the Third,

chapter 21.

See, also, IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

----------LONDONDERRY: End--------

LONE JACK, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

LONE STAR, Order of the.

See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

LONE STAR FLAG.

LONE STAR STATE.

On assuming independence, in 1836, the republic of Texas

adopted a flag bearing a single star, which was known as 'the

flag of the lone Star.' With reference to this emblem, Texas

is often called the Lone Star State.

----------LONG ISLAND: Start--------

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1614.

Explored by the Dutch.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1624.

Settlement of Brooklyn.

See BROOKLYN.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1634.

Embraced in the Palatine grant of New Albion.

See NEW ALBION.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1650.

Division between the Dutch of New Netherland and the English

of Connecticut.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1664.

Title acquired for the Duke of York.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1673.

The Dutch reconquest.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1674.

Annexed to New York.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1675.

LONG ISLAND: A. D. 1776.

The defeat of the American army by Lord Howe.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).

----------LONG ISLAND: End--------

LONG KNIVES, The.

See YANKEE.

LONG PARLIAMENT.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.

LONG WALLS OF ATHENS.

The walls which the Athenians built, B. C. 457, one, four

miles long, to the harbor of Phalerum, and others, four and

one half miles long, to the Piræus, to protect the

communication of their city with its port, were called the

Long Walls. The same name had been previously given to the

walls built by the Athenians to protect the communication of

Megara, then their ally, with its port of Nisæa; and Corinth

had, also, its Long Walls, uniting it with the port Lechæum.

The Long Walls of Athens were destroyed on the surrender of

the city, at the termination of the Peloponnesian War, B. C.

404, and rebuilt, B. C. 393, by Conon, with Persian help.

See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

LONGJUMEAU, Peace of (1568).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

LONGSTREET, General James.

Siege of Knoxville.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

LONGUEVILLE,

The Duchess de, and the Fronde.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1649, to 1651-1653.

LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN, its position, and the battle on it.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE);

and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

LOOM, Cartwright's invention of the power.

See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

LOPEZ, The Tyranny of.

See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

LOPEZ FILIBUSTERING EXPEDITION (1851).

See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

LORD.

"Every Teutonic King or other leader was surrounded by a band

of chosen warriors, personally attached to him of their own

free choice [see COMITATUS]. … The followers served their

chief in peace and in war; they fought for him to the death,

and rescued or avenged his life with their own. In return,

they shared whatever gifts or honours the chief could

distribute among them; and in our tongue at least it was his

character of dispenser of gifts which gave the chief his

official title. He was the 'Hlaford,' the 'Loaf-giver,' a name

which, through a series of softenings and contractions, and

with a complete forgetfulness of its primitive meaning, has

settled down into the modern form of Lord."

E. A. Freeman,

History Norman Conquests,

chapter 3, section 2 (volume 1).

On the Latin equivalent, 'Dominus,'

See IMPERATOR: FINAL SIGNIFICATION.

LORD CHANCELLOR, The.

See CHANCELLOR.

LORD DUNMORE'S WAR.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

LORDS, British House of.

"The ancient National Assembly [of England] gradually ceased

to be anything more than an assembly of the 'greater barons,'

and ultimately developed into a hereditary House of Lords, the

Upper House of the National Parliament. The hereditary

character of the House of Lords—now long regarded as fixed

and fundamental—accrued slowly and undesignedly, as a

consequence of the hereditary descent of the baronial fiefs,

practically inalienable, in right of which summonses to the

national council were issued."

T. P. Taswell-Langmead,

English Constitutional History,

chapter 7.

"The English aristocracy is a typical example of the way in

which a close corporation dies out. Its members are almost

always wealthy in the first instance, and their estates have

been constantly added to by favour from the Crown, by

something like the monopoly of the best Government

appointments, and by marriages with wealthy heiresses. They

are able to command the field sports and open-air life that

conduce to health, and the medical advice that combats

disease. Nevertheless, they die out so rapidly that only five

families out of nearly six hundred go back without a break,

and in the male line, to the fifteenth century. … 155 peers

were summoned to the first Parliament of James II. In 1825,

only 140 years later, only forty-eight of these nobles were

represented by lineal descendants in the male line. The family

has in several instances been continued by collaterals begging

the peerage, which they could not have claimed at law, and in

this way the change may seem less than it has really been; but

the broad result appears to be that left to itself from 1688,

with new creations absolutely forbidden, the House of Lords

would by this time have been practically extinguished.

{2041}

Of Charles II. 's six bastards, who were made dukes, only

three have perpetuated the race. Three peerages have been lost

to the Howard family, three to the Greys, two to the

Mordaunts, two to the Hydes, two to the Gerards, and two to

the Lucases. … It is in the lower strata of society that we

have to seck for the springs of national life."

C. H. Pearson,

National Life and Character,

pages 70-73.

"The British peerage is something unique in the world. In

England there is, strictly speaking, no nobility. This saying

may indeed sound like a paradox. The English nobility, the

British aristocracy, are phrases which are in everybody's

mouth. Yet, in strictness, there is no such thing as an

aristocracy or a nobility in England. There is undoubtedly an

aristocratic element in the English constitution; the House of

Lords is that aristocratic element. And there have been times

in English history when there has been a strong tendency to

aristocracy, when the lords have been stronger than either the

king or the people. … But a real aristocracy, like that of

Venice, an aristocracy not only stronger than either king or

people, but which had driven out both king and people, an

aristocracy from whose ranks no man can come down and into

whose ranks no man can rise save by the act of the privileged

body itself,—such an aristocracy as this England has never

seen. Nor has England ever seen a nobility in the true sense,

the sense which the word bears in every continental land, a

body into which men may be raised by the king, but from which

no man may come down, a body which hands on to all its

members, to the latest generations, some kind of privilege or

distinction, whether its privileges consist in substantial

political power, or in bare titles and precedence. In England

there is no nobility. The so-called noble family is not noble

in the continental sense; privilege does not go on from

generation to generation; titles and precedence are lost in

the second or third generation; substantial privilege exists

in only one member of the family at a time. The powers and

privileges of the peer himself are many; but they belong to

himself only; his children are legally commoners; his

grandchildren are in most cases undistinguishable from other

commoners. … A certain great position in the state is

hereditary; but nobility in the strict sense there is none.

The actual holder of the peerage has, as it were, drawn to his

own person the whole nobility of the family."

E. A. Freeman,

Practical Bearings of European History

(Lectures to American Audiences),

pages 305-307.

"At the end of 1892 there were 545 members of the House of

Lords, made up thus:

Peers, 469;

Lords of Appeal and Ex-Lords of Appeal, 5;

Representative Peers of Scotland, 16;

Representative Peers of Ireland, 28;

Lords Spiritual, 27.

The Lords of Appeal are lawyers of great distinction who are

appointed by the Queen and hold office during good behavior.

Their number is always about the same. Their work is mainly

judicial; but these Law Lords, as they are called, also speak

and vote in the deliberative and legislative proceedings of

the Upper House. The position of a Lord of Appeal differs from

that of an ordinary peer in that his office is not hereditary.

As regards the representative peers, those from Ireland, who

number 28, are elected for life; those from Scotland, who

number 16, are elected at a meeting of Scotch peers, held in

Holyrood Palace, Edinburgh, after each General Election, and

hold office during the lifetime of a Parliament. The Lords

Spiritual include (1) the Archbishop of Canterbury, the

Archbishop of York, the Bishops of London, Durham, and

Winchester; and (2) twenty-two out of the other twenty-nine

bishops of the Church of England. The prelates whose titles

have been given take their seats in the House immediately on

appointment; the other bishops take their seats by order of

seniority of consecration. The prelates who are without seats

in the House of Lords are known as junior bishops. The Bishop

of Sodor and Man has a seat in the House of Lords, but no

vote."

E. Porritt,

The Englishman at Home,

chapter 6.

For an account of the transient abolition of the House of

Lords in 1649,

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).

See, also, PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH;

and ESTATES, THE THREE.

LORDS OF ARTICLES.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1326-1603; and 1688-1690.

LORDS OF THE CONGREGATION.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557; and 1558-1560.

LORDS OF THE ISLES.

See HEBRIDES: A. D. 1346-1504;

and HARLAW, BATTLE OF.

LORDS SPIRITUAL AND TEMPORAL, The.

See ESTATES, THE THREE.

LORENZO DE' MEDICI (called The Magnificent),

The rule of.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.

----------LORRAINE: Start--------

LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.

Formation and dissolution of the kingdom.

In the division of the empire of Charlemagne among his three

grandsons, made by the treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, the elder,

Lothaire, bearing the title of Emperor, received the kingdom

of Italy, and, with it, another kingdom, named, after himself,

Lotharingia—afterwards called Lorraine. This latter was so

formed as to be an extension northwestwardly of his Italian

kingdom, and to stretch in a long belt between the Germanic

dominion of his brother Ludwig and the Francia Nova, or

France, of his brother Charles. It extended "from the mouth of

the Rhine to Provence, bounded by that river on one frontier,

by France on the other."

H. Hallam,

The Middle Ages,

chapter 1, part 1, note.

"Between these two states [of the Eastern and Western, or

Germanic and Gallic Franks] the policy of the ninth century

instinctively put a barrier, The Emperor Lothar, besides

Italy, kept a long narrow strip of territory between the

dominions of his Eastern and Western brothers. … This land,

having … been the dominion of two Lothars, took the name of

Lotharingia, Lothringen, or Lorraine, a name which part of it

has kept to this day. This land, sometimes attached to the

Eastern kingdom, sometimes to the Western, sometimes divided

between the two, sometimes separated from both, always kept

its character of a border-land. … Lotharingia took in the

two duchies of the Ripuarian Lotharingia and Lotharingia on

the Mosel. The former contains a large part of the modern

Belgium and the neighboring lands on the Rhine, including the

royal city of Aachen. Lotharingia on the Mosel answers roughly

to the later duchy of that name, though its extent to the East

is considerably larger."

E. A. Freeman,

Historical Geography of Europe,

chapter 6, section 1.

{2042}

"Upon the death of the Emperor Lothair [A. D. 855] his share

of the Carlovingian inheritance, the Kingdom acquired by

disobedience, violence, deceit and fraud, sustained further

partitions: Lothair's piece of the rent garment was clutched

and tattered again and again by his nearest of kin, his three

sons, and their two uncles, and the sons and the sons' sons of

his sons and uncles, till the lineage ended. … The Emperor

Lothair had directed and confirmed the partition of his third

of the Carlovingian Empire, appointed to him by the treaty of

Verdun." His namesake, his second son, Lothair II., received

the kingdom called "Lotharingia, Lothierregne, or Lorraine,"

and which is defined in the terms of modern geography as

follows: "The thirteen Cantons of Switzerland with their

allies and tributaries, East or Free Friesland, Oldenburgh,

the whole of the United Netherlands, all other territories

included in the Archbishopric of Utrecht, the Trois Evéchés,

Metz, Toul and Verdun, the electorates of Trèves and of

Cologne, the Palatine Bishopric of Liège, Alsace and

Franche-Comté, Hainault and the Cambresis, Brabant (known in

intermediate stages as Basse-Lorraine, or the Duchy of

Lohier), Namur, Juliers and Cleves, Luxemburgh and Limburg,

the Duchy of Bar and the Duchy which retained the name of

Lorraine, the only memorial of the antient and dissolved

kingdom. … After King Lothair's death [A. D. 869] nine

family competitors successively came into the field for that

much-coveted Lotharingia." Charles the Bald, one of the uncles

of the deceased king,—he who held the Neustrian or French

dominion,—took possession and got himself crowned king of

Lotharingia. But the rival uncle, Louis the German, soon

forced him (A. D. 870) to a division of the spoils. "The lot

of Charles consisted of Burgundy and Provence, and most of

those Lotharingian dominions where the French or Walloon

tongue was and yet is spoken; … he also took some purely

Belgic territories, especially that very important district

successively known as Basse-Lorraine, the Duchy of Lohier, and

Brabant. Modern history is dawning fast upon us.

Louis-le-Germanique received Aix-la-Chapelle, Cologne, Treves,

Utrecht, Strasburgh, Metz,—indeed nearly all the territories

of the Belgic and German tongues."

Sir F. Palgrave,

History of Normandy and England,

volume 1, pages 361-370.

See, also, VERDUN, TREATY OF.

LORRAINE: A. D. 911-980.

The dukedom established.

The definite separation of the East Franks, who ultimately

constituted the Germany of modern history, from the West or

Neustrian Franks, out of whose political organization sprang

the kingdom of France, took place in 911, when the Franconian

duke Conrad was elected king by the Germanic nations, and the

rule of the Carolingian princes was ended for them. In this

proceeding Lotharingia, or Lorraine, refused to concur.

"Nobles and people held to the old imperial dynasty. …

Opinions, customs, traditions, still rendered the

Lotharingians mainly members of Romanized Gaul. They severed

themselves from the Germans beyond the Rhine, separated by

influences more powerful than the stream." The Lotharingians,

accordingly, repudiated the sovereignty of Conrad and placed

themselves under the rule of Charles the Simple, the

Carolingian king then struggling to maintain his slender

throne at Laon. "Twice did King Conrad attempt to win

Lotharingia and reunite the Rhine-kingdom to the German realm:

he succeeded in obtaining Alsace, but the remainder was

resolutely retained by Charles." In 916 this remainder was

constituted a duchy, by Charles, and conferred upon Gilbert,

son of Rainier, Count of Hainault, who had been the leader of

the movement against Conrad and the Germanic nations. A little

later, when the Carolingian dynasty was near its end, Henry

the Fowler and his son Otho, the great German king who revived

the empire, recovered the suzerainty of Lorraine, and Otho

gave it to his brother Bruno, Archbishop of Cologne. Under

Bruno it was divided into two parts, Upper and Lower Lorraine.

Lower Lorraine was subsequently conferred by Otho II. upon his

cousin Charles, brother to Lothaire, the last of the French

Carolingian kings. "The nature and extent of this same grant

has been the subject of elaborate critical enquiry; but, for

our purposes, it is sufficient to know, that Charles is

accepted by all the historical disputants as first amongst the

hereditary Dukes of the 'Basse-Lorraine'; and, having received

investiture, he became a vassal of the Emperor." In 980, this

disposition of Lower Lorraine was ratified by Lothaire, the

French king, who, "abandoning all his rights and pretensions

over Lorraine, openly and solemnly renounced the dominions,

and granted the same to be held without let or interference

from the French, and be subjected for ever to the German

Empire."

Sir F. Palgrave,

History of Normandy and England,

book 1, part 2, chapter 1

and chapter 4, part 2.

"Lotharingia retained its Carolingian princes, but it retained

them only by definitively becoming a fief of the Teutonic

Kingdom. Charles died in prison, but his children continued to

reign in Lotharingia as vassals of the Empire. Lotharingia was

thus wholly lost to France; that portion of it which was

retained by the descendants of Charles in the female line

still preserves its freedom as part of the independent Kingdom

of Belgium."

E. A. Freeman,

History of the Norman Conquest of England,

chapter 4, section 4 (volume 1).

LORRAINE: A. D. 1430.

Acquisition of the duchy by René, Duke of Anjou

and Count of Provence, afterwards King of Naples.

Union with Bar.

See ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1476.

Short-lived conquest by Charles the Bold.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1505-1559.

Rise of the Guises, a branch of the ducal house.

Cession to France of Les Trois Evéchés.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1624-1663.

Quarrels and war of Duke Charles IV. with Richelieu and France.

Ruin and depopulation of the duchy.

Its possession by the French.

Early in Richelieu's administration of the French government,

the first steps were taken towards the union of Lorraine with

France. "Its situation, as well as its wealth and fertility,

made it an acquisition specially valuable to that kingdom. …

Lorraine had long been ruled by the present family of dukes,

and in its government more had remained of feudal usages than

in the monarchy that had grown up beside it. The character and

career of the members of the house of Guise had brought

Lorraine into very intimate connection with France, and the

closeness of its relations added danger to its position as an

independent state. Charles IV. became Duke of Lorraine in 1624

by virtue of the rights of his cousin and wife, the daughter of

the last duke. …

{2043}

He soon began to take part in the intrigues of the French

Court, and he enrolled himself among the lovers of Mme. de

Chevreuse and the enemies of Richelieu. … Richelieu had long

sought occasion for offence against the Duke Charles. The Duke

of Lorraine was bound to do honor to the French king for the

Duchy of Bar [which was a fief of the French crown, while

Lorraine was an imperial fief], a duty which was often

omitted, and the agents of Richelieu discovered that France

had ancient and valid claims to other parts of his territory.

His relations with France were rendered still more uncertain

by his own untrustworthy character. To tell the truth or to

keep his agreement were equally impossible for Duke Charles,

and he was dealing with a man with whom it was dangerous to

trifle. Gustavus Adolphus had invaded Germany, and the Duke of

Lorraine was eager in defending the cause of the Emperor. In

January, 1632, he was forced to make a peace with France, by

which he agreed to make no treaty with any other prince or

state without the knowledge and permission of the French king.

Charles paid no attention to this treaty, and for all these

causes in June, 1632, Louis [XIII.] invaded his dominions.

They lay open to the French army, and no efficient opposition

could be made. On June 26th Charles was forced to sign a

second treaty, by which he surrendered the city and county of

Clermont, and also yielded the possession for four years of

the citadels of Stenay and Jametz. … This treaty made little

change in the condition of affairs. Charles continued to act

in hostility to the Swedes, to assist Gaston [Duke of Orleans,

the rebellious and troublesome brother of Louis XIII., who had

married Margaret of Lorraine, the Duke's sister], and in every

way to violate the conditions of the treaty he had made. He

seethed resolved to complete his own ruin, and he did not have

to wait long for its accomplishment. In 1633 Louis a second

time invaded Lorraine, and the Swedes, in return for the

duke's hostility to them, also entered the province. Charles'

forces were scattered and he was helpless, but he was as false

as he was weak. He promised to surrender his sister Margaret,

and he allowed her to escape. He sent his brother to make a

treaty and then refused to ratify it. At last, he made the

most disadvantageous treaty that was possible, and surrendered

his capital, Nancy, the most strongly-fortified city of

Lorraine, into Louis' possession until all difficulties should

be settled between the king and the duke, which, as Richelieu

said, might take till eternity. In January, 1634, Charles

pursued his eccentric career by granting all his rights in the

duchy to his brother, the Cardinal of Lorraine. The new duke

also married a cousin in order to unite the rights of the two

branches. … Charles adopted the life of a wandering soldier

of fortune, which was most to his taste, and commanded the

imperial forces at the battle of Nordlingen. He soon assumed

again the rights which he had ceded, but his conduct rendered

them constantly less valuable. The following years were filled

with struggles with France, which resulted in her taking

possession of still more of Lorraine, until its duke was

entirely a fugitive. Such struggles brought upon its

inhabitants a condition of constantly increasing want and

misery. … It was ravaged by the hordes of the Duke of Weimar

and the Swedes [see GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639], and on every

side were pillage and burning and murders. Famine followed,

and the horrors perpetrated from it were said to be more than

could be described. Richelieu himself wrote that the

inhabitants of Lorraine were mostly dead, villages burned,

cities deserted, and a century would not entirely restore the

country. Vincent de Paul did much of his charitable work in

that unhappy province. … The duke at last, in 1641, came as

a suppliant to Richelieu to ask for his duchy, and it was

granted him, but on the condition that Stenay, Dun, Jametz,

and Clermont should be united to France, that Nancy should

remain in the king's possession until the peace, and that the

duke should assist France with his troops against all enemies

whenever required. … Charles was hardly back in his

dominions before he chose to regard the treaty he had made as

of no validity, and in July he violated it openly, and shortly

took refuge with the Spanish army. … Thereupon the French

again invaded Lorraine, and by October, 1641, practically the

whole province was in their hands. It so continued until

1663."

J. B. Perkins,

France under [Richelieu and] Mazarin,

chapter 5 (volume 1).

"The faithfulness with which he [the Duke of Lorraine] adhered

to his alliance with Austria, in spite of threatened losses,

formed in the end a strong bond of reciprocal attachment and

sympathy between the Hapsburgs and the Princes of Lorraine,

which, at a later day, became even firmer, and finally

culminated in the marriage of Stephen of Lorraine and Maria

Theresa."

A. Gindely,

History of the Thirty Years' War,

volume 2, chapter 6, section 3.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1648.

Desertion of the cause of the duke in the

Peace of Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1659.

Restored to the duke with some shearing of territory.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1679.

Restoration refused by the duke.

See NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1680.

Entire absorption of Les Trois Evêchés in France with

boundaries extended by the Chamber of Reannexation.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1697.

Restored to the duke by the Treaty of Ryswick.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

LORRAINE: A. D. 1735.

Ceded to France.

Reversion of Tuscany secured to the former duke.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

LORRAINE: A. D, 1871.

One fifth ceded to the German empire by France.

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

LORRAINE: A. D. 1871-1879.

Organization of the government of Alsace-Lorraine as a German

imperial province.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1879.

----------LORRAINE: End----------

LOSANTIVILLE.

See CINCINNATI: A. D. 1788.

LOSE-COAT FIELD, Battle of.

In 1470 an insurrection against the government of King Edward

IV. broke out in Lincolnshire, England under the lead of Sir

Robert Welles, who raised the Lancastrian standard of King

Henry. The insurgents were vigorously attacked by Edward, at a

place near Stamford, when the greater part of them "flung away

their coats and took to flight, leaving their leader a

prisoner in the hands of his enemies. The manner in which the

rebels were dispersed caused the action to be spoken of as the

battle of Lose-coat Field."

J. Gairdner,

Houses of Lancaster and York,

chapter 8.

The engagement is sometimes called the Battle of Stamford.

{2044}

LOST TEN TRIBES OF ISRAEL.

See JEWS: KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH;

also, SAMARIA.

LOTHAIRE,

King of France, A. D. 954-986.

Lothaire I., King of Italy and Rhineland, 817-855;

King of Lotharingia, and titular Emperor, 843-855.

Lothaire II.,

Emperor, 1133-1137;

King of Germany, 1125-1137.

LOTHARINGIA.

See LORRAINE.

LOTHIAN.

See SCOTLAND: 10-11TH CENTURIES.

LOUIS,

King of Portugal, A. D. 1861-1889.

Louis of Nassau, and the struggle in the Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566, to 1573-1574.

Louis I. (called The Pious),

Emperor of the West, A. D. 814-840;

King of Aquitaine, 781-814;

King of the Franks, 814-840.

Louis I. (called The Great),

King of Hungary, 1342-1382;

King of Poland, 1370-1382.

Louis I.,

King of Naples, 1382-1384;

Count of Provence and Duke of Anjou, 1339-1384.

Louis I., King of Sicily, 1342-1355.

Louis II. (called The Stammerer),

King of France, 877-879.

Louis II. (called The German),

King of the East Franks (Germany), 843-875.

Louis II.,

King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1516-1526.

Louis II.,

King of Naples, 1389-1399;

Duke of Anjou and Count of Provence, 1384-1417.

See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389, and 1386-1414.

Louis III.,

King of the Franks (Northern France), 879-882;

East Franks (Germany—in association with Carloman), 876-881.

Louis III. (called The Child),

King of the East Franks (Germany), 899-910.

Louis III., King of Provence, 1417-1434.

Louis III.,

Duke of Anjou, Count of Provence,

and titular King of Naples, 1417-1434.

Louis IV., King of France, 936-954.

Louis V. (of Bavaria),

Emperor, 1327-1347;

King of Germany (in rivalry with Frederick III.), 1313-1347;

King of Italy, 1327-1347.

Louis V., King of France, 986-987.

Louis VI. (called The Fat), King of France, 1108-1137.

Louis VII., King of France, 1137-1180.

Louis VIII., King of France, 1223-1226.

Louis IX. (called Saint Louis), King of France, 1226-1270.

Louis X. (called Le Hutin, or The Brawler),

King of France, 1314-1316;

King of Navarre, 1305-1316.

Louis XI., King of France, 1461-1483.

Louis XII., King of France, 1498-1515.

Louis XIII., King of France, 1610-1643… .

Louis XIV. (called "The Grand Monarch "),

King of France, 1643-1715.

Louis XV., King of France, 1715-1774.

Louis XVI., King of France, 1774-1793.

Louis XVII., nominal King of France, 1793-1796,

during the Revolution; died in prison, aged twelve years.

Louis XVIII., King of France; 1814-1824.

Louis Napoleon Bonaparte.

See NAPOLEON III.

Louis Philippe,

King of France (of the House of Orleans), 1830-1848.

LOUIS, Saint, Establishments of.

See WAGER OF BATTLE.

----------LOUISBOURG: Start--------

LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1720-1745.

The fortification of the Harbor.

See CAPE BRETON: A. D. 1720-1745.

LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1745.

Surrender to the New Englanders.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745.

LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1748.

Restoration to France.

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

LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1757.

English designs against, postponed.

See CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.

LOUISBOURG: A. D. 1758-1760.

Final capture and destruction of the place by the English.

See CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

----------LOUISBOURG: End--------

LOUISIANA:

The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY,

and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1629.

Mostly embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath, by

Charles I. of England.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1682.

Named and possession taken for the king of France, by La

Salle.

See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

Iberville's colonization.

Separation in government from New France.

Crozat's monopoly.

The French territorial claim.

"The court of France had been engaged in wars and political

intrigues, and nothing toward colonizing Louisiana had been

effected since the disastrous expedition of La Salle. Twelve

years had elapsed, but his discoveries and his unfortunate

fate had not been forgotten. At length, in 1698, an expedition

for colonizing the region of the Lower Mississippi was set on

foot by the French king. It was placed under the command of M.

D'Iberville, who had been an experienced and distinguished

naval commander in the French wars of Canada, and a successful

agent in establishing colonies in Canada, Acadie and Cape

Breton. … With his little fleet of two frigates, rating 30

guns each, and two smaller vessels, bearing a company of

marines and 200 colonists, including a few women and children,

he prepared to set sail from France for the mouth of the

Mississippi. The colonists were mostly soldiers who had served

in the armies of France and had received an honorable

discharge. They were well supplied with provisions and

implements requisite for opening settlements in the

wilderness. It was on the 24th day of September, 1698, that

this colony sailed from Rochelle." On the 2d of the following

March, after considerable exploration of the coast, west from

the Spanish settlement at Pensacola, Iberville found the mouth

of the Mississippi, being confirmed in the identification of

it by discovery of a letter, in the hands of the Indians,

which Tonti had written to La Salle thirteen years before.

"Soon afterward, Iberville selected a site and began to erect

a fort upon the northeast shore of the Bay of Biloxi, about

fifteen miles north of Ship Island. Here, upon a sandy shore,

and under a burning sun, upon a pine barren, he settled his

colony, about 80 miles northeast from the present city of New

Orleans. … Having thus located his colony, and protected

them [by a fort] from the danger of Indian treachery and

hostility, he made other provision for their comfort and

security, and then set sail for France, leaving his two

brothers, Sauvolle and Bienville, as his lieutenants." The

following September an English corvette appeared in the river,

intending to explore it, but was warned off by the French, and

retired. During the summer of 1699 the colonists suffered

terribly from the maladies of the region, and M. Sauvolle,

with many others, died.

{2045}

"Early in December following D'Iberville returned with an

additional colony and a detachment of troops, in company with

several vessels of war. Up to this time, the principal

settlements had been at Ship Island and on the Bay of Biloxi;

others had been begun at the Bay of St. Louis and on the Bay

of Mobile. These were made as a matter of convenience, to hold

and occupy the country; for his principal object was to

colonize the banks of the Mississippi itself." Iberville now

built a fort and located a small colony at a point about 54

miles above the mouth of the river, and about 38 miles below

the present city of New Orleans. The next year, having been

joined by the veteran De Tonti with a party of French

Canadians from the Illinois, Iberville ascended the river

nearly 400 miles, formed a friendly alliance with the Natchez

tribe of Indians, and selected for a future settlement the

site of the present city of Natchez. "In the spring of 1702

war had been declared by England against France and Spain, and

by order of the King of France the headquarters of the

commandant were removed to the western bank of the Mobile

River. This was the first European settlement within the

present State of Alabama. The Spanish settlement at Pensacola

was not remote; but as England was now the common enemy, the

French and Spanish commandants arranged their boundary between

Mobile and Pensacola Bays to be the Perdido River. … The

whole colony of Southern Louisiana as yet did not number 30

families besides soldiers. Bilious fevers had cut off many of

the first emigrants, and famine and Indian hostility now

threatened the remainder." Two years later, Iberville was

broken in health by an attack of yellow fever and retired to

France. After six further years of hardship and suffering, the

colony, in 1710, still "presented a population of only 380

souls, distributed into five settlements, remote from each

other. These were on Ship Island, Cat Island, at Biloxi,

Mobile, and on the Mississippi. … Heretofore the settlements

of Louisiana had been a dependence on New France, or Canada,

although separated by a wilderness of 2,000 miles in extent.

Now it was to be made an independent government, responsible

only to the crown, and comprising also the Illinois country

under its jurisdiction. The government of Louisiana was

accordingly placed [1711] in the hands of a governor-general.

The headquarters, or seat of the colonial government, was

established at Mobile, and a new fort was erected upon the

site of the present city of Mobile. … In France it was still

believed that Louisiana presented a rich field for enterprise

and speculation. The court, therefore, determined to place the

resources of the province under the influence of individual

enterprise. For this purpose, a grant of exclusive privileges,

in all the commerce of the province, for a term of 15 years,

was made to Anthony Crozat, a rich and influential merchant of

France. His charter was dated September 26th, 1712. At this

time the limits of Louisiana, as claimed by France, were very

extensive. As specified in the charter of Crozat, it was

'bounded by New Mexico on the west, by the English lands of

Carolina on the east, including all the establishments, ports,

havens, rivers, and principally the port and haven of the Isle

of Dauphin, heretofore called Massacre; the River St. Louis,

heretofore called Mississippi, from the edge of the sea as far

as the Illinois together with the River St. Philip, heretofore

called Missouri, the River St. Jerome, heretofore called

Wabash, with all the lands, lakes, and rivers mediately or

immediately flowing into any part of the River St. Louis or

Mississippi.' Thus Louisiana, as claimed by France at that

early period, embraced all the immense regions of the United

States from the Alleghany Mountains on the east to the Rocky

Mountains on the west, and northward to the great lakes of

Canada."

J. W. Monette,

History of the Discovery and Settlement of the

Valley of the Mississippi,

book 2, chapter 5 (volume 1).

Louisiana: A. D. 1717-1718.

Crozat's failure and John Law's Mississippi Bubble.

The founding of New Orleans.

"Crozat's failure was, in the nature of things, foreordained.

His scheme, indeed, proved a stumbling-block to the colony and

a loss to himself. In five years (1717) he was glad to

surrender his monopoly to the crown. From its ashes sprung the

gigantic Mississippi Scheme of John Law, to whom all

Louisiana, now including the Illinois country, was granted for

a term of years. Compared with this prodigality Crozat's

concession was but a plaything. It not only gave Law's Company

proprietary rights to the soil, but power was conferred to

administer justice, make peace or war with the natives, build

forts, levy troops and with consent of the crown to appoint

such military governors as it should think fitting. These

extraordinary privileges were put in force by a royal edict,

dated in September, 1717. The new company [called the Western

Company] granted lands along the river to individuals or

associated persons, who were sometimes actual emigrants,

sometimes great personages who sent out colonists at their own

cost, or again the company itself undertook the building up of

plantations on lands reserved by it for the purpose. One

colony of Alsatians was sent out by Law to begin a plantation

on the Arkansas. Others, more or less flourishing, were

located at the mouth of the Yazoo, Natchez and Baton Rouge.

All were agricultural plantations, though in most cases the

plantations themselves consisted of a few poor huts covered

with a thatch of palm-leaves. The earliest forts were usually

a square earthwork, strengthened with palisades about the

parapet. The company's agricultural system was founded upon

African slave labor. Slaves were brought from St. Domingo or

other of the West India islands. By some their employment was

viewed with alarm, because it was thought the blacks would

soon outnumber the whites, and might some day rise and

overpower them; but we find only the feeblest protest entered

against the moral wrong of slavery in any record of the time.

Negroes could work in the fields, under the burning sun, when

the whites could not. Their labor cost no more than their

maintenance. The planters easily adopted what, indeed, already

existed among their neighbors. Self-interest stilled

conscience. The new company wisely appointed Bienville

governor. Three ships brought munitions, troops, and stores of

every sort from France, with which to put new life into the

expiring colony. It was at this time (February, 1718) that

Bienville began the foundation of the destined metropolis of

Louisiana. The spot chosen by him was clearly but a fragment

of the delta which the river had been for ages silently

building of its own mud and driftwood.

{2046}

It had literally risen from the sea. Elevated only a few feet

above sea-level, threatened with frequent inundation, and in

its primitive estate a cypress swamp, it seemed little suited

for the abode of men, yet time has confirmed the wisdom of the

choice. Here, then, a hundred miles from the Gulf, on the

alluvial banks of the great river, twenty-five convicts and as

many carpenters were set to work clearing the ground and

building the humble log cabins, which were to constitute the

capital, in its infancy. The settlement was named New Orleans,

in honor of the Regent, Orleans, who ruled France during the

minority of Louis XV.

S. A. Drake,

The Making of the Great West,

pages 126-128.

ALSO IN:

A. McF. Davis,

Canada and Louisiana

(Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 5, chapter 1).

A. Thiers,

The Mississippi Bubble,

chapters 3-8.

C. Mackay,

Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions,

volume 1, chapter 1.

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720.

LOUISIANA: A. D 1719-1750.

Surrendered to the Crown.

Massacre of French by the Natchez,

and destruction of that tribe.

Unsuccessful war with the Chickasaws.

"The same prodigality and folly which prevailed in France

during the government of John Law, over credit and commerce,

found their way to his western possessions; and though the

colony then planted survived, and the city then founded became

in time what had been hoped,—it was long before the influence

of the gambling mania of 1718-19-20 passed a way. Indeed the

returns from Louisiana never repaid the cost and trouble of

protecting it, and, in 1732, the Company asked leave to

surrender their privileges to the crown, a favor which was

granted them. But though the Company of the West did little

for the enduring welfare of the Mississippi valley, it did

something; the cultivation of tobacco, indigo, rice, and silk,

was introduced, the lead mines of Missouri were opened, though

at vast expense and in hope of finding silver; and, in

Illinois, the culture of wheat began to assume some degree of

stability and of importance. In the neighborhood of the river

Kaskaskia, Charlevoix found three villages, and about Fort

Chartres, the head quarters of the Company in that region, the

French were rapidly settling. All the time, however, during

which the great monopoly lasted, was, in Louisiana, a time of

contest and trouble. The English, who, from an early period,

had opened commercial relations with the Chickasaws, through

them constantly interfered with the trade of the Mississippi.

Along the coast, from Pensacola to the Rio del Norte, Spain

disputed the claims of her northern neighbor: and at length

the war of the Natchez struck terror into the hearts of both

white and red men. Amid that nation … D'Iberville had marked

out Fort Rosalie [on the site of the present city of Natchez],

in 1700, and fourteen years later its erection had been

commenced. The French, placed in the midst of the natives, and

deeming them worthy only of contempt, increased their demands

and injuries until they required even the abandonment of the

chief town of the Natchez, that the intruders might use its

site for a plantation. The inimical Chickasaws heard the

murmurs of their wronged brethren, and breathed into their

ears counsels of vengeance; the sufferers determined on the

extermination of their tyrants. On the 28th of November, 1729,

every Frenchman in that colony died by the hands of the

natives, with the exception of two mechanics: the women and

children were spared. It was a fearful revenge, and fearfully

did the avengers suffer for their murders. Two months passed

by, and the French and Choctaws in one day took 60 of their

scalps; in three months they were driven from their country

and scattered among the neighboring tribes; and within two

years the remnants of the nation, chiefs and people, were sent

to St. Domingo and sold into slavery. So perished this ancient

and peculiar race, in the same year in which the Company of

the West yielded its grants into the royal hands. When

Louisiana came again into the charge of the government of

France, it was determined, as a first step, to strike terror

into the Chickasaws, who, devoted to the English, constantly

interfered with the trade on the Mississippi. For this purpose

the forces of New France, from New Orleans to Detroit, were

ordered to meet in the country of the inimical Indians, upon

the 10th of May, 1736, to strike a blow which should be

final." D'Artaguette, governor of Illinois, was promptly at

the rendezvous, with a large force of Indians, and a small

body of French, but Bienville, from the southern province,

proved dilatory. After waiting ten days, D'Artaguette attacked

the Chickasaws, carried two of their defenses, but fell and

was taken prisoner in the assault of a third; whereupon his

Indian allies fled. Bienville, coming up five days afterwards,

was repulsed in his turn and retreated, leaving D'Artaguette

and his captive companions to a fearful fate. "Three years

more passed away, and again a French army of nearly 4,000

white, red and black men, was gathered upon the banks of the

Mississippi, to chastise the Chickasaws. From the summer of

1739 to the spring of 1740, this body of men sickened and

wasted at Fort Assumption, upon the site of Memphis. In March

of the last named year, without a blow struck, peace was

concluded, and the province of Louisiana once more sunk into

inactivity. Of the ten years which followed we know but little

that is interesting."

J. H. Perkins,

Annals of the West,

pages 61-63.

ALSO IN:

M. Dumont,

Historical Memoirs

(French's Historical Collections of Louisiana, part 5).

C. Gayarre,

Louisiana; its Colonial History and Romance,

2d series, lectures 5-7.

S. G. Drake,

Aboriginal Races of North America,

book 4, chapter 5.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1728.

The Casket Girls.

Wives for the colonists.

"In the beginning of 1728 there came a vessel of the company

with a considerable number of young girls, who had not been

taken, like their predecessors, from houses of correction. The

company had given to each of them a casket containing some

articles of dress. From that circumstance they became known in

the colony under the nickname of the 'filles à la cassette',

or 'the casket girls.' … Subsequently, it became a matter of

importance in the colony to derive one's origin from the

casket girls, rather than from the correction girls."

C. Gayarre,

Louisiana; its Colonial History and Romance,

page 396.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1755.

Settlement of exiled Acadians.

See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1763.

East of the Mississippi, except New Orleans, ceded to

Great Britain, and west of the Mississippi, with New Orleans,

to Spain.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

{2047}

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1766-1768.

Spanish occupation and the revolt against it.

The short-lived republic of New Orleans.

"Spain accepted Louisiana [west of the Mississippi, with New

Orleans] with reluctance, for she lost France as her bulwark,

and, to keep the territory from England, assumed new expenses

and dangers. Its inhabitants loved the land of their ancestry;

by every law of nature and human freedom, they had the right

to protest against the transfer of their allegiance." Their

protests were unavailing, however, and their appeals met the

response: "France cannot bear the charge of supporting the

colony's precarious existence." In March, 1766, Antonio de

Ulloa arrived at New Orleans from Havana, to take possession

for the Spanish king. "Ulloa landed with civil officers, three

capuchin monks, and 80 soldiers. His reception was cold and

gloomy. He brought no orders to redeem the seven million

livres of French paper money, which weighed down a colony of

less than 6,000 white men. The French garrison of 300 refused

to enter the Spanish service, the people to give up their

nationality, and Ulloa was obliged to administer the

government under the French flag by the old French officers,

at the cost of Spain. In May of the same year, the Spanish

restrictive system was applied to Louisiana; in September, an

ordinance compelled French vessels having special permits to

accept the paper currency in pay for their cargoes, at an

arbitrary tariff of prices. … The ordinance was suspended,

but not till the alarm had destroyed all commerce. Ulloa

retired from New Orleans to the Balise. Only there, and

opposite Natchez, and at the river Iberville, was Spanish

jurisdiction directly exercised. This state of things

continued for a little more than two years. But the arbitrary

and passionate conduct of Ulloa, the depreciation of the

currency with the prospect of its becoming an almost total

loss, the disputes respecting the expenses incurred since the

session of 1762, the interruption of commerce, a captious

ordinance which made a private monopoly of the traffic with

the Indians, uncertainty of jurisdiction and allegiance,

agitated the colony from one end to the other. It was proposed

to make of New Orleans a republic, like Amsterdam or Venice,

with a legislative body of 40 men, and a single executive. The

people of the country parishes crowded in a mass into the

city, joined those of New Orleans, and formed a numerous

assembly, in which Lafrénière, John Milhet, Joseph Milhet, and

the lawyer Doucet were conspicuous. … On the 25th of

October, 1768, they adopted an address to the superior

council, written by Lafrénière and Caresse, rehearsing their

griefs; and, in their petition of rights, they claimed freedom

of commerce with the ports of France and America, and the

expulsion of Ulloa from the colony. The address, signed by 500

or 600 persons, was adopted the next day by the council … ;

when the French flag was displayed on the public square,

children and women ran up to kiss its folds, and it was raised

by 900 men, amid shouts of 'Long live the king of France! we

will have no king but him.' Ulloa retreated to Havana, and

sent his representations to Spain. The inhabitants elected

their own treasurer and syndics, sent envoys to Paris, … and

memorialized the French monarch to stand as intercessor

between them and the Catholic king, offering no alternative

but to be a colony of France or a free commonwealth."

G. Bancroft,

History of the United States

(Author's last revision), volume 3, pages 316-318.

ALSO IN:

M. Thompson,

Story of Louisiana,

chapter 4.

C. Gayarré,

History of Louisiana: French Domination,

volume 2, lecture 3-6.

LOUISIANA: A. D., 1769.

Spanish authority established by "Cruel O'Reilly."

"It was the fate of the Creoles—possibly a climatic

result—to be slack-handed and dilatory. Month after month

followed the October uprising without one of those incidents

that would have succeeded in the history of an earnest people.

In March, 1769, Foucault [French intendant] covertly deserted

his associates, and denounced them, by letter, to the French

cabinet. In April the Spanish frigate sailed from New Orleans.

Three intrepid men (Loyola, Gayarre, and Navarro), the

governmental staff which Ulloa had left in the province, still

remained, unmolested. Not a fort was taken, though it is

probable not one could have withstood assault. Not a spade was

struck into the ground, or an obstruction planted, at any

strategic point, throughout that whole 'Creole' spring time

which stretches in its exuberant perfection from January to

June. … One morning toward the end of July, 1769, the people

of New Orleans were brought suddenly to their feet by the news

that the Spaniards were at the mouth of the river in

overwhelming force. There was no longer any room to postpone

choice of action. Marquis, the Swiss captain, with a white

cockade in his hat (he had been the leading advocate for a

republic), and Petit, with a pistol in either hand, came out

upon the ragged, sunburnt grass of the Place d'Armes and

called upon the people to defend their liberties. About 100

men joined them; but the town was struck motionless with

dismay; the few who had gathered soon disappeared, and by the

next day the resolution of the leaders was distinctly taken,

to submit. But no one fled. … Lafrénière, Marquis, and

Milhet descended the river, appeared before the commander of

the Spaniards, and by the mouth of Lafrénière in a submissive

but brave and manly address presented the homage of the

people. The captain-general in his reply let fall the word

seditious. Marquis boldly but respectfully objected. He was

answered with gracious dignity and the assurance of ultimate

justice, and the insurgent leaders returned to New Orleans and

to their homes. The Spanish fleet numbered 24 sail. For more

than three weeks it slowly pushed its way around the bends of

the Mississippi, and on the 18th of August it finally furled

its canvas before the town. Aubry [commanding the small force

of French soldiers which had remained in the colony under

Spanish pay] drew up his French troops with the colonial

militia at the bottom of the Place d'Armes, a gun was fired

from the flagship of the fleet, and Don Alexandro O'Reilly,

accompanied by 2,600 chosen Spanish troops, and with 50 pieces

of artillery, landed in unprecedented pomp, and took formal

possession of the province. On the 21st, twelve of the

principal insurrectionists were arrested. … Villeré [a

planter, of prominence] either 'died raving mad on the day of

his arrest,' as stated in the Spanish official report, or met

his end in the act of resisting the guard on board the frigate

where he had been placed in confinement. Lafrénière [former

attorney-general and leader of the revolt], Noyan [a young

ex-captain of cavalry], Caresse [a merchant], Marquis, and

Joseph Milhet [a merchant] were condemned to be hanged.

{2048}

The supplications both of colonists and Spanish officials

saved them only from the gallows, and they fell before the

fire of a file of Spanish grenadiers." The remaining prisoners

were sent to Havana and kept in confinement for a year.

"'Cruel O'Reilly'—the captain-general was justly named. …

O'Reilly had come to set up a government, but not to remain

and govern. On organizing the cabildo [a feebly constituted

body—'like a crane, all feathers,' 'which, for the third part

of a century, ruled the pettier destinies of the Louisiana

Creoles '], he announced the appointment of Don Louis de

Unzaga, colonel of the regiment of Havana, as governor of the

province, and yielded him the chair. But under his own higher

commission of captain-general he continued for a time in

control. He established in force the laws of Castile and the

Indies and the use of the Spanish tongue in the courts and the

public offices. … Spanish rule in Louisiana was better, at

least, than French, which, it is true, scarcely deserved the

name of government. As to the laws themselves, it is worthy of

notice that Louisiana 'is at this time the only State, of the

vast territories acquired from France, Spain, and Mexico, in

which the civil law has been retained, and forms a large

portion of its jurisprudence.' On the 29th of October, 1770,

O'Reilly sailed from New Orleans with most of his troops,

leaving the Spanish power entirely and peacefully established.

The force left by him in the colony amounted to 1,200 men. He

had dealt a sudden and terrible blow; but he had followed it

only with velvet strokes."

G. W. Cable,

The Creoles of Louisiana,

chapter 10-11.

ALSO IN:

G. E. Waring, Jr., and G. W. Cable,

History and Present Condition of New Orleans

(United States Tenth Census, volume 19).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1779-1781.

Spanish reconquest of West Florida.

See FLORIDA: A. D.1779-1781.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.

The question of the

Navigation of the Mississippi, in dispute between

Spain and the United States.

Discontent of settlers in Kentucky and Tennessee.

Wilkinson's intrigues.

"Settlers in considerable numbers had crossed the mountains

into Kentucky and Tennessee while the war of Independence was

in progress. … At once it became a question of vital

importance how these people were to find avenues of commerce

with the outer world. … Immigration to the interior must

cross the mountains; but the natural highway for commerce was

the Mississippi River. If the use of this river were left

free, nothing better could be desired. Unfortunately it was

not free. The east bank of the river, as far south as the

north boundary of Florida [which included some part of the

present states of Alabama and Mississippi, but with the

northern boundary in dispute—see FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787],

was the property of the United States, but the west bank,

together with the island of Orleans, was held by Spain. That

power, while conceding to the people of the United States the

free navigation of the Mississippi as far down as the American

ownership of the left bank extended, claimed exclusive

jurisdiction below that line, and proposed to exact customs

duties from such American commerce as should pass in or out of

the mouth of the river. This pretension if yielded to would

place all that commerce at the mercy of Spain, and render not

merely the navigation of the river of little value, but the

very land from which the commerce sprung. It was inconceivable

that such pretensions should be tolerated if successful

resistance were possible, but the settlers were able to combat

it on two grounds, either of which seemed, according to

recognized rules of international law, conclusive. First, As

citizens of the country owning one of the banks on the upper

portion of the stream, they claimed the free navigation to the

sea with the privilege of a landing place at its mouth as a

natural right; and they were able to fortify this claim—if it

needed support—with the opinions of publicists of

acknowledged authority. Second, They claimed under the treaty

of 1763 between Great Britain and France, whereby the latter,

then the owner of Louisiana, had conceded to the former the

free navigation of the Mississippi in its whole breadth and

length, with passage in and out of its mouth, subject to the

payment of no duty whatsoever. … Thus both in natural right

and by treaty concession the claim of the American settlers

seemed incontrovertible, and perhaps it may fairly be said

that the whole country agreed in this view. When Mr. Jay,

while the war of independence was still in progress, was sent

to Spain to negotiate a treaty of amity and assistance, he was

specially charged with the duty to see that the free

navigation of the Mississippi was conceded. All his endeavors

to that end, however, resulted in failure, and he was

compelled to return home with the American claim still

disputed. In 1785 the negotiation was transferred to this

country, and Mr. Jay renewed his effort to obtain concessions,

but without avail. The tenacity with which Spain held to its

claim was so persistent that Congress in its anxiety to obtain

a treaty of commerce finally instructed Mr. Jay on its behalf

to consent that for twenty-five years the United States should

forbear to claim the right in dispute. The instruction was

given by the vote of the seven Northern States against a

united South; and the action was so distinctly sectional as to

threaten the stability of the Union. … In the West the

feeling of dissatisfaction was most intense and

uncompromising. The settlers of Kentucky already deemed

themselves sufficiently numerous and powerful to be entitled

to set up a state government of their own, and to have a voice

in the councils of the Confederation. … In Tennessee as well

as in Kentucky settlements had been going on rapidly; and

perhaps in the former even more distinctly than in the latter

a growing indifference to the national bond was manifest. …

One of the difficult questions which confronted the new

government, formed under the Federal constitution, was how to

deal with this feeling and control or remove it. Spanish

levies on American commerce were in some cases almost

prohibitory, reaching fifty or seventy-five per cent. ad

valorem, and it was quite out of the question that hardy

backwoodsmen trained to arms should for any considerable time

submit to pay them. If the national government failed to

secure their rights by diplomacy, they would seek redress in

such other way as might be open to them. … Among the most

prominent of the Kentucky settlers was General James

Wilkinson, who had gone there as a merchant in 1784. He was

shortly found advocating, though somewhat covertly, the

setting up of an independent State Government.

{2049}

In 1787 he opened trade with New Orleans, and endeavored to

impress upon the Spanish authorities the importance of an

amicable understanding with the settlers in the Ohio valley.

His representations for a time had considerable effect, and

the trade was not only relieved of oppressive burdens, but

Americans were invited to make settlements within Spanish

limits in Louisiana and West Florida. A considerable

settlement was actually made at New Madrid under this

invitation. But there is no reason to believe that genuine

good feeling inspired this policy; the purpose plainly in view

was to build up a Spanish party among the American settlers

and eventually to detach them from the United States. But the

course pursued was variable, being characterized in turn by

liberality and by rigor. Wilkinson appears to have been

allowed special privileges in trade, and this, together with

the fact that he was known to receive a heavy remittance from

New Orleans, begat a suspicion that he was under Spanish pay;

a suspicion from which he was never wholly relieved, and which

probably to some extent affected the judgment of men when he

came under further suspicion in consequence of equivocal

relations with Aaron Burr. In 1789 a British emissary made his

appearance in Kentucky, whose mission seemed to be to sound

the sentiments of the people respecting union with Canada. He

came at a bad time for his purposes; for the feeling of the

country against Great Britain was then at its height, and was

particularly strong in the West, where the failure to deliver

up the posts within American limits was known to have been

influential in encouraging Indian hostilities. The British

agent, therefore, met with anything but friendly reception.

… Meantime Spain had become so far complicated in European

wars as to be solicitous regarding the preservation of her own

American possessions, then bordered by a hostile people, and

at her suggestion an envoy was sent by the United States to

Madrid, with whom in October 1795 a treaty was made, whereby

among other things it was agreed that Spain should permit the

people of the United States for the term of three years to

make use of the port of New Orleans as a place of deposit for

their produce and merchandise, and to export the same free

from all duty or charge except for storage and incidental

expenses. At the end of the three years the treaty

contemplated further negotiations, and it was hoped by the

American authorities that a decisive step had been taken

towards the complete recognition of American claims. The

treaty, however, was far from satisfying the people of

Kentucky and Tennessee, who looked upon the assent of Spain to

it as a mere makeshift for the protection of her territory

from invasion. Projects for taking forcible possession of the

mouth of the Mississippi continued therefore to be agitated.

… The schemes of Don Francisco de Miranda for the overthrow

of Spanish authority in America now became important. Miranda

was of Spanish-American birth, and had been in the United

States while the war of Independence was pending and formed

acquaintance among the American officers. Conceiving the idea

of liberating the Spanish colonies, he sought assistance from

England and Russia, but when the French Revolution occurred he

enlisted in the French service and for a time held important

military positions. Driven from France in 1797 he took up his

old scheme again: looking now to England and America for the

necessary assistance. Several leading American statesmen were

approached on the subject, Hamilton among them; and while the

relations between France and the United States seemed likely

to result in war, that great man, who had no fear of evils

likely to result from the extension of territory, listened

with approval to the project of a combined attack by British

and American forces on the Spanish Colonies, and would have

been willing, with the approval of the government, to

personally take part in it. President Adams, however, frowned

upon the scheme, and it was necessarily but with great

reluctance abandoned. And now occurred an event of highest

interest to the people of the United States. Spain, aware of

her precarious hold upon Louisiana, in 1800 retroceded it to

France."

T. M. Cooley,

The Acquisition of Louisiana

(Indiana Historical Society Pamphlets, no. 3).

ALSO IN:

W. H. Safford,

The Blennerhassett Papers,

chapter 5.

H. Marshall,

History of Kentucky,

volume 1, chapters 12-15.

J. H. Monette,

Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi,

book 5, chapter 6 (volume 2).

J. M. Brown,

The Political Beginnings of Kentucky.

T. M. Green,

The Spanish Conspiracy.

LOUISIANA: D. 1798-1803.

The last days of Spanish rule.

The great domain transferred to France,

and sold by Napoleon to the United States.

The bounds of the purchase.

"During the years 1796-97 the Spanish authorities exhausted

every means for delaying a confirmation of the boundary line

as set forth in the treaty of 1783. By one pretext and

another, they avoided the surrender of the Natchez territory

and continued to hold the military posts therein. Not until

the 23d of March, 1798, was the final step taken by which the

Federal Government was permitted to occupy in full the

province of Mississippi. … Soon after this we find the newly

made territory of Mississippi occupied by a Federal force,

and, strange to say, with General Wilkinson in command. The

man who but lately had been playing the rôle of traitor, spy,

insurrectionist and smuggler, was now chief commander on the

border and was building a fort at Loftus Heights just above

the boundary line. The new governor of Louisiana [Gayoso de

Lemos], seeing the hope of detaching Kentucky and Tennessee

fall dead at his feet, finally turned back to the old policy

of restricting immigration and of discriminating against

Protestants. By the treaty signed at Madrid in 1795, it had

been stipulated that the citizens of the United States should

not only have free navigation of the Mississippi River, but

that they should also have the right to deposit in New Orleans

all their produce during the space of three years. This limit,

it was agreed, was to be extended by the Spanish Government,

or, instead of an extension of time, a new point on the island

of New Orleans was to be designated for depot. But at the

expiration of the three years Morales, the Spanish intendant

at New Orleans, declined to permit further deposits there, and

refused to designate another place in accordance with the

stipulation. This action aroused the people of the West; a

storm of resentment broke forth and the government of the

United States was forced to make a threatening demonstration

in the direction of Louisiana.

{2050}

Three regiments of the regular army were at once dispatched to

the Ohio. The people flew to arms. Invasion appeared

imminent." But the Spanish authorities gave way, and a new

intendant at New Orleans "received from his Government orders

to remove the interdict issued by Gayoso and to restore to the

Western people the right of deposit at New Orleans. These

orders he promptly obeyed, thus reviving good feelings between

his province and the United States. Trade revived; immigration

increased. … The deluge of immigration startled the

Spaniards. They saw to what it was swiftly tending. A few more

years and this tide would rise too high to be resisted and

Louisiana would be lost to the king, lost to the holy

religion, given over to freedom, republicanism and ruin. …

On the 18th of July … [1802] the king ordered that no more

grants of land be given to citizens of the United States. This

effectually killed the commerce of the Mississippi River, and

the indignation of the Western people knew no bounds. …

Rumors, apparently well founded, were afloat that the

irresistible genius of Napoleon was wringing the province from

Spain and that this meant a division of the territories

between France and the United States. To a large majority of

Louisiana's population these were thrillingly welcome rumors.

The very thought of once more becoming the subjects of France

was enough to intoxicate them with delight. The treaty of

Ildefonso, however, which had been ratified at Madrid on the

21st of March, 1801, had been kept a secret. Napoleon had

hoped to occupy Louisiana with a strong army, consisting of

25,000 men, together with a fleet to guard the coast; but his

implacable and ever watchful foe, England, discovered his

design and thwarted it. But by the terms of the treaty, the

colony and province of Louisiana had gone into his hands. He

must take possession and hold it, or he must see England

become its master. Pressed on every side at that time by wars

and political complications and well understanding that it

would endanger his power for him to undertake a grand American

enterprise, he gladly opened negotiations with the United

States looking to the cession of Louisiana to that Government.

… Napoleon had agreed with Spain that Louisiana should not

be ceded to any other power. … Diplomacy very quickly

surmounted so small an obstacle. … The treaty of cession was

signed on the 30th of April, 1803, the United States agreeing

to pay France 60,000,000 francs as the purchase price of the

territory. … In addition, the sum due American citizens …

was assumed by the United States. The treaty of April was

ratified by Napoleon in May, 1803, and by the Senate of the

United States in October. … Pausing to glance at this

strange transaction, by which one republic sells outright to

another republic a whole country without in the least

consulting the wishes of the inhabitants, whose allegiance and

all of whose political and civil rights are changed thereby,

we are tempted to wonder if the republic of the United States

could to-day sell Louisiana with the same impunity that

attended the purchase! She bought the country and its people,

just as she might have bought a desert island with its goats."

M. Thompson,

The Story of Louisiana,

chapter 6, with foot-note.

"No one could say what was the southwest boundary of the

territory acquired; whether it should be the Sabine or the Rio

del Norte; and a controversy with Spain on the subject might

at any time arise. The northwest boundary was also somewhat

vague and uncertain, and would be open to controversy with

Great Britain. [That] the territory extended west to the Rocky

Mountains was not questioned, but it might be claimed that it

extended to the Pacific. An impression that it did so extend

has since prevailed in some quarters, and in some public

papers and documents it has been assumed as an undoubted fact.

But neither Mr. Jefferson nor the French, whose right he

purchased, ever claimed for Louisiana any such extent, and our

title to Oregon has been safely deduced from other sources.

Mr. Jefferson said expressly: 'To the waters of the Pacific we

can found no claim in right of Louisiana.'"

Judge T. M. Cooley,

The Acquisition of Louisiana

(Indiana History Society Pamphlets, number 3).

"By the charter of Louis XIV., the country purchased to the

north included all that was contiguous to the waters that

flowed into the Mississippi. Consequently its northern

boundary was the summit of the highlands in which its northern

waters rise. By the tenth article of the treaty of Utrecht,

France and England agreed to appoint commissioners to settle

the boundary, and these commissioners, as such boundary,

marked this summit on the 49th parallel of north latitude.

This would not carry the rights of the United States beyond

the Rocky Mountains. The claim to the territory beyond was

based upon the principle of continuity, the prolongation of

the territory to the adjacent great body of water. As against

Great Britain, the claim was founded on the treaty of 1763,

between France and Great Britain, by which the latter power

ceded to the former all its rights west of the Mississippi

River. The United States succeeded to all the rights of

France. Besides this, there was an independent claim created

by the discovery of the Columbia River by Gray, in 1792, and

its exploration by Lewis and Clarke. All this was added to by

the cession by Spain, in 1819, of any title that it had to all

territory north of the 42d degree."

Rt. Rev. C. F. Robertson,

The Louisiana Purchase

(Papers of American Historical Association,

volume 1, page 259).

As its southwestern and southeastern boundaries were

eventually settled by treaty with Spain [see FLORIDA: A. D.

1819-1821], the Louisiana purchase embraced 2,300 square miles

in the present state of Alabama, west of the Perdido and on

the gulf, below latitude 31° north; 3,600 square miles in the

present state of Mississippi, south of the same latitude; the

whole of the present states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri,

Iowa, Nebraska, and the Dakotas; Minnesota, west of the

Mississippi; Kansas, all but the southwest corner; the whole

of the Indian Territory, and so much of Colorado, Wyoming, and

Montana as lies on the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains.

If it is held that the French claim was good to the Pacific,

then we may say that we owe the remainder of Montana, with

Idaho, Oregon and Washington to the same great purchase.

T. Donaldson,

The Public Domain,

page 105.

On the constitutional and political aspects of the Louisiana

purchase,

See UNITED STATES: A. D. 1803.

Detailed accounts of the interesting circumstances and

incidents connected with the negotiation at Paris will be

found in the following works:—

H. Adams,

History of the United States:

First Administration of Jefferson;

volume 2, chapters 1-3.

D. O. Gilman,

James Monroe,

chapter 4.

B. Marbois,

History of Louisiana,

part 2.

American State Papers: Foreign Relations,

volume 2, pages 506-583.

{2051}

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1805.

Lewis and Clark's exploration

of the northwestern region of the purchase, to the Pacific.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1812.

The purchase divided into

the Territories of Orleans and Louisiana.

The first named becomes the State of Louisiana;

the second becomes the Territory of Missouri.

"On the 26th of March, 1804, Congress passed an act dividing

the province into two parts on the 33d parallel of latitude,

the present northern boundary of Louisiana, and establishing

for the lower portion a distinct territorial government, under

the title of the territory of Orleans. The act was to go into

effect in the following October. One of its provisions was the

interdiction of the slave-trade. … The labors of the

legislative council began on the 4th of December. A charter of

incorporation was given by it to the city of New Orleans."

G: E. Waring, Jr., and G. W. Cable,

History and Present Condition of New Orleans

(United States Tenth Census, volume 19). pages 32-33.

"All north of the 33d parallel of north latitude was formed

into a district, and styled the District of Louisiana. For

judicial and administrative purposes this district, or upper

Louisiana as we shall continue to call it, was attached to the

territory of Indiana." But in March, 1805, Congress passed an

act "which erected the district into a territory of the first

or lowest grade, and changed its title from the District to

the Territory of Louisiana." Seven years later, in June 1812,

the Territory of Orleans (the lower Louisiana of old) having

been received into the federal Union as the State of

Louisiana, the territory which bore the ancient name was

advanced by act of Congress "from the first to the second

grade of territories, and its name changed to Missouri."

L. Carr,

Missouri,

chapter 5.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1806-1807.

Burr's Filibustering conspiracy.

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

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1812.

The Territory of Orleans admitted to the Union as

the State of Louisiana.

"The population of the Territory of Orleans had been augmented

annually by emigration from the United States. According to

the census of 1810, the whole territory, exclusive of the

Florida parishes, contained an aggregate of 76,550 souls. Of

this number, the city of New Orleans and its precincts

contained 24,552 persons, leaving 52,000 souls for the

remainder of the territory. Besides these, the inhabitants of

the Florida parishes amounted, probably, to not less than

2,500, including slaves. … Congress, by an act approved

February 11th, 1811, … authorized the election of a

convention to adopt a Constitution, preparatory to the

admission of the Territory into the Union as an independent

state. The convention, consisting of 60 delegates from the

original parishes, met according to law, on the first Monday

in November, and concluded its labors on the 22d day of

January following, having adopted a Constitution for the

proposed new 'State of Louisiana.' … The Constitution was

accepted by Congress, and the State of Louisiana was formally

admitted into the Union on the 8th day of April, 1812, upon an

equal footing with the original states, from and after the

30th day of April, it being the ninth anniversary of the

treaty of Paris. A few days subsequently, a 'supplemental act'

of Congress extended the limits of the new state by the

addition of the Florida parishes.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

This gave it the boundaries it has at present."

J. W. Monette,

Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi,

book 5, chapter 15 (volume 2).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1813-1814.

The Creek War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1815.

Jackson's defense of New Orleans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1815 (JANUARY).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1861 (January).

Secession from the Union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1862 (April).

Farragut's capture of New Orleans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

LOUISIANA: A. D.1862 (May-December).

New Orleans under General Butler.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (MAY-DECEMBER: LOUISIANA).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1862 (June).

Appointment of a Military Governor.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (MARCH-JUNE).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1864.

Reconstruction of the state under President Lincoln's plan.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1864.

The Red River Expedition.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865.

President Johnson's recognition of the reconstructed state

government.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865-1867.

The first Reconstruction experiment.

The Riot at New Orleans.

Establishment of military rule.

"In 1865 the returned Confederates, restored to citizenship by

the President's amnesty proclamation soon got control of

almost all the State [as reorganized under the constitution

framed and adopted in 1864].

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

The Legislature was in their hands, as well as most of the

State and municipal offices; so, when the President, on the

20th of August, 1866, by proclamation, extended his previous

instructions regarding civil affairs in Texas so as to have

them apply to all the seceded States, there at once began in

Louisiana a system of discriminative legislation directed

against the freedmen, that led to flagrant wrongs in the

enforcement of labor contracts, and in the remote parishes to

numbers of outrages and murders. To remedy this deplorable

condition of things, it was proposed, by those who had

established the government of 1864, to remodel the

constitution of the State; and they sought to do this by

reassembling the convention, that body before its adjournment

having provided for reconvening under certain conditions, in

obedience to the call of its president. Therefore, early in

the summer of 1866, many members of this convention met in

conference at New Orleans, and decided that a necessity

existed for reconvening the delegates, and a proclamation was

issued accordingly by B. K. Howell, President pro tempore.

{2052}

Mayor John T. Monroe and the other officials of New Orleans

looked upon this proposed action as revolutionary, and by the

time the convention assembled (July 30) such bitterness of

feeling prevailed that efforts were made by the mayor and city

police to suppress the meeting. A bloody riot followed,

resulting in the killing and wounding of about 160 persons. I

happened [the writer is General Sheridan, then in command of

the Military Division of the Gulf] to be absent from the city

at the time, returning from Texas, where I had been called by

affairs on the Rio Grande. On my way up from the mouth of the

Mississippi I was met on the night of July 30 by one of my

staff, who reported what had occurred, giving the details of

the massacre—no milder term is fitting—and informing me

that, to prevent further slaughter, General Baird, the senior

military officer present, had assumed control of the municipal

government. On reaching the city I made an investigation, and

that night sent [a brief report, which was followed, on the

6th of August, by an extended account of the facts of the

riot, containing the following statements]: … 'The

convention assembled at 12 M. on the 30th, the timid members

absenting themselves because the tone of the general public

was ominous of trouble. … About 1 P. M. a procession of say

from 60 to 130 colored men marched up Burgundy Street and

across Canal Street toward the convention, carrying an

American flag. These men had about one pistol to every ten

men, and canes and clubs in addition. While crossing Canal

Street a row occurred. … On arrival at the front of the

Institute [where the convention was held] there was some

throwing of brickbats by both sides. The police, who had been

held well in hand, were vigorously marched to the scene of

disorder. The procession entered the Institute with the flag,

about 6 or 8 remaining outside. A row occurred between a

policeman and one of these colored mob, and a shot was again

fired by one of the parties, which led to an indiscriminate

fire on the building through the windows by the policemen.

This had been going on for a short time, when a white flag was

displayed from the windows of the Institute, whereupon the

firing ceased, and the police rushed into the building. From

the testimony of wounded men, and others who were inside the

building, the policemen opened an indiscriminate fire upon the

audience until they had emptied their revolvers, when they

retired, and those inside barricaded the doors. The door was

broken in, and the firing again commenced, when many of the

colored and white people either escaped throughout the door or

were passed out by the policemen inside; but as they came out

the policemen who formed the circle nearest the building fired

upon them, and they were again fired upon by the citizens that

formed the outer circle. Many of those wounded and taken

prisoners, and others who were prisoners and not wounded, were

fired upon by their captors and by citizens. The wounded were

stabbed while lying on the ground, and their heads beaten with

brickbats. … Some were killed and wounded several squares

from the scene.' … Subsequently a military commission

investigated the subject of the riot, taking a great deal of

testimony. The commission substantially confirmed the

conclusions given in my despatches, and still later there as

an investigation by a select committee of the House of

Representatives. … A list of the killed and wounded was

embraced in the committee's report, and among other

conclusions reached were the following: … 'This riotous

attack upon the convention, with its terrible results of

massacre and murder, was not an accident. It was the

determined purpose of the mayor of the city of New Orleans to

break up this convention by armed force.' … The committee

held that no legal government existed in Louisiana, and

recommended the temporary establishment of a provisional

government therein." In the following March the Military

Reconstruction Acts were passed by Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1867 (MARCH).

General Sheridan was assigned to the command of the fifth

military district therein defined, consisting of Louisiana and

Texas.

P. H. Sheridan,

Personal Memoirs,

volume 2, chapters 10-11.

ALSO IN:

Report of Select Committee on New Orleans Riot,

39th Congress, 2d Session, H. R. Report, Number 16.

LOUISIANA: A. D. 1868.

Reconstruction complete.

Restored representation in Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868-1870.

----------LOUISIANA: End----------

LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY:

Threatened by the Rebel Army under Bragg.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

----------LOUVAIN: Start--------

LOUVAIN: A. D. 1635.

Unsuccessful siege by the French.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

LOUVAIN: A. D. 1706.

Taken by Marlborough and the Allies.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

----------LOUVAIN: End--------

LOUVAIN, Battle of.

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

LOUVRE, The.

"The early history of the Louvre is involved in great

obscurity. The name of its founder and the period of its

erection are alike unknown; the first notice of it we meet

with upon record is in the 7th century, when Dagobert kept

here his horses and hounds. The kings [Merovingeans] called

'fainéans' often visited it, when after dinner they rode in a

sort of coach through the forest, which covered this side of

the river, and in the evening returned in a boat, fishing by

the way, to the city, where they supped and slept. There is no

mention of this royal dwelling under the second, nor even

under the third race of kings, till the reign of Philip

Augustus. About the year 1204, that prince converted it into a

kind of citadel, surrounded with wide ditches and flanked with

towers. … The walls erected by Philip Augustus did not take

in the Louvre, but after having remained outside of Paris more

than six centuries, it was enclosed by the walls begun in

1367, under Charles V., and finished in 1383, under Charles

VI. … Charles IX., Henry III., Henry IV., and Louis XIII.,

inhabited the Louvre and added to its buildings. Nothing

remains of the old château of Philip Augustus, which Charles

V. repaired; the most ancient part now in existence is that

called 'le Vieux Louvre,' begun by Francis I. in 1539, and

finished by Henry II. in 1548."

History of Paris

(London, 1827), chapter 2 (volume 2).

{2053}

The origin of the word Louvre is believed to be a Saxon word,

'Leowar' or 'Lower,' which meant a fortified camp. … Francis

I. did little more than decide the fate of the old Louvre by

introducing the new fashion. His successors went on with the

work; and the progress of it may be followed, reign after

reign, till the last visible fragment of the Gothic castle had

been ruthlessly carted away. … Vast as is the Louvre that we

know, it is as nothing in comparison with the prodigious

scheme imagined by Richelieu and Louis XIII.; a scheme which,

though never carried out, gave a very strong impulse to the

works, and ensured the completion of the present building, at

least in a subsequent reign. … Happily for the Louvre Louis

XIV. interested himself in it before he engulfed his millions

at Marly and Versailles. … The sums of money expended on the

Louvre and Tuileries defy all calculation. … The greatest

spender on these palaces was Napoleon III."

P. G. Hamerton.

Paris in Old and Present Times,

chapter 6.

LOVERS, War of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

LOW CHURCH.

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

LOW COUNTRIES, The.

See NETHERLANDS.

LOWLANDS OF SCOTLAND.

See SCOTCH HIGHLAND and LOWLAND.

LOWOSITZ, OR LOBOSITZ, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.

LOYALISTS, American.

See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

LOYOLA, and the founding of the Order of Jesus.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1540-1556.

----------LUBECK: Start--------

LUBECK:

Origin and rise.

"Near the mouth of the river Trave there had long existed a

small settlement of pirates or fishermen. The convenience of

the harbour had led to this settlement and it had been much

frequented by Christian merchants. The unsettled state of the

country, however, afforded them little security, and it had

been often taken and plundered by the Pagan freebooters. When

Henry acquired the dominion of the soil [Henry the Lion, Duke

of Saxony, who subdued the heathen Wendish tribe of the

Oborites, A. D. 1165, and added their country to his

dominions] he paid particular attention to this infant

establishment, and under the shadow of his power the city of

Lubeck (for so it became) arose on a broad and permanent

basis. He made it … the seat of a bishop; he also

established a mint and a custom-house, and by the grant of a

municipal government, he secured the personal, while he

prepared the way for the political, rights of its burghers.

The ancient name of the harbour was Wisby, and by a

proclamation addressed to the Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, and

Russians, he invited them to frequent it, with an assurance

that the ways should be open and secure by land and water. …

This judicious policy was rewarded by a rapid and large

increase to the wealth and commerce of Lubeck."

Sir A. Halliday,

Annals of the House of Hanover,

volume 1, pages 229-230.

See, also, HANSA TOWNS.

LUBECK: A. D. 1801-1803.

One of six free cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

LUBECK: A. D. 1806.

Battle of French and Prussians.

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

LUBECK: A. D. 1810.

Annexation to France.

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

LUBECK: A. D. 1810-1815.

Loss and recovery of autonomy as a "free city."

See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;

and VIENNA, CONGRESS OF.

LUBECK: A. D. 1866.

Surrender of free privileges.

Entrance into the Zollverein.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1888.

----------LUBECK: End--------

LUBECK, Treaty of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

LUCANIANS, The.

See SABINES; also, SAMNITES.

----------LUCCA: Start--------

LUCCA:

The founding of the city.

See MUTINA AND PARMA.

LUCCA: 8th Century.

The seat of Tuscan government.

See TUSCANY: A. D. 685-1115.

LUCCA: A. D. 1248-1278.

In the wars of the Guelfs and Ghibellines.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

LUCCA: A. D. 1284-1293.

War with Pisa.

See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

LUCCA: A. D. 1314-1328.

The brief tyranny of Uguccione della Faggiuola,

and the longer despotism of Castruccio Castracani.

Erected into an imperial duchy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

LUCCA: A. D. 1335-1341.

Acquired by Mastino della Scala of Verona.

Sold to Florence.

Taken by Pisa.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1341-1343.

LUCCA: A. D. 1805.

Conferred on the sister of Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

LUCCA: A. D. 1814-1860.

After the fall of Napoleon Lucca was briefly occupied by the

Neapolitans; then, in the new arrangements, figured for some

time as a distinct duchy; afterwards became part of Tuscany,

until its absorption in the kingdom of Italy.

----------LUCCA: End--------

LUCENA, Battle of (1483).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

LUCERES, The.

See ROME: BEGINNING AND NAME.

LUCHANA, Battle of (1836).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.

LUCIUS II., Pope, A. D. 1144-1145.

Lucius III., Pope, 1181-1185.

LUCKA, Battle of (1308).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

LUCKNOW, The siege of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1857 (MAY-AUGUST),

and 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

LUCOTECIA.

See LUTETIA.

LUD.

Ancient Lydia.

LUDDITES, Rioting of the.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1813.

LUDI.

LUDI CIRCENSES, ETC.

"Public games (Ludi) formed an important feature in the

worship of the gods [in ancient Rome], and in the earlier ages

were always regarded as religious rites; so that the words

Ludi, Feriae and Dies Festi are frequently employed as

synonymous. Games celebrated every year upon a fixed day were

denominated Ludi Stati. Such were the Ludi Romani s. Magni,

held invariably on the 21st of September; the Megalesia on 4th

April; the Floralia on 28th April, and many others. …

Another classification of Ludi was derived from the place

where they were exhibited and the nature of the exhibition …

1. Ludi Circenses, chariot races and other games exhibited in

a circus.

2. Ludi Scenici, dramatic entertainments exhibited in a

theatre.

3. Munera Gladiatoria, prize-fights, which were usually

exhibited in an amphitheatre."

W. Ramsay,

Manual of Roman Antiquity,

chapter 10.

{2054}

LUDI MAXIMI ROMANI.

See ROMAN CITY FESTIVAL.

LUDI SÆCULARES, The.

See SECULAR GAMES.

LUDOVICO (called Il Moro),

Duke of Milan, A. D. 1494-1500.

LUDWIG.

See LOUIS.

LUGDUNENSIS AND LUGDUNUM.

See LYONS: UNDER THE ROMANS.

LUGUVALLIUM.

The Roman military station at the western extremity of the

Roman wall in Britain; the site of the modern city of

Carlisle.

H. M. Scarth,

Roman Britain,

chapter 8.

LUITPERTUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 700-701.

LUKETIA.

See LUTETIA.

LUNA: Destruction by the Northmen.

See NORMANS: A. D. 849-860.

LUND, Battle of (1676).

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

LUNDY, Benjamin, and the rise of the Abolitionists.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.

LUNDY'S LANE, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

LUNEBURG, Duchy of.

See SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY;

and A. D. 1178-1183.

LUNEBURG HEATH, Battle of (A. D. 880).

See EBBSDORF.

LUNEVILLE, The Treaty of (1801).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

LUPERCAL.

LUPERCALIA.

The Lupercal was the wolf cave in which, according to Roman

legend, the twins, Romulus and Remus, were nursed by a

she-wolf. It was supposed to be situated at the foot of the

Palatine Hill. "The Lupercal is described by Dionysius as

having once been a large grotto, shaded with thick bushes and

large trees, and containing a copious spring of water. This

grotto was dedicated to Lupercus, an ancient Latin pastoral

divinity, who was worshipped by shepherds as the protector of

their flocks against wolves. A festival was held every year,

on the 15th of February, in the Lupercal, in honour of

Lupercus; the place contained an altar and a grove sacred to

the god. … Gibbon tells us the festival of the Lupercalia,

whose origin had preceded the foundation of Rome, was still

celebrated in the reign of Anthemus, 472 A.D."

H. M. Westropp,

Early and Imperial Rome,

page 35.

"At the Lupercalia youths ran through the streets dressed

in goats' skins, beating all those they met with

strips of goats' leather."

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 1, chapter 13.

LURIS.

See GYPSIES.

LUSIGNAN, House of.

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187, 1192-1229, and 1291;

also, CYPRUS: A. D. 1191, and 1192-1489.

LUSITANIA.

LUSITANIANS.

The Lusitani or Lusitanians were the people who resisted the

Roman conquest of Spain most obstinately—with even more

resolution than their neighbors and kinsmen, the Celtiberians.

In 153 B. C. they defeated a Roman army, which lost 6,000 men.

The following year they inflicted another defeat, on the

prætor Mummius, who lost 9,000 of his soldiers. Again, in 151,

the prætor Galba suffered a loss of 7,000 men at their hands.

But, in 150, Galba ravaged the Lusitanian country so

effectually that they sued for peace. Pretending to arrange

terms of friendship with them, this infamous Roman persuaded

three large bands of the Lusitanians to lay down their arms,

which being done he surrounded them with his troops and

massacred them in cold blood. One of the few who escaped was a

man named Viriathus, who became thenceforth the leader of his

surviving countrymen in a guerrilla warfare which lasted for

ten years, and which cost the Romans thousands of men. In the

end they could not vanquish Viriathus, but basely bribed some

traitors in his own camp to murder him. The Roman province

which was afterwards formed out of the country of the

Lusitanians, and which took their name, has been mistakenly

identified with the modern kingdom of Portugal, which it

coincided with only in part.

W. Ihne,

History of Rome,

book 5, chapter 6 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

H. M. Stephens,

The Story of Portugal,

chapter 1.

See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

On the settlement of the Alans,

See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

LUSTRUM.

After the [Roman] Censors had concluded the various duties

committed to their charge, they proceeded in the last place to

offer up, on behalf of the whole Roman people, the great

expiatory sacrifice called Lustrum, and this being offered up

once only in the space of five years, the term Lustrum is

frequently employed to denote that space of time. … On the

day fixed, the whole body of the people were summoned to

assemble in the Campus Martius in martial order (exercitus)

ranked according to their Classes and Centuries, horse and

foot. The victims, consisting of a sow, a sheep, and a bull,

whence the sacrifice was termed Suovetaurilia, before being

led to the altar, were carried thrice round the multitude, who

were then held to be purified and absolved from sin, and while

the immolation took place the Censor recited a set form of

prayer for the preservation and aggrandizement of the Roman

State."

W. Ramsay,

Manual of Roman Antiquity,

chapter 5.

LUTETIA,

LUKETIA,

LUCOTECIA.

The beginning of the great city of Paris was represented by a

small town named as above—the stronghold of the Gallic people

called the Parisii—built on one of the islands in the Seine

which Paris now covers and surrounds.

See PARIS, BEGINNING OF.

LUTHER, Martin, and the Reformation.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, 1517, 1517-1521,

1521-1522, 1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531;

also, GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

LUTHER: On Education.

See EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE: GERMANY.

LUTTER, Battle of (1626).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.

LÜTZEN, Battle of (1632).

Death of Gustavus Adolphus.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

LÜTZEN, OR GROSS GÖRSCHEN, Battle of (1813).

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

LUXEMBURG, The House of:

Its aggrandizement in the Empire, in Bohemia, Hungary,

and Brandenburg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1308-1313, and 1347-1493;

also, HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442;

and BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168=1417.

----------LUXEMBURG: Start--------

{2055}

LUXEMBURG: A. D. 1713.

Ceded to Holland.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

LUXEMBURG: A. D. 1795.

Siege and capture by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

LUXEMBURG: A. D. 1867.

Separated from Germany and formed into a neutral state.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866-1870.

----------LUXEMBURG: End--------

LUZZARA, Battle of (1702).

See ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713.

LYCEUM, The Athenian.

See ACADEMY, THE ATHENIAN;

and GYMNASIA, GREEK;

also, relative to the suppression of the Lyceum,

see ATHENS: A. D. 529.

LYCIAN LEAGUE, The.

"Probably the best constructed Federal Government that the

ancient world beheld. The account given by Strabo, our sole

authority, is so full, clear, and brief, that I cannot do

better than translate it. The 'ancestral constitution of the

Lykian League' is described by the great geographer in these

words: 'There are three and twenty cities which have a share

in the suffrage, and they come together from each city in the

common Federal Assembly, choosing for their place of meeting

any city which they think best. And, among the cities, the

greatest are possessed of three votes apiece, the middle ones

of two, and the rest of one; and in the same proportion they

pay taxes, and take their share of other public burthens. …

And, in the Federal Assembly, first the Lykiarch is chosen and

then the other Magistrates of the League, and bodies of

Federal Judges are appointed; and formerly they used to

consult about war, and peace, and alliance; this now, of

course, they cannot do, but these things must needs rest with

the Romans.' … On the practical working of this constitution

Strabo bestows the highest praise. Lykia was, in his day, a

Roman dependency, but it retained its own laws and internal

government."

E. A. Freeman,

History of Federal Government,

chapter 4, section 4.

LYCIANS, The.

The people who occupied in ancient times the extreme southern

peninsula of Asia Minor. "The ancients knew of no unmixed

population in this district. The Phœnicians explored the

Lycian Taurus as well as the Cilician; and by land also

Semitic tribes seem to have immigrated out of Syria and

Cilicia; and these tribes formed the tribe of the Solymi.

Another influx of population was conducted to this coast by

means of the Rhodian chain of islands: men of Crete came

across, who called themselves Termili or Trameli, and

venerated Sarpedon as their Hero. After an arduous struggle,

they gradually made themselves masters of the land encircled

by sea and rock. … From the mouth of the Xanthus the Cretans

entered the land. There Leto had first found a hospitable

reception; in Patara, near by, arose the first great temple of

Apollo, the god of light, or Lycius, with the worship of whom

the inhabitants of the land became subsequently to such a

degree identified as to receive themselves from the Greeks on

whose coasts they landed the same name as the god, viz.,

Lycians. … We know that the Lycians, in courage and

knowledge of the sea fully the equals of the most seafaring

nation of the Archipelago, from a desire of an orderly

political life, renounced at an early period the public

practice of piracy, which their neighbours in Pisidia and

Cilicia never relinquished. Their patriotism they proved in

heroic struggles, and in the quiet of home developed a greater

refinement of manners, to which the special honour in which

they held the female sex bears marked testimony."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

LYCURGUS, Constitution of.

See SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION.

LYDIANS, The.

"On the western coast of Asia Minor the nation of the Lydians,

which possessed the vallies of the Hermus and Mæander, had

early arrived at a monarchy and a point of civilization far in

advance of the stages of primitive life. … When the Greeks

forced the Phenicians from the islands of the Ægean sea, and

then, about the end of the eleventh and beginning of the tenth

century, B. C., landed on the western coast of Asia Minor, the

Lydians were not able any more than the Teucrians and Mysians

in the North, or the Carians in the South, to prevent the

establishment of the Greeks on their coasts, the loss of the

ancient native sanctuaries at Smyrna, Colophon, Ephesus, and

the founding of Greek cities in their land on the mouths of

the Lydian rivers, the Hermus and the Cayster, though the

Greek emigrants came in isolated expeditions over the sea. It

was on the Lydian coasts that the most important Greek cities

rose: Cyme, Phocæa, Smyrna, Colophon, Ephesus. Priene, Myus,

and Miletus were on the land of the Carians."

M. Duncker,

History of Antiquity,

book 4, chapter 17.

"On the basis of a population related to the Phrygians and

Armenians arose the nation of the Lydians, which through its

original ancestor, Lud, would appear in Eastern tradition also

to be reckoned as a member of the Semitic family. As long as

we remain unacquainted with the spoken and written language of

the Lydians, it will be impossible to define with any accuracy

the mixture of peoples which here took place. But, speaking

generally, there is no doubt of the double relationship of

this people, and of its consequent important place in

civilization among the groups of the nations of Asia Minor.

The Lydians became on land, as the Phœnicians by sea, the

mediators between Hellas and Anterior Asia. … The Lydians

are the first among the nations of Asia Minor of whom we have

any intimate knowledge as a political community."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

The first, perhaps legendary, dynasty of Lydia, called the

Atyadæ, was followed by one called the Herakleidæ by the

Greeks, which is said to have ruled over 500 years. The last

king of that family, Kandaules, was murdered, about B. C. 715,

by Gyges, who founded the dynasty of the Mermnadæ, under whom

the Lydian dominion was extended over most of Asia Minor, and

its kings contended on fairly equal terms with the power of

the Medes. But their monarchy was overthrown by Cyrus, B. C.

546, and the famous Crœsus, last of their line, ended his days

as an attendant and counselor of the Persian king.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapters 17 and 32.

Recent discoveries tend to the conclusion that the primitive

inhabitants of Lydia were of a race to which the Hittites

belonged.

A. H. Sayce,

editor, Ancient Empires of the East,

appendix 4.

See, also,

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539;

and PERSIA: B. C. 549-521.

{2056}

LYGIANS, The.

"Of all the invaders of Gaul [in the reign of Probus, A.

D.277] the most formidable were the Lygians, a distant people

who reigned over a wide domain on the frontiers of Poland and

Silesia. In the Lygian nation the Arii held the first rank by

their numbers and fierceness. 'The Arii' (it is thus that they

are described by the energy of Tacitus) 'study to improve by

art and circumstances the innate terrors of their barbarism.

Their shields are black, their bodies are painted black. They

choose for the combat the darkest hour of the night.' … Yet

the arms and discipline of the Romans easily discomfited these

horrid phantoms. The Lygii were defeated in a general

engagement, and Semno, the most renowned of their chiefs, fell

alive into the hands of Probus. That prudent emperor,

unwilling to reduce a brave people to despair, granted them an

honourable capitulation and permitted them to return in safety

to their native country. But the losses which they suffered in

the march, the battle, and the retreat, broke the power of the

nation; nor is the Lygian name ever repeated in the history

either of Germany or of the empire."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 12.

"Lygii appears to have been the generic name of the Slavonians

on the Vistula. They are the same people as those called Lekhs

by Nestor, the Russian chronicler of the twelfth century.

These Lekhs are the ancestors of the Poles."

See

Latham,

The Germania of Tacitus,

page 158.

W. Smith,

Note to above, from Gibbon.

"The Ligii were a widely-spread tribe, comprehending several

clans. Tacitus names the Harii [or Arii], Helvecones, Manimi,

Elisii, and Nahanarvali. Their territory was between the Oder

and Vistula, and would include the greater part of Poland, and

probably a portion of Silesia."

Church and Brodribb,

Geographical Notes to the Germany of Tacitus.

"The Elysii are supposed to have given name to Silesia."

Note to the Oxford Translation of Tacitus: Germany,

chapter 43.

LYKIANS, The.

See LYCIANS.

LYMNE, in Roman times.

See PORTUS LEMANIS.

LYON, General Nathaniel:

Campaign in Missouri, and death.

See MISSOURI; A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-JULY);

and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER; MISSOURI).

----------LYONS: Start--------

LYONS:

Under the Romans.

Minutius Plancus, Roman governor of Gallia Comata, or the Gaul

of Cæsar's conquest, founded, B. C. 43, a city called

Lugdunum, at the confluence of the Rhone and the Saone. A few

years later, under Augustus, it was made the capital of a

province to which it gave its name—Lugdunensis—and which

comprised the whole of central Gaul, between the Loire and the

Seine with the Armorican peninsula. In time the name Lugdunum

became softened and shorn to Lyons. "Lyons, which stood on the

west side of the Rhone, not so near the confluence of the

Sâone as now, appears to have been settled by fugitive Romans

driven out of Vienne by another party. It grew with as

marvelous a rapidity as some of our western cities, for in

fifteen years it swelled from a simple colony into a

metropolis of considerable splendor. … Lugdun appears to

have been a Keltic designation, and, as the 'g' in that speech

took the sound of 'y' and 'd' was silent, we can easily see

how the name became Lyon."

P. Godwin,

History of France: Ancient Gaul,

book 2, chapter 5, with foot-note.

"Not having originated out of a Celtic canton, and hence

always with a territory of narrow limits, but from the outset

composed of Italians and in possession of the full Roman

franchise, it [Lyons] stood forth unique in its kind among the

communities of the three Gauls—as respects its legal

relations, in some measure resembling Washington in the North

American federation. … Only the governor of the middle or

Lugudunensian province had his seat there; but when emperors

or princes stayed in Gaul they as a rule resided in Lyons.

Lyons was, alongside of Carthage, the only city of the Latin

half of the empire which obtained a standing garrison, after

the model of that of the capital. The only mint for imperial

money which we can point to with certainty, for the earlier

period of the empire, is that of Lyons. Here was the

headquarters of the transit-dues which embraced all Gaul; and

to this as a centre the Gallic network of roads converged. …

Thus Lugudunum rapidly rose into prosperity. … In the later

period of the empire, no doubt, it fell behind Treves."

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 8, chapter 3.

LYONS: A. D. 500.

Under the Burgundians.

See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 500.

LYONS: 10th Century.

In the kingdom of Aries.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843—933.

LYONS: 12th Century.

The Poor Men of Lyons."

See WALDENSES.

LYONS: A. D. 1685-1698.

Loss in the silk weaving industry by the Huguenot exodus.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.

LYONS: A. D. 1793-1794.

Revolt against the Revolutionary government at Paris.

Siege and capture and fearful vengeance by the Terrorists.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE), (JULY-DECEMBER);

and 1793—1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

LYONS: A. D. 1795.

Reaction against the Reign of Terror.

The White Terror.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

----------LYONS: End----------

LYONS, Battle of (A. D. 197).

See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

LYSIMACHUS, and the wars of the Diadochi.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316, to 297-280.

LYTTON, Lord, The Indian administration of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1876, 1877;

and AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

MAARMORS.

See MORMAERS.

MACÆ, The.

See LIBYANS.

McALLISTER, Fort, The storming of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).

MACALO, Battle of (1427).

See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

MACBETH, King of Scotland: A. D. 1039-1054.

MACCABEES, The.

See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

MACCIOWICE, Battle of (1794).

See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.

McCLELLAN, General George B.

Campaign in West Virginia.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (JUNE-JULY: WEST VIRGINIA).

McCLELLAN, General George B:

Appointment to chief command.

Organization of the Army of the Potomac.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

{2057}

McCLELLAN, General George B:

Protracted inaction through the winter of 1861-62.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

McCLELLAN, General George B:

Peninsular campaign.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA),

(JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

McCLELLAN, General George B:

During General Pope's campaign.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA),

to (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER, VIRGINIA).

McCLELLAN, General George B:

Antietam Campaign, and removal from command.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND);

and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: VIRGINIA).

McCLELLAN, General George B:

Defeat in Presidential election.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MAY-NOVEMBER).

MACDONALD, Marshal.

Campaigns of.

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

1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER);

GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER);

1813 (APRIL-MAY), (AUGUST), (OCTOBER),

(OCTOBER-DECEMBER);

and RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

MACDONOUGH, Commodore Thomas,

and his victory on Lake Champlain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1814 (SEPTEMBER).

McDOWELL, Battle at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862. (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

MACE, as a symbol of authority, The.

"The club or mace, formed originally of hard wood, and the

latter, subsequently either wholly or in part of metal, would

naturally be adopted as one of the earliest weapons of

primitive man, but it soon came to be regarded as a symbol of

authority. … In the Middle Ages the mace was a common weapon

with ecclesiastics, who, in consequence of their tenures,

frequently took the field, but were, by a canon of the Church,

forbidden to wield the sword. It strikes me as not improbable

that in this custom we have the origin of the use of the mace

as a symbol of authority by our cathedral and other ancient

religious bodies. … In all probability its use by lay

corporations may be traced to the corps of sergeants-at-mace,

instituted as a body-guard both by Philip Augustus of France

and our own Richard I., whilst with the Crusaders in

Palestine. We learn that when the former monarch was in the

Holy Land he found it necessary to secure his person from the

emissaries of a sheik, called 'the Old Man of the Mountain,'

who bound themselves to assassinate whomsoever he assigned.

'When the king,' says an ancient chronicler, 'heard of this he

began to reflect seriously, and took counsel how he might best

guard his person. He therefore instituted a guard of

serjeants-à-maces who night and day were to be about his

person in order to protect him.' These sergens-à-maces were

'afterwards called sergeants-at-arms, for Jean Bouteiller, …

who lived in the time of Charles VI., that is, at the

conclusion of the fourteenth century tells us, "The sergens

d'armes are the mace-bearers that the king has to perform his

duty, and who carry maces before the king; these are called

sergeants-at-arms, because they are sergeants for the king's

body.'" We learn further that Richard I. of England soon

imitated the conduct of the French king, but he seems to have

given his corps of sergeants-at-arms a more extensive power.

Not only were they to watch round the king's tent in complete

armour, with a mace, a sword, a bow and arrows, but were

occasionally to arrest traitors and other offenders about the

court, for which the mace was deemed a sufficient authority.

… Hence, in all probability, was derived the custom of the

chief magistrate of a municipality, who, as such, is the

representative of the sovereign, being attended by his

mace-bearer, as a symbol of the royal authority thus delegated

to him."

W. Kelly,

The Great Mace

(Royal Historical Society Transactions, volume 3).

----------MACEDONIA: Start--------

MACEDONIA AND MACEDONIANS, The.

"The Macedonians of the fourth century B. C. acquired, from

the ability and enterprise of two successive kings, a great

perfection in Greek military organization, without any of the

loftier Hellenic qualities. Their career in Greece is purely

destructive, extinguishing the free movement of the separate

cities, and disarming the citizen-soldier to make room for the

foreign mercenary whose sword was unhallowed by any feelings

of patriotism—yet totally incompetent to substitute any good

system of central or pacific administration. But the

Macedonians of the seventh and sixth centuries B. C. are an

aggregate only of rude inland tribes, subdivided into distinct

petty principalities, and separated from the Greeks by a wider

ethnical difference even than the Epirots; since Herodotus,

who considers the Epirotic Molossians and Thesprotians as

children of Hellen, decidedly thinks the contrary respecting

the Macedonians. In the main, however, they seem at this early

period analogous to the Epirots in character and civilization.

They had some few towns, but they were chiefly village

residents, extremely brave and pugnacious. … The original

seats of the Macedonians were in the regions east of the chain

of Skardus (the northerly continuation of Pindus)—north of

the chain called the Cambunian mountains, which connects

Olympus with Pindus, and which forms the north-western

boundary of Thessaly; but they did not reach so far eastward

as the Thermaic Gulf. … The Macedonian language was

different from Illyrian, from Thracian, and seemingly also

from Pæonian. It was also different from Greek, yet apparently

not more widely distinct than that of the Epirots; so that the

acquisition of Greek was comparatively easy to the chiefs and

people. … The large and comparatively productive region

covered by the various sections of Macedonians, helps to

explain that increase of ascendency which they successively

acquired over all their neighbours. It was not however until a

late period that they became united under one government. At

first, each section—how many we do not know—had its own

prince or chief. The Elymiots, or inhabitants of Elymeia, the

southernmost portion of Macedonia, were thus originally

distinct and independent; also the Orestæ, in mountain-seats

somewhat north-west of the Elymiots. … The section of the

Macedonian name who afterwards swallowed up all the rest and

became known as 'The Macedonians' had their original centre at

Ægæ or Edessa—the lofty, commanding and picturesque site of

the modern Vodhena."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 25 (volume 3).

MACEDONIA: B. C. 508.

Subjection to Persia.

See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 383-379.

Overthrow of the Olynthian Confederacy by Sparta.

See GREECE: B. C. 383-379.

{2058}

MACEDONIA: B. C. 359-358.

Accession and first proceedings of King Philip.

His acquisition of Amphipolis.

See GREECE: B. C. 359-358.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 353-336.

Philip's conquest of Thessaly.

Intervention in the Sacred War.

Victory at Chæronea.

Mastery of Greece.

Preparation to invade Persia.

Assassination.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 351-348.

War with the Olynthian Confederacy.

Destruction of Olynthus.

See GREECE: B. C. 351-348.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 340.

Philip's unsuccessful siege of Byzantium.

See GREECE: B. C. 340.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 336-335.

Alexander's campaigns at the north.

Revolt and destruction of Thebes.

See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.

Invasion and conquest of the Persian empire

by Alexander the Great.

Philip of Macedonia fell under the hand of an assassin in the

midst of his preparations (B. C. 336) for the invasion of the

Persian Empire. He was succeeded by his son, Alexander, who

applied himself first, with significant energy, to the

chastisement of the troublesome barbarians on his northern

frontier, and to the crushing of revolt in Greece (see GREECE:

B. C. 336-335). He had not yet been a year on the throne

"when he stood forth a greater and more powerful sovereign than

his father, with his empire united in the bonds of fear and

admiration, and ready to carry out the long premeditated

attack of the Greeks on the dominion of the Great king. … He

had indeed a splendid army of all branches, heavy infantry,

light infantry, slingers and archers, artillery such as the

ancients could produce without gunpowder, and cavalry, both

Thessalian and Macedonian, fit for both skirmishing and the

shock of battle. If its numbers were not above 40,000, this

moderate force was surely as much as any commander could

handle in a rapid campaign with long marches through a hostile

country. … After a Homeric landing on the coast near Ilium,

and sacrifices to the Ilian goddess at her ancient shrine,

with feasts and games, the king started East to meet the

Persian satraps, who had collected their cavalry and Greek

mercenary infantry on the plain of Zeleia, behind the river

Granicus (B. C. 334). Here he fought his first great battle,

and showed the nature of his tactics. He used his heavy

infantry, divided into two columns or phalanxes as his left

wing, flanked by Thessalian cavalry, to threaten the right of

the enemy, and keep him engaged while he delivered his main

attack. Developing this movement by a rapid advance in

echelonned squadrons thrown forward to the right, threatening

to outflank the enemy, he induced them to spread their forces

towards their left wing, and so weaken their left centre. No

sooner had he succeeded in this than he threw his heavy

cavalry on this weak point, and after a very severe struggle

in crossing the river, and climbing its rugged banks, he

completely broke the enemy's line. … He did not strike

straight into Asia, for this would have left it possible for

Mentor and Memnon, the able Rhodians who commanded on the

coast for Darius, either to have raised all Asia Minor against

him, or to have transferred the war back to Macedon. … So

then he seized Sardis, the key of all the highroads eastwards;

he laid siege to Halicarnassus, which made a very long and

stubborn resistance, and did not advance till he had his rear

safe from attack. Even with all these precautions, the Persian

fleet, under Memnon, was producing serious difficulties, and

had not that able general died at the critical moment (B. C.

333), the Spartan revolt, which was put down the following

year in Greece, would have assumed serious proportions.

Alexander now saw that he could press on, and strike at the

headquarters of the enemies' power—Phœnicia and the Great

king himself. He crossed the difficult range of the Taurus,

the southern bulwark of the Persian Empire, and occupied

Cilicia. Even the sea was supposed to have retreated to allow

his army to pass along a narrow strand under precipitous

cliffs. The Great king was awaiting him with a vast

army—grossly exaggerated, moreover, in our Greek accounts—in

the plain of Syria, near Damascus. Foolish advisers persuaded

him, owing to some delay in Alexander's advance, to leave his

favourable position, where the advantage of his hosts of

cavalry was clear. He therefore actually crossed Alexander,

who had passed on the sea side of Mount Amanus, southward, and

occupied Issus on his rear. The Macedonian army was thus cut

off from home, and a victory necessary to its very existence.

The great battle of Issus was fought on such narrow ground,

between the sea and the mountains, that neither side had room

for outflanking its opponent, except by occupying the high

ground on the inland side of the plain (B. C. 333). This was

done by the Persians, and the banks of a little river (the

Pinarus) crossing their front were fortified as at the

Granicus. Alexander was obliged to advance with a large

reserve to protect his right flank. As usual he attacked with

his right centre, and as soon as he had shaken the troops

opposed to him, wheeled to the left, and made straight for the

king himself, who occupied the centre in his chariot. Had

Darius withstood him bravely and for some time, the defeat of

the Macedonians' left wing would probably have been complete,

for the Persian cavalry on the coast, attacking the

Thessalians on Alexander's left wing, were decidedly superior,

and the Greek infantry was at this time a match for the

phalanx. But the flight of Darius, and the panic which ensued

about him, left Alexander leisure to turn to the assistance of

his hard-pressed left wing, and recover the victory. … The

greatness of this victory completely paralyzed all the revolt

prepared in his rear by the Persian fleet. Alexander was now

strong enough to go on without any base of operation, and he

boldly (in the manifesto he addressed to Darius after the

battle) proclaimed himself King of' Persia by right of

conquest, who would brook no equal. Nevertheless, he delayed

many months (which the siege of Tyre [see TYRE: B. C. 332]

cost him, B. C. 332), and then, passing through Jerusalem, and

showing consideration for the Jews, he again paused at the

siege of Gaza [see GAZA: B. C. 332], merely, we may suppose,

to prove that he was invincible, and to settle once for all

the question of the world's mastery. He delayed again for a

short while in Egypt [see EGYPT: B. C. 332], when he regulated

the country as a province under his sway, with kindness

towards the inhabitants, and respect for their religion, and

founded Alexandria; nay, he even here made his first essay in

claiming divinity; and then, at last, set out to conquer the

Eastern provinces of Darius' empire.

{2059}

The great decisive battle in the plains of Mesopotamia (B. C.

331)—it is called either Arbela or Gaugamela—was spoken of

as a trial of strength, and the enormous number of the Persian

cavalry, acting on open ground, gave timid people room to

fear; but Alexander had long since found out, what the British

have found in their many Eastern wars, that even a valiant

cavalry is helpless, if undisciplined, against an army of

regulars under a competent commander. … The Macedonian had

again, however, failed to capture his opponent, for which he

blamed Parmenio. … So then, though the issue of the war was

not doubtful, there was still a real and legitimate rival to

the throne, commanding the sympathies of most of his subjects.

For the present, however, Alexander turned his attention to

occupying the great capitals of the Persian empire—capitals

of older kingdoms, embodied in the empire. … These great

cities, Babylon in Mesopotamia, Susa (Shushan) in Elam,

Persepolis in Persia proper, and Ecbatana in Media, were all

full of ancient wealth and splendour, adorned with great

palaces, and famed for monstrous treasures. The actual amount

of gold and silver seized in these hoards (not less than

£30,000,000 of English money, and perhaps a great deal more)

had a far larger effect on the world than the discovery of

gold and silver mines in recent times. Every adventurer in the

army became suddenly rich; all the means and materials for

luxury which the long civilization of the East had discovered

and employed, were suddenly thrown into the hands of

comparatively rude and even barbarous soldiers. It was a prey

such as the Spaniards found in Mexico and Peru, but had a far

stronger civilization, which must react upon the conquerors.

And already Alexander showed clear signs that he regarded

himself as no mere Macedonian or Greek king, but as the

Emperor of the East, and successor in every sense of the

unfortunate Darius. He made superhuman efforts to overtake

Darius in his retreat from Ecbatana through the Parthian

passes to the northern provinces—Balkh and Samarcand. The

narrative of this famous pursuit is as wonderful as anything

in Alexander's campaign. He only reached the fleeing Persian

as he was dying of the wounds dealt him by the traitor Bessus,

his satrap in Bactria, who had aspired to the crown (B. C.

330). Alexander signally executed the regicide, and himself

married the daughter of Darius—who had no son—thus

assuming, as far as possible, the character of Darius'

legitimate successor."

J. P. Mahaffy,

The Story of Alexander's Empire,

chapters 2-3.

ALSO IN:

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapters 49-50 (volume 6).

E. S. Creasy,

Fifteen Decisive Battles: Arabela.

T. A. Dodge,

Alexander,

chapters 18-31.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.

Alexander's conquest of Afghanistan, Bactria and Sogdiana.

His invasion of India.

His death at Babylon.

His character and aims.

"After reducing the country at the south of the Caspian,

Alexander marched east and south, through what is now Persia

and Afghanistan. On his way he founded the colony of

Alexandria Arion, now Herat, an important military position on

the western border of Afghanistan. At Prophthasia (Furrah), a

little further south, he stayed two months. … Thence he went

on eastwards and founded a city, said to be the modern

Candahar, and then turned north and crossed the Hindo Koosh

mountains, founding another colony near what is now Cabul.

Bessus had intended to resist Alexander in Bactria (Balkh),

but he fled northwards, and was taken and put to death.

Alexander kept on marching northwards, and took Mara Kanda,

now Samarcand, the capital of Bokhara (B. C. 329). He crossed

the river Jaxartes (Sir), running into the sea of Aral, and

defeated the Scythians beyond it, but did not penetrate their

country. He intended the Jaxartes to be the northern frontier

of his empire. … The conquest of Sogdiana (Bokhara) gave

Alexander some trouble, and occupied him till the year B. C.

327. In B. C. 327 Alexander set out from Bactria to conquer

India [see INDIA: B. C. 327-312]. … Alexander was as eager

for discovery as for conquest; and from the mouth of the Indus

he sent his fleet, under the admiral Nearchus, to make their

way along the coast to the mouth of the Euphrates. He himself

marched westwards with the army through the deserts of

Beloochistan, and brought them after terrible sufferings,

through thirst, disease, and fatigue, again to Persepolis (B.

C. 324). From this he went to Susa, where he stayed some

months, investigating the conduct of his satraps, and

punishing some of them severely. Since the battle of Arbela,

Alexander had become more and more like a Persian king in his

way of living, although he did not allow it to interfere with

his activity. He dressed in the Persian manner, and took up

the ceremonies of the Persian court. The soldiers were

displeased at his giving up the habits of Macedonia, and at

Susa he provoked them still more by making eighty of his chief

officers marry Persian wives. The object of Alexander was to

break down distinctions of race and country in his empire, and

to abolish the great gulf that there had hitherto been between

the Greeks and the Asiatics. He also enrolled many Persians in

the regiments which had hitherto contained none but

Macedonians, and levied 30,000 troops from the most warlike

districts of Asia, whom he armed in the Macedonian manner.

Since the voyage of Nearchus, Alexander had determined on an

expedition against Arabia by sea, and had given orders for

ships to be built in Phœnicia, and then taken to pieces and

carried by land to Thapsakus on the Euphrates. At Thapsakus

they were to be put together again, and so make their way to

Babylon, from which the expedition was to start. In the spring

of B. C. 323, Alexander set out from Susa for Babylon. On his

journey he was met by embassies from nearly all the States of

the known world. At Babylon he found the ships ready: fresh

troops had arrived, both Greek and Asiatic; and the expedition

was on the point of starting, when Alexander was seized with

fever and died (June, B. C. 323). He was only thirty-two

years old."

C. A. Fyffe,

History of Greece (Primer),

chapter 7.

"Three great battles and several great sieges made Alexander

master of the Persian empire. And it is worth remark that the

immediate results of the three battles, Granikos, Issos, and

Gaugamela, coincide with lasting results in the history of the

world. The victory of the Granikos made Alexander master of

Asia Minor, of a region which in the course of a few centuries

was thoroughly hellenized, and which remained Greek,

Christian, and Orthodox, down to the Turkish invasions of the

11th century.

{2060}

The territory which Alexander thus won, the lands from the

Danube to Mount Tauros, answered very nearly to the extent of

the Byzantine Empire for several centuries, and it might very

possibly have been ruled by him, as it was in Byzantine times,

from an European centre. The field of Issos gave him Syria and

Egypt, lands which the Macedonian and the Roman kept for

nearly a thousand years, and which for ages contained, in

Alexandria and Antioch, the two greatest of Grecian cities.

But Syria and Egypt themselves never became Greek; when they

became Christian, they failed to become Orthodox, and they

fell away at the first touch of the victorious Saracen. Their

government called for an Asiatic or Egyptian capital, but

their ruler might himself still have remained European and

Hellenic. His third triumph at Gaugamela gave him the

possession of the whole East; but it was but a momentary

possession: he had now pressed onward into lands where neither

Grecian culture, Roman dominion, nor Christian theology proved

in the end able to strike any lasting root. … He had gone

too far for his original objects. Lasting possession of his

conquests beyond the Tigris could be kept only in the

character of King of the Medes and Persians. Policy bade him

put on that character. We can also fully believe that he was

himself really dazzled with the splendour of his superhuman

success. … His own deeds had outdone those which were told

of any of his divine forefathers or their comrades; Achilleus,

Herakles, Theseus, Dionysos, had done and suffered less than

Alexander. Was it then wonderful that he should seriously

believe that one who had outdone their acts must come of a

stock equal to their own? Was it wonderful if, not merely in

pride or policy, but in genuine faith, he disclaimed a human

parent in Philip, and looked for the real father of the

conqueror and lord of earth in the conqueror and lord of the

heavenly world? We believe then that policy, passion, and

genuine superstition were all joined together in the demand

which Alexander made for divine, or at least for unusual,

honours. He had taken the place of the Great King, and he

demanded the homage which was held to be due to him who held

that place. Such homage his barbarian' subjects were perfectly

ready to pay; they would most likely have had but little

respect for a king who forgot to call for it. But the homage

which to a Persian seemed only the natural expression of

respect for the royal dignity, seemed to Greeks and

Macedonians an invasion of the honour due only to the immortal

Gods. … He not only sent round to all the cities of Greece

to demand divine honours, which were perhaps not worth

refusing, but he ordered each city to bring back its political

exiles. This last was an interference with the internal

government of the cities which certainly was not warranted by

Alexander's position as head of the Greek Confederacy. And, in

other respects also, from this unhappy time all the worst

failings of Alexander become more strongly developed. … The

unfulfilled designs of Alexander must ever remain in darkness;

no man can tell what might have been done by one of such

mighty powers who was cut off at so early a stage of his

career. That he looked forward to still further conquests

seems beyond doubt. The only question is, Did his conquests,

alike those which were won and those which were still to be

won, spring from mere ambition and love of adventure, or is he

to be looked on as in any degree the intentional missionary of

Hellenic culture? That such he was is set forth with much

warmth and some extravagance in a special treatise of

Plutarch; it is argued more soberly, but with true vigour and

eloquence, in the seventh volume of Bishop Thirlwall. Mr.

Grote denies him all merit of the kind."

E. A. Freeman,

Alexander

(Historical Essays, series 2).

ALSO IN:

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapters 51-55 (volumes 6-7).

MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-322.

Revolt in Greece.

The Lamian War.

Subjugation of Athens.

See GREECE: B. C. 323-322.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

The Partition of the Empire of Alexander.

First Period of the Wars of the Diadochi

or Successors of Alexander.

Alexander "left his wife Roxana pregnant, who at the end of

three months brought into the world the rightful heir to the

sceptre, Alexander; he left likewise an illegitimate son,

Hercules; a bastard half-brother, Arrhidæus; his mother, the

haughty and cruel Olympias, and a sister, Cleopatra, both

widows; the artful Eurydice, (daughter to Cyane, one of

Philip's sisters,) subsequently married to the king,

Arrhidæus; and Thessalonica, Philip's daughter, afterwards

united to Cassander of Macedonia. The weak Arrhidæus, under

the name of Philip, and the infant Alexander, were at last

proclaimed kings, the regency being placed in the hands of

Perdiccas, Leonnatus, and Meleager; the last of whom was

quickly cut off at the instigation of Perdiccas." The

provinces of the Empire which Alexander had conquered were now

divided between the generals of his army, who are known in

history as the Diadochi, that is, the Successors. The division

was as follows: "Ptolemy son of Lagus received Egypt [see

EGYPT: B. C. 323-30]; Leonnatus, Mysia; Antigonus, Phyrgia,

Lycia, and Pamphylia; Lysymachus, Macedonian Thrace; Antipater

and Craterus remained in possession of Macedonia. … The

remaining provinces either did not come under the new division

[see SELEUCIDAE], or else their governors are unworthy of

notice,"

A. H. L. Heeren,

Manual of Ancient History,

page 222.

Meantime, "the body of Alexander lay unburied and neglected,

and it was not until two years after his death that his

remains were consigned to the tomb. But his followers still

shewed their respect for his memory by retaining the feeble

Arrhidæus on the throne, and preventing the marriage of

Perdiccas with Cleopatra, the daughter of Philip; a union

which manifestly was projected to open a way to the throne.

But while this project of marriage occupied the attention of

the regent, a league had secretly been formed for his

destruction; and the storm burst forth from a quarter whence

it was least expected. … The barbarous tribes of the

Cappadocians and Paphlagonians … asserted their independence

after the death of Alexander, and chose Ariarathes for their

leader. Perdiccas sent against them Eumenes, who had hitherto

fulfilled the peaceful duties of a secretary; and sent orders

to Antigonus and Leonatns, the governors of Western Asia, to

join the expedition with all their forces. These commands were

disobeyed; and Perdiccas was forced to march with the royal army

against the insurgents. He easily defeated these undisciplined

troops, but sullied his victory by unnecessary cruelty.

{2061}

On his return he summoned the satraps of Western Asia to

appear before his tribunal, and answer for their disobedience.

Antigonus, seeing his danger, entered into a league with

Ptolemy the satrap of Egypt, Antipater the governor of

Macedon, and several other noblemen, to crush the regency.

Perdiccas, on the other hand, leaving Eumenes to guard Lower

Asia, marched with the choicest divisions of the royal army

against Ptolemy, whose craft and ability he dreaded even more

than his power. Antipater and Craterus were early in the

field; they crossed the Hellespont with the army that had been

left for the defence of Macedon. … Seduced by … false

information, they divided their forces; Antipater hastening

through Phrygia in pursuit of Perdiccas, while Craterus and

Neoptolemus marched against Eumenes. They encountered him in

the Trojan plain, and were completely defeated. … Eumenes

sent intelligence of his success to Perdiccas; but two days

before the messenger reached the royal camp the regent was no

more. His army, wearied by the long siege of Pelusium, became

dissatisfied; their mutinous dispositions were secretly

encouraged by the emissaries of Ptolemy … and Perdiccas was

murdered in his tent (B. C. 321). … In the meantime a brief

struggle for independence had taken place in Greece, which is

commonly called the Lamian war [see GREECE: B. C. 323-322].

… As soon as Ptolemy had been informed of the murder of

Perdiccas, he came to the royal army with a large supply of

wine and provisions. His kindness and courteous manners so won

upon these turbulent soldiers, that they unanimously offered

him the regency; but he had the prudence to decline so

dangerous an office. On his refusal, the feeble Arrhidæus and

the traitor Python were appointed to the regency, just as the

news arrived of the recent victory of Eumenes. This

intelligence filled the royal army with indignation. … They

hastily passed a vote proclaiming Eumenes and his adherents

public enemies. … The advance of an army to give effect to

these decrees was delayed by a new revolution. Eurydice, the

wife of Arrhidæus, a woman of great ambition and considerable

talent for intrigue, wrested the regency from her feeble

husband and Python, but was stripped of power on the arrival

of Antipater, who reproached the Macedonians for submitting to

the government of a woman; and, being ably supported by

Antigonus and Seleucus, obtained for himself the office of

regent. No sooner had Antipater been invested with supreme

power than he sent Arrhidæus and Eurydice prisoners to Pella,

and entrusted the conduct of the war against Eumenes to the

crafty and ambitious Antigonus. … Eumenes was unable to cope

with the forces sent against him; having been defeated in the

open field, he took shelter in Nora, a Cappadocian city, and

maintained a vigorous defence, rejecting the many tempting

offers by which Antigonus endeavoured to win him to the

support of his designs (B. C. 318). The death of Antipater

produced a new revolution in the empire; and Eumenes in the

meantime escaped from Nora, accompanied by his principal

friends. … Antipater, at his death, bequeathed the regency

to Polysperchon, excluding his son Cassander from power on

account of his criminal intrigues with the wicked and

ambitious Eurydice. Though a brave general, Polysperchon had

not the qualifications of a statesman; he provoked the

powerful resentment of Antigonus by entering into a close

alliance with Eumenes; and he permitted Cassander to

strengthen himself in southern Greece, where he seized the

strong fortress of Munychia. … Polysperchon, unable to drive

Cassander from Attica, entered the Peloponnesus to punish the

Arcadians, and engaged in a fruitless siege of Megalopolis. In

the meantime Olympias, to whom he had confided the government

of Macedon, seized Arrhidæus and Eurydice, whom she had

murdered in prison. Cassander hasted, at the head of all his

forces, to avenge the death of his mistress: Olympias, unable

to meet him in the field, fled to Pydna; but the city was

forced to surrender after a brief defence, and Olympias was

immediately put to death. Among the captives were Roxana the

widow, Alexander Ægus the posthumous son, and Thessalonica the

youngest daughter, of Alexander the Great. Cassander sought

and obtained the hand of the latter princess, and thus

consoled himself for the loss of his beloved Eurydice. By this

marriage he acquired such influence, that Polysperchon did not

venture to return home, but continued in the Peloponnesus,

where he retained for some time a shadow of authority over the

few Macedonians who still clung to the family of Alexander. In

Asia, Eumenes maintained the royal cause against Antigonus,

though deserted by all the satraps, and harassed by the

mutinous dispositions of his troops, especially the

Argyraspides, a body of guards that Alexander had raised to

attend his own person, and presented with the silver shields

from which they derived their name. After a long struggle,

both armies joined in a decisive engagement; the Argyraspides

broke the hostile infantry, but learning that their baggage

had in the meantime been captured by the light troops of the

enemy, they mutinied in the very moment of victory, and

delivered their leader, bound with his own sash, into the

hands of his merciless enemy (B. C. 315). The faithful Eumenes

was put to death by the traitorous Antigonus; but he punished

the Argyraspides for their treachery."

W. C. Taylor,

The Student's Manual of Ancient History,

chapter 11, section 3.

ALSO IN:

P. Smith,

History of the World: Ancient,

chapter 17 (volume 2).

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

chapter 96 (volume 12).

See, also, GREECE: B. C. 321-312.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 315-310.

The first league and war against Antigonus.

Extermination of the heirs of Alexander.

"Antigonus was now unquestionably the most powerful of the

successors of Alexander the Great. As master of Asia, he ruled

over those vast and rich lands that extended from India to the

Mediterranean Sea. … Although nearly seventy years old, and

blind in one eye, he still preserved the vigor of his forces.

… He was fortunate in being assisted by a son, the famous

Demetrius, who, though possessed of a very passionate nature,

yet from early youth displayed wonderful military ability.

Above all, the prominent representatives of the royal family

had disappeared, and there remained only the youthful

Alexander, Herakles, the illegitimate son of Alexander the

Great, who had no lawful claim whatever to the sovereignty,

and two daughters of Philip, Kleopatra, who lived at Sardis,

and Thessalonike, whom Kassander had recently married—none of

whom were sufficiently strong to assert their rights to the

throne.

{2062}

Thus Antigonus seemed indeed destined to become vicar and

master of the entire Alexandrian kingdom, and to restore the

unity of the empire. But not only was this union not realized,

but even the great realm which Antigonus had established in

Asia was doomed to inevitable destruction. The generals who

possessed the various satrapies of the empire could not bear

his supremacy, and accordingly entered into a convention,

which gradually ripened into an active alliance against him.

The principal organ of this movement was Seleukus, who, having

escaped to Ptolemy of Egypt, first of all persuaded the latter

to form an alliance—which Kassander of Macedonia and

Lysimachus of Thrace readily joined—against the formidable

power of Antigonus. The war lasted for four years, and was

carried on in Asia, Europe, and Africa. Its fortunes were

various [the most noteworthy event being a bloody defeat

inflicted upon Demetrius the son of Antigonus, by Ptolemy, at

Gaza, in 312], but the result was not decisive. … In 311 B.

C. a compact was made between Antigonus on one side, and

Kassander, Ptolemy, and Lysimachus on the other, whereby 'the

supreme command in Europe was guaranteed to Kassander, until

the maturity of Alexander, son of Roxana; Thrace being at the

same time assured to Lysimachus, Egypt to Ptolemy, and the

whole of Asia to Antigonus. It was at the same time covenanted

by all that the Hellenic cities should be free.' Evidently

this peace contained the seeds of new disputes and increasing

jealousies. The first act of Kassander was to cause the death

of Roxana and her child in the fortress of Amphipolis, where

they had been confined; and thus disappeared forever the only

link which apparently maintained the union of the empire, and

a ready career now lay open to the ambition of the successors.

Again, the name of Seleukus was not even mentioned in the

peace, while it was well known at the time it was concluded

that he had firmly established his rule over the eastern

satrapies of Asia. … The troops also of Antigonus,

notwithstanding the treaty, still remained in Hellas, under

command of his nephew Ptolemy. Ptolemy of Egypt, therefore,

accusing Antigonus of having contravened the treaty by

garrisoning various Hellenic cities, renewed the war and the

triple alliance against him." A series of assassinations soon

followed, which put out of the way the young prince Herakles,

bastard son of Alexander the Great, and Kleopatra, the sister

of Alexander, who was preparing to wed Ptolemy of Egypt when

Antigonus brought about her murder, to prevent the marriage.

Another victim of the jealousies that were rife among the

Diadochi was Antigonus' nephew Ptolemy, who had deserted his

uncle's side, but who was killed by the Egyptian Ptolemy. "For

more than ten years … Antigonus, Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and

Kassander successively promised to leave the Greeks

independent, free, and unguarded; but the latter never ceased

to be guarded, taxed, and ruled by Macedonian despots. We may,

indeed, say that the cities of Hellas never before had

suffered so much as during the time when such great promises

were made about their liberty. The Ætolians alone still

possessed their independence. Rough, courageous, warlike, and

fond of freedom, they continued fighting against the

Macedonian rule."

T. T. Timayenis,

History of Greece,

part 9, chapter 5 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

J. P. Mahaffy,

Story of Alexander's Empire,

chapters 5-6.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.

Demetrius Poliorcetes at Athens.

His siege of Rhodes.

The last combination against Antigonus.

His defeat and death at Ipsus.

Partition of his dominions.

After the war which was renewed in 310 B. C. had lasted three

years, "Antigonus' resolved to make a vigorous effort to wrest

Greece from the hands of Cassander and Ptolemy, who held all

the principal towns in it. Accordingly, in the summer of 307

B. C., he despatched his son Demetrius from Ephesus to Athens,

with a fleet of 250 sail, and 5,000 talents in money.

Demetrius, who afterwards obtained the surname of

'Poliorcetes,' or 'Besieger of Cities,' was a young man of

ardent temperament and great abilities. Upon arriving at the

Piræus, he immediately proclaimed the object of his expedition

to be the liberation of Athens and the expulsion of the

Macedonian garrison. Supported by the Macedonians, Demetrius

the Phalerean had now ruled Athens for a period of more than

ten years. … During the first period of his administration

he appears to have governed wisely and equitably, to have

improved the Athenian laws, and to have adorned the city with

useful buildings. But in spite of his pretensions to

philosophy, the possession of uncontrolled power soon altered

his character for the worse, and he became remarkable for

luxury, ostentation, und sensuality. Hence he gradually lost

the popularity which he had once enjoyed. … The Athenians

heard with pleasure the proclamations of the son of Antigonus;

his namesake, the Phalerean, was obliged to surrender the city

to him, and to close his political career by retiring to

Thebes. … Demetrius Poliorcetes then formally announced to

the Athenian assembly the restoration of their ancient

constitution, and promised them a large donative of corn and

ship-timber. This munificence was repaid by the Athenians with

the basest and most abject flattery

See GREECE: B. C. 307-197.

… Demetrius Poliorcetes did not remain long at Athens. Early

in 306 B. C. he was recalled by his father, and, sailing to

Cyprus, undertook the siege of Salamis. Ptolemy hastened to

its relief with 140 vessels and 10,000 troops. The battle that

ensued was one of the most memorable in the annals of ancient

naval warfare, more particularly on account of the vast size

of the vessels engaged. Ptolemy was completely defeated; and

so important was the victory deemed by Antigonus, that on the

strength of it he assumed the title of king, which he also

conferred upon his son. This example was followed by Ptolemy,

Seleucus, and Lysimachus. Encouraged by their success at

Cyprus, Antigonus and Demetrius made a vain attempt upon

Egypt, which, however, proved a disastrous failure. By way of

revenge, Demetrius undertook an expedition against Rhodes,

which had refused its aid in the attack upon Ptolemy. It was

from the memorable siege of Rhodes that Demetrius obtained his

name of Poliorcetes. … After a year spent in the vain

attempt to take the town, Demetrius was forced to retire and

grant the Rhodians peace.

See RHODES: B. C. 305-304.

{2063}

Whilst Demetrius was thus employed, Cassander had made great

progress in reducing Greece. He had taken Corinth, and was

besieging Athens, when Demetrius entered the Euripus.

Cassander immediately raised the siege, and was subsequently

defeated in an action near Thermopylae. When Demetrius entered

Athens he was received as before with the most extravagant

flatteries. He remained two or three years in Greece, during

which his superiority over Cassander was decided, though no

great battle was fought. In the spring of 301 B. C. he was

recalled by his father Antigonus, who stood in need of his

assistance against Lysimachus and Seleucus. In the course of

the same year the struggle between Antigonus and his rivals

was brought to a close by the battle of Ipsus in Phrygia, in

which Antigonus was killed, and his army completely defeated.

Antigonus had attained the age of 81 at the time of his death.

Demetrius retreated with the remnant of the army to Ephesus,

whence he sailed to Cyprus, and afterwards proposed to go to

Athens; but the Athenians, alienated by his ill-fortune at

Ipsus, refused to receive him."

W. Smith,

History of Greece,

chapter 45.

"After the battle [of Ipsus] it remained for the conquerors to

divide the spoil. The dominions of Antigonus were actually in

the hands of Seleucus and Lysimachus, and they alone had

achieved the victory. It does not appear that they consulted

either of their allies on the partition, though it seems that

they obtained the assent of Cassander. They agreed to share

all that Antigonus had possessed between themselves. It is not

clear on what principle the line of demarcation was drawn, nor

is it possible to trace it. But the greater part of Asia Minor

was given to Lysimachus. The portion of Seleucus included not

only the whole country between the coast of Syria and the

Euphrates, but also, it seems, a part of Phrygia and of

Cappadocia. Cilicia was assigned to Cassander's brother

Pleistarchus. With regard to Syria however a difficulty

remained. The greater part of it had … been conquered by

Ptolemy: Tyre and Sidon alone were still occupied by the

garrisons of Antigonus. Ptolemy had at least as good a right

as his ally to all that he possessed. … Seleucus however

began to take possession of it, and when Ptolemy pressed his

claims returned an answer, mild in sound, but threatening in

its import … : and it appears that Ptolemy was induced to

withdraw his opposition. There were however also some native

princes [Ardoates in Armenia, and Mithridates, son of

Ariobarzanes, in Pontus—see MITHRIDATIC WARS] who had taken

advantage of the contests between the Macedonian chiefs to

establish their authority over extensive territories in the

west of Asia. … So far as regards Asia, the battle of Ipsus

must be considered as a disastrous event. Not because it

transferred the power of Antigonus into different hands, nor

because it would have been more desirable that he should have

triumphed over Seleucus. But the new distribution of territory

led to calamitous consequences, which might perhaps otherwise

have been averted. If the empire of Seleucus had remained

confined between the Indus and the Euphrates, it might have

subsisted much longer, at least, as a barrier against the

inroads of the barbarians, who at last obliterated all the

traces of European civilisation left there by Alexander and

his successors. But shortly after his victory, Seleucus

founded his new capital on the Orontes, called, after his

father, Antiochia, peopling it with the inhabitants of

Antigonia. It became the residence of his dynasty, and grew,

while their vast empire dwindled into the Syrian monarchy. For

the prospects of Greece, on the other hand, the fall of

Antigonus must clearly be accounted an advantage, so far as

the effect was to dismember his territory, and to distribute

it so that the most powerful of his successors was at the

greatest distance. It was a gain that Macedonia was left an

independent kingdom, within its ancient limits, and bounded on

the north by a state of superior strength. It does not appear

that any compact was made between Cassander and his allies as

to the possession of Greece. It was probably understood that

he should keep whatever he might acquire there."

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 59 (volume 7).

ALSO IN:

B. G. Niebuhr,

Lectures on Ancient History,

lectures 86-87 (volume 3).

MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280.

Death of Casander.

Intrigues of Ptolemy Keraunos.

Overthrow and death of Lysimachus.

Abdication and death of Ptolemy.

Murder of Seleucus.

Seizure of the Macedonian crown by Keraunos.

"Casander died of disease (a rare end among this seed of

dragon's teeth) in 297 B. C., and so the Greeks were left to

assert their liberty, and Demetrius to machinate and effect

his establishment on the throne of Macedonia, as well as to

keep the world in fear and suspense by his naval forces, and

his preparations to reconquer his father's position.

Lysimachus, Seleucus, and Ptolemy were watching one another,

and alternating in alliance and in war. All these princes, as

well as Demetrius and Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, were connected

in marriage; they all married as many wives as they pleased,

apparently without remonstrance from their previous consorts.

So the whole complex of the warring kings were in close family

relations. … Pyrrhus was now a very rising and ambitions

prince; if not in alliance with Demetrius, he was striving to

extend his kingdom of Epirus into Macedonia, and would

doubtless have succeeded, but for the superior power of

Lysimachus. This Thracian monarch, in spite of serious

reverses against the barbarians of the North, who took both

him and his son prisoners, and released them very

chivalrously, about this time possessed a solid and secure

kingdom, and moreover an able and righteous son, Agathocles,

so that his dynasty might have been established, but for the

poisonous influence of Arsinoe, the daughter of Ptolemy, whom

he, an old man, had married in token of an alliance after the

battle of Ipsus. … The family quarrel which upset the world

arose in this wise. To seal the alliance after Ipsus, old king

Ptolemy sent his daughter Arsinoe to marry his rival and

friend Lysimachus, who, on his side, had sent his daughter,

another Arsinoe, in marriage to the younger Ptolemy

(Philadelphus). This was the second son of the great Ptolemy,

who had chosen him for the throne in preference to his eldest

son, Keraunos, a man of violent and reckless character, who

accordingly left the country, and went to seek his fortune at

foreign courts. Meanwhile the old Ptolemy, for safety's sake,

installed his second son as king of Egypt during his own life,

and abdicated at the age of 83 [B. C. 283], full of honours,

nor did he leave the court, where he appeared as a subject

before his son as king. Keraunos naturally visited, in the

first instance, the Thracian court, where he not only had a

half sister (Arsinoe) queen, but where his full sister,

Lysandra, was married to the crown prince, the gallant and

popular Agathocles; but Keraunos and the queen conspired

against this prince; they persuaded old Lysimachus that he was

a traitor, and so Keraunos was directed to put him to death.

{2064}

This crime caused unusual excitement and odium all through the

country, and the relations and party of the murdered prince

called on Seleucus to avenge him. He did so, and advanced with

an army against Lysimachus, whom he defeated and slew in a

great battle, somewhere not far from the field of Ipsus. It

was called the plain of Coron (B. C. 281). Thus died the last

but one of Alexander's Companions, at the age of 80, he, too,

in battle. Ptolemy was already laid in his peaceful grave (B.

C. 283). There remained the last and greatest, the king of

Asia, Seleucus. He, however, gave up all his Asiatic

possessions from the Hellespont to the Indus to his son

Antiochus, and meant to spend his last years in the home of

his fathers, Macedonia; but as he was entering that kingdom he

was murdered by Keraunos, whom he brought with him in his

train. This bloodthirsty adventurer was thus left with an army

which had no leader, in a kingdom which had no king; for

Demetrius' son, Antigonus, the strongest claimant, had not yet

made good his position. All the other kings, whose heads were

full with their newly acquired sovereignties, viz., Antiochus

in Asia and Ptolemy II. in Egypt, joined with Keraunos in

buying off the dangerous Pyrrhus [king of Epirus—see ROME:

B. C. 282-275], by bribes of men, money, and elephants, to

make his expedition to Italy, and leave them to settle their

affairs. The Greek cities, as usual, when there was a change

of sovereign in Macedonia, rose and asserted what they were

pleased to call their liberty, so preventing Antigonus from

recovering his father's dominions. Meanwhile Keraunos

established himself in Macedonia; he even, like our Richard,

induced the queen, his step-sister, his old accomplice against

Agathocles, to marry him! but it was only to murder her

children by Lysimachus, the only dangerous claimants to the

Thracian provinces. The wretched queen fled to Samothrace, and

thence to Egypt, where she ended her guilty and chequered

career as queen of her full brother Ptolemy II.

(Philadelphus), and was deified during her life! Such then was

the state of Alexander's Empire in 280 B. C. All the first

Diadochi were dead, and so were even the sons of two of them,

Demetrius and Agathocles. The son of the former was a claimant

for the throne of Macedonia, which he acquired after long and

doubtful struggles. Antiochus, who had long been regent of the

Eastern provinces beyond Mesopotamia, had come suddenly, by

his father's murder, into possession of so vast a kingdom,

that he could not control the coast of Asia Minor, where

sundry free cities and dynasts sought to establish themselves.

Ptolemy II. was already king of Egypt, including the

suzerainty of Cyrene, and had claims on Palestine and Syria.

Ptolemy Keraunos, the double-dyed villain and murderer, was in

possession of the throne of Macedonia, but at war with the

claimant Antigonus. Pyrrhus of Epirus was gone to conquer a

new kingdom in the West. Such was the state of things when a

terrible new scourge [the invasion of the Gauls] broke over

the world."

J. P. Mahaffy,

The Story of Alexander's Empire,

chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 60 (volume 8).

MACEDONIA: B. C. 280-279.

Invasion by the Gauls.

Death of Ptolemy Keraunos.

See GAULS: B. C. 280-279.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.

Strife for the throne.

Failures of Pyrrhus.

Success of Antigonus Gonatus.

His subjugation of Athens and Corinth.

"On the retirement of the Gauls, Antipater, the nephew of

Cassander, came forward for the second time, and was accepted

as king by a portion, at any rate, of the Macedonians. But a

new pretender soon appeared upon the scene. Antigonus Gonatus,

the son of Demetrius Poliorcetes, who had maintained himself

since that monarch's captivity as an independent prince in

Central or Southern Hellas, claimed the throne once filled by

his father, and, having taken into his service a body of

Gallic mercenaries, defeated Antipater and made himself master

of Macedonia. His pretensions being disputed by Antiochus

Soter, the son of Seleucus, who had succeeded to the throne of

Syria, he engaged in war with that prince, crossing into Asia

and uniting his forces with those of Nicomedes, the Bithynian

king, whom Antiochus was endeavouring to conquer. To this

combination Antiochus was forced to yield: relinquishing his

claims, he gave his sister, Phila, in marriage to Antigonus,

and recognised him as king of Macedonia. Antigonus upon this

fully established his power, repulsing a fresh attack of the

Gauls. … But he was not long left in repose. In B. C. 274,

Pyrrhus finally quitted Italy, having failed in all his

schemes, but having made himself a great reputation. Landing

in Epirus with a scanty force, he found the condition of

Macedonia and of Greece favourable to his ambition. Antigonus

had no hold on the affections of his subjects, whose

recollections of his father, Demetrius, were unpleasing. The

Greek cities were, some of them, under tyrants, others

occupied against their will by Macedonian garrisons. Above

all, Greece and Macedonia were full of military adventurers,

ready to flock to any standard which offered them a fair

prospect of plunder. Pyrrhus, therefore, having taken a body

of Celts into his pay, declared war against Antigonus, B. C.

273, and suddenly invaded Macedonia. Antigonus gave him

battle, but was worsted, owing to the disaffection of his

soldiers, and being twice defeated became a fugitive and a

wanderer. The victories of Pyrrhus, and his son Ptolemy,

placed the Macedonian crown upon the brow of the former, who

might not improbably have become the founder of a great power,

if he could have turned his attention to consolidation,

instead of looking out for fresh conquests. But the arts and

employments of peace had no charm for the Epirotic

knight-errant. Hardly was he settled in his seat when, upon

the invitation of Cleonymus of Sparta, he led an expedition

into the Peloponnese, and attempted the conquest of that rough

and difficult region. Repulsed from Sparta, which he had hoped

to surprise, he sought to cover his disappointment by the

capture of Argos; but here he was still more unsuccessful.

Antigonus, now once more at the head of an army, watched the

city, prepared to dispute its occupation, while the lately

threatened Spartans hung upon the invader's rear.

{2065}

In a desperate attempt to seize the place by night, the

adventurous Epirote was first wounded by a soldier and then

slain by the blow of a tile, thrown from a housetop by an

Argive woman, B. C. 271. On the death of Pyrrhus the

Macedonian throne was recovered by Antigonus, who commenced

his second reign by establishing his influence over most of

the Peloponnese, after which he was engaged in a long war with

the Athenians (B. C. 268 to 263), who were supported by Sparta

and by Egypt [see ATHENS: B. C. 288-263]. These allies

rendered, however, but little help; and Athens must have soon

succumbed, had not Antigonus been called away to Macedonia by

the invasion of Alexander, son of Pyrrhus. This enterprising

prince carried, at first, all before him, and was even

acknowledged as Macedonian king; but ere long Demetrius, the

son of Antigonus, having defeated Alexander near Derdia,

re-established his father's dominion over Macedon, and,

invading Epirus, succeeded in driving the Epirotic monarch out

of his paternal kingdom. The Epirots soon restored him; but

from this time he remained at peace with Antigonus, who was

able once more to devote his undivided attention to the

subjugation of the Greeks. In B. C. 263 he took Athens, and

rendered himself complete master of Attica; and, in B. C. 244,

… he contrived by a treacherous stratagem to obtain

possession of Corinth. But at this point his successes ceased.

A power had been quietly growing up in a corner of the

Peloponnese [the Achaian League—see GREECE: B. C. 280-146]

which was to become a counterpoise to Macedonia, and to give

to the closing scenes of Grecian history an interest little

inferior to that which had belonged to its earlier pages."

G. Rawlinson,

Manual of Ancient History,

pages 261-263.

ALSO IN:

B. G. Niebuhr,

Lectures on Ancient History,

lectures 100-102.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 214-168.

The Roman conquest.

Extinction of the kingdom.

See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.

MACEDONIA: B. C. 205-197.

Last relations with the Seleucid empire.

See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

Slavonic occupation.

See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6-7TH CENTURIES.

----------MACEDONIA: End----------

MACEDON IAN DYNASTY, The.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057.

MACEDONIAN PHALANX.

See PHALANX, MACEDONIAN.

MACEDONIAN WARS, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.

MACERATA, Battle of (1815).

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1815.

McHENRY, Fort, The bombardment of, by the British.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1814 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

MACHICUIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

MACHINE, Political.

See STALWARTS.

MACK, Capitulation of, at Ulm.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

MACKENZIE, William Lyon, and the Canadian Rebellion.

See CANADA: A. D.1837; and 1837-1838.

----------MACKINAW: Start--------

MACKINAW (MICHILLIMACKINAC):

Discovery and first Jesuit Mission.

See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

MACKINAW:

Rendezvous of the Coureurs de Bois.

See COUREURS DE BOIS.

MACKINAW: A. D. 1763.

Captured by the Indians.

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

----------MACKINAW: End--------

McKINLEY TARIFF ACT, The.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1890.

McLEOD CASE, The.

See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1841.

MacMAHON, Marshal,

President of the French Republic, A. D. 1873-1879.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876; and 1875-1889.

MACON, Fort, Capture of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

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

McPHERSON, General: Death in the Atlanta campaign.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA);

and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

MACRINUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 217-218.

MACUSHI, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

MADAGASCAR: A. D. 1882-1883.

French claims and demands enforced by war.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

MADEIRA ISLAND, Discovery of.

In the year 1419, Joham Gonçalvez Zarco and Tristam Vaz,

"seeing from Porto Santo something that seemed like a cloud,

but yet different (the origin of so much discovery, noting the

difference in the likeness), built two boats, and, making for

this cloud, soon found themselves alongside a beautiful

island, abounding in many things, but most of all in trees, on

which account they gave it the name of Madeira (wood)."

A. Helps,

Spanish Conquest,

book 1, chapter 1.

MADISON, James,

and the framing and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

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

Presidential election and administration.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1808 to 1817.

MADRAS: A. D. 1640.

The founding of the city.

See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

MADRAS: A. D. 1746-1748.

Taken by the French.

Restored to England.

See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.

MADRAS: A. D. 1758-1759.

Unsuccessful siege by the French.

See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

----------MADRID: Start--------

MADRID: A. D. 1560.

Made the capital of Spain by Philip II.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1559-1563.

MADRID: A. D. 1706-1710.

Taken and retaken by the French and Austrian claimants

of the crown.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1706; and 1707-1710.

MADRID: A. D. 1808.

Occupied by the French.

Popular insurrection.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808.

MADRID: A. D. 1808.

Arrival of Joseph Bonaparte, as king, and his speedy flight.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

MADRID: A. D. 1808 (December).

Recovery by the French.

Return of King Joseph Bonaparte.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

MADRID: A. D. 1812.

Evacuation by the French.

Occupation of the city by Wellington and his army.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).

MADRID: A. D. 1823.

Again occupied by the French.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

{2066}

MADRID, The Treaty of (1526).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1525-1526.

----------MADRID: End--------

MÆATÆ, The.

A common or national name given by the Romans to the tribes in

Scotland which dwelt between the Forth and the Clyde, next to

"the wall."

MÆOTIS PALUS,

PALUS MÆOTIS.

The ancient Greek name of the body of

water now called the Sea of Azov.

----------MAESTRICHT: Start--------

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1576.

The Spanish Fury.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1579.

Spanish siege, capture and massacre.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1632.

Siege and capture by the Dutch.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1673.

Siege and capture by Vauban and Louis XIV.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1676.

Unsuccessfully besieged by William of Orange.

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

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1678.

Restored to Holland.

See NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1748.

Taken by the French and restored to Holland.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747;

and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, CONGRESS AND TREATY.

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1793.

Unsuccessful siege by the French.

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

MAESTRICHT: A. D. 1795.

Ceded to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

----------MAESTRICHT: End--------

MAFRIAN.

See JACOBITE CHURCH.

MAGADHA, The kingdom of.

See INDIA: B. C. 327-312; and 312—.

MAGDALA, Capture of (1868).

See ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1854-1889.

MAGDEBURG: A. D. 1631.

Siege, storming, and horrible sack and massacre

by the troops of Tilly.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631.

MAGELLAN, Voyage of.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

MAGENTA, Battle of (1859).

See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.

MAGESÆTAS, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

MAGIANS.

MAGI.

The priesthood of the ancient Iranian religion—the religion

of the Avesta and of Zarathrustra, or Zoroaster—as it existed

among the Medes and Persians. In Eastern Iran the priests were

called Athravas. In Western Iran "they are not called

Athravas, but Magush. This name is first found in the

inscription which Darius caused to be cut on the rock-wall of

Behistun; afterwards it was consistently used by Western

writers, from Herodotus to Agathias, for the priests of Iran."

M. Duncker,

History of Antiquity,

book 7, chapter 8 (volume 5).

"The priests of the Zoroastrians, from a time not long

subsequent to Darius Hystaspis, were the Magi. This tribe, or

caste, originally perhaps external to Zoroastrianism, had come

to be recognised as a true priestly order; and was entrusted

by the Sassanian princes with the whole control and direction

of the religion of the state. Its chief was a personage

holding a rank but very little inferior to the king. He bore

the title of 'Tenpet,' 'Head of the Religion,' or 'Movpetan

Movpet,' 'Head of the Chief Magi.'"

G. Rawlinson,

Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 28.

"To the whole ancient world Zoroaster's lore was best known by

the name of the doctrine of the Magi, which denomination was

commonly applied to the priests of India, Persia, and

Babylonia. The earliest mention of them is made by the prophet

Jeremiah (xxxix. 3), who enumerated among the retinue of King

Nebuchadnezzar at his entry into Jerusalem, the 'Chief of the

Magi' ('rab mag' in Hebrew), from which statement we may

distinctly gather that the Magi exercised a great influence at

the court of Babylonia 600 years B. C. They were, however,

foreigners, and are not to be confounded with the indigenous

priests. … The name Magi occurs even in the New Testament.

In the Gospel according to St. Matthew (ii. 1), the Magi

(Greek 'magoi,' translated in the English Bible by 'wise men')

came from the East to Jerusalem, to worship the new-born child

Jesus at Bethlehem. That these Magi were priests of the

Zoroastrian religion, we know from Greek writers."

M. Haug,

Essays on the Religion of the Parsis, 1.

See, also, ZOROASTRIANS.

MAGNA CARTA.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1215.

MAGNA GRÆCIA.

"It was during the height of their prosperity, seemingly, in

the sixth century B. C., that the Italic Greeks [in southern

Italy] either acquired for, or bestowed upon, their territory

the appellation of Magna Græcia, which at that time it well

deserved; for not only were Sybaris and Kroton then the

greatest Grecian cities situated near together, but the whole

peninsula of Calabria may be considered as attached to the

Grecian cities on the coast. The native Œnotrians and Sikels

occupying the interior had become hellenised, or

semi-hellenised, with a mixture of Greeks among them—common

subjects of these great cities."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 22.

On the Samnite conquest of Magna Græcia

See SAMNITES.

MAGNANO, Battle of (1799).

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

MAGNATÆ, The.

See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

MAGNESIA.

The eastern coast of Thessaly was anciently so called. The

Magnetes who occupied it were among the people who became

subject to the Thessalians or Thesprotians, when the latter

came over from Epirus and occupied the valley of the Peneus.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 3.

Two towns named Magnesia in Asia Minor were believed to be

colonies from the Magnetes of Thessaly. One was on the south

side of the Meander; the other, more northerly, near the river

Harmus.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 13.

MAGNESIA, Battle of (B. C. 190).

See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

MAGNUS I., King of Denmark,

A. D. 1042-1047.

Magnus I. (called The Good), King of Norway, 1035-1047.

Magnus I., King of Sweden, 1275-1290.

Magnus II., King of Norway, 1066-1069.

Magnus II., King of Sweden, 1319-1350, and 1359-1363;

and VII. of Norway, 1319-1343.

Magnus III., King of Norway, 1093-1103.

Magnus IV., King of Norway, 1130-1134.

Magnus V., King of Norway, 1162-1186.

Magnus VI., King of Norway, 1263-1280.

{2067}

MAGYARS, The.

See HUNGARIANS.

MAHARAJA.

See RAJA.

MAHDI, Al, Caliph, A. D. 775-785.

MAHDI, The.

"The religion of Islam acknowledges the mission of Jesus, but

not His divinity. Since the Creation, it teaches, five

prophets had appeared before the birth of Mahomet—Adam, Noah,

Abraham, Moses, and Jesus—each being greater than his

predecessor, and each bringing a fuller and higher revelation

than the last. Jesus ranks above all the prophets of the old

dispensation, but below those of the new, inaugurated by

Mahomet. In the final struggle He will be but the servant and

auxiliary of a more august personage—the Mahdi. The literal

meaning of the word Mahdi is not, as the newspapers generally

assert, 'He who leads,' a meaning more in consonance with

European ideas, but 'He who is led.' … If he leads his

fellow-men it is because he alone is the 'well-guided one,'

led by God—the Mahdi. The word Mahdi is only an epithet which

may be applied to any prophet, or even to any ordinary person;

but used as a proper name it indicates him who is

'well-guided' beyond all others, the Mahdi 'par excellence,'

who is to end the drama of the world, and of whom Jesus shall

only be the vicar. … The Koran does not speak of the Mahdi,

but it seems certain that Mahomet must have announced him. …

The idea of the Mahdi once formed, it circulated throughout

the Mussulman world: we will follow it rapidly in its course

among the Persians, the Turks, the Egyptians, and the Arabs of

the Soudan; but without for an instant pretending to pass in

review all the Mahdis who have appeared upon the prophetic

stage; for their name is Legion."

J. Darmesteter,

The Mahdi, Past and Present,

chapters 1-2.

See, also,

ISLAM; ALMOHADES;

and EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883, and 1884-1885.

MAHDIYA:

Taken by the Moorish Corsair, Dragut,

and retaken by the Spaniards (1550).

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

MAHMOUD I., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1730-1754.

Mahmoud II., Turkish Sultan, 1808-1839.

Mahmoud, the Afghan, Shah of Persia, 1722-1725.

Mahmoud, the Gaznevide, The Empire of.

See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

----------MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: Start--------

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

The Mission of the Prophet.

Mahomet (the usage of Christendom has fixed this form of the

name Mohammad) was born at Mecca, on or about the 20th day of

August, A. D. 570. He sprang from "the noblest race in Mecca

and in Arabia [the tribe of Koreish and the family of Hashem].

To his family belonged the hereditary guardianship of the

Kaaba and a high place among the aristocracy of his native

city. Personally poor, he was raised to a position of

importance by his marriage with the rich widow Khadijah, whose

mercantile affairs he had previously conducted. In his

fortieth year he began to announce himself as an Apostle of

God, sent to root out idolatry, and to restore the true faith

of the preceding Prophets, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Slowly

and gradually he makes converts in his native city; his good

wife Khadijah, his faithful servant Zeyd, are the first to

recognize his mission; his young cousin, the noble Ali, the

brave and generous and injured model of Arabian chivalry,

declares himself his convert and Vizier; the prudent, moderate

and bountiful Abu-Bekr acknowledges the pretensions of the

daring innovator. Through mockery and persecution the Prophet

keeps unflinchingly in his path; no threats, no injuries,

hinder him from still preaching to his people the unity and

the righteousness of God, and exhorting to a far purer and

better morality than had ever been set before them. He claims

no temporal power, no spiritual domination; he asks but for

simple toleration, for free permission to win men by

persuasion into the way of truth. … As yet at least his

hands were not stained with blood, nor his inner life with

lust."

E. A. Freeman,

History and Conquests of the Saracens,

lecture 2.

After ten years of preaching at Mecca, and of a private

circulation and repetition of the successive Suras or chapters

of the Koran, as the prophet delivered them, Mahomet had

gained but a small following, while the opposition to his

doctrines and pretensions had gained strength. But in A. D.

620 (he being then fifty years of age) he gained the ear of a

company of pilgrims from Medina and won them to his faith.

Returning home, they spread the gospel of Islam among their

neighbors, and the disciples at Medina were soon strong enough

in numbers to offer protection to their prophet and to his

persecuted followers in Mecca. As the result of two pledges,

famous in Mahometan history, which were given by the men of

Medina to Mahomet, in secret meetings at the hill of Acaba, a

general emigration of the adherents of the new faith from

Mecca to Medina took place in the spring of the year 622.

Mahomet and his closest friend, Abu Bakr, having remained with

their families until the last, escaped the rage of the

Koreish, or Coreish, only by a secret flight and a concealment

for three days in a cave on Mount Thaur, near Mecca. Their

departure from the cave of Thaur, according to the most

accepted reckoning, was on the 20th of June, A. D. 622. This

is the date of the Hegira, or flight, or emigration of Mahomet

from Mecca to Medina. The Mahometan Era of the Hegira, "though

referring 'par excellence' to the flight of the Prophet, …

is also applicable to all his followers who emigrated to

Medina prior to the capture of Mecca; and they are hence

called Muhâjirîn, i. e., the Emigrants, or Refugees. We have

seen that they commenced to emigrate from the beginning of

Moharram (the first month of the Hegira era) two months

before." The title of the Muhâjirîn, or Refugees, soon became

an illustrious one, as did that of the Ansar, or Allies, of

Medina, who received and protected them. At Medina Mahomet

found himself strongly sustained. Before the year of his

flight ended, he opened hostilities against the city which had

rejected him, by attacking its Syrian caravans. The attacks

were followed up and the traffic of Mecca greatly interfered

with, until January, 624, when the famous battle of Bedr, or

Badr, was fought, and the first great victory of the sword of

Islam achieved.

{2068}

The 300 warriors of Bedr formed "the peerage of Islam." From

this time the ascendancy of Mahomet was rapidly gained, and

assumed a political as well as a religious character. His

authority was established at Medina and his influence spread

among the neighboring tribes. Nor was his cause more than

temporarily depressed by a sharp defeat which he sustained,

January, 625, in battle with the Koreish at Ohod. Two years

later Medina was attacked and besieged by a great force of the

Koreish and other tribes of Arabs and Jews, against the latter

of whom Mahomet, after vainly courting their adhesion and

recognition, had turned with relentless hostility. The siege

failed and the retreat of the enemy was hastened by a timely

storm. In the next year Mahomet extorted from the Koreish a

treaty, known as the Truce of Hodeibia, which suspended

hostilities for ten years and permitted the prophet and his

followers to visit Mecca for three days in the following year.

The pilgrimage to Mecca was made in the holy month, February,

629, and in 630 Mahomet found adherents enough within the city

and outside of it to deliver the coveted shrine and capital of

Arabia into his hands. Alleging a breach of the treaty of

peace, he marched against the city with an army of 10,000 men,

and it was surrendered to him by his obstinate opponent, Abu

Sofiân, who acknowledged, at last, the divine commission of

Mahomet and became a disciple. The idols in the Kaaba were

thrown down and the ancient temple dedicated to the worship of

the one God. The conquest of Mecca was followed within no long

time by the submission of the whole Arabic peninsula. The most

obstinate in resisting were the great Bedouin tribe of the

Hawazin, in the hill country, southeast of Mecca, with their

kindred, the Bani Thackif. These were crushed in the important

battle of Honein, and their strong city of Tayif was

afterwards taken. Before Mahomet died, on the 8th June, A. D.

632, he was the prince as well as the prophet of Arabia, and

his armies, passing the Syrian borders, had already

encountered the Romans, though not gloriously, in a battle

fought at Muta, not far from the Dead Sea.

Sir W. Muir,

Life of Mahomet.

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 50.

J. W. H. Stobart,

Islam and its Founder,

chapters 3-9.

W. Irving,

Mahomet and his Successors,

chapters 6-39.

R. D. Osborn,

Islam under the Arabs,

part 1, chapters 1-3.

See, also,

ISLAM, and ERA, MAHOMETAN.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.

Abu Bekr.

Omar.

The founding of the Caliphate.

Conquest of Syria.

The death of Mahomet left Islam without a head. The Prophet

had neither named a successor (Khalif or Caliph), nor had he

instituted a mode in which the choice of one should be made.

His nephew and son-in-law—"the Bayard of Islam," the

lion-hearted Ali—seemed the natural heir of that strangely

born sovereignty of the Arab world. But its elders and chiefs

were averse to Ali, and the assembly which they convened

preferred, instead, the Prophet's faithful friend, the

venerable Abu Bekr. This first of the caliphs reigned modestly

but two years, and on his death, July, A. D. 634, the stern

soldier Omar was raised to the more than royal place. By this

time the armies of the crescent were already far advanced

beyond the frontiers of Arabia in their fierce career of

conquest. No sooner had Abu Bekr, in 632, set his heel on some

rebellious movements, which threatened his authority, than he

made haste to open fields in which the military spirit and

ambitions of his unquiet people might find full exercise. With

bold impartiality he challenged, at once, and alike, the two

dominant powers of the eastern world, sending armies to invade

the soil of Persia, on one hand, and the Syrian provinces of

the Roman empire, on the other. The invincible Khaled, or

Caled, led the former, at first, but was soon transferred to

the more critical field, which the latter proved to be. "One

of the fifteen provinces of Syria, the cultivated lands to the

eastward of the Jordan, had been decorated by Roman vanity

with the name of 'Arabia'; and the first arms of the Saracens

were justified by the semblance of a national right." The

strong city of Bosra was taken, partly through the treachery

of its commander, Romanus, who renounced Christianity and

embraced the faith of Islam. From Bosra the Moslems advanced

on Damascus, but suspended the siege of the city until they

had encountered the army which the Emperor Heraclius sent to

its relief. This they did on the field of Aiznadin, in the

south of Palestine, July 30, A. D. 634, when 50,000 of the

Roman-Greeks and Syrians are said to have perished, while but

470 Arabs fell. Damascus was immediately invested and taken

after a protracted siege, which Voltaire has likened to the

siege of Troy, on account of the many combats and

stratagems—the many incidents of tragedy and romance—which

poets and historians have handed down, in some connection with

its progress or its end. The ferocity of Khaled was only half

restrained by his milder colleague in command, Abu Obeidah,

and the wretched inhabitants of Damascus suffered terribly at

his hands. The city, itself, was spared and highly favored,

becoming the Syrian capital of the Arabs. Heliopolis (Baalbec)

was besieged and taken in January, A. D. 636; Emessa

surrendered soon after. In November, 636, a great and decisive

battle was fought with the forces of Heraclius at Yermuk, or

Yermouk, on the borders of Palestine and Arabia. The

Christians fought obstinately and well, but they were

overwhelmed with fearful slaughter. "After the battle of

Yermuk the Roman army no longer appeared in the field; and the

Saracens might securely choose, among the fortified towns of

Syria, the first object of their attack. They consulted the

caliph whether they should march to Cæsarea or Jerusalem; and

the advice of Ali determined the immediate siege of the

latter. … After Mecca and Medina, it was revered and visited

by the devout Moslems as the temple of the Holy Land, which

had been sanctified by the revelation of Moses, of Jesus, and

of Mahomet himself." The defense of Jerusalem, notwithstanding

its great strength, was maintained with less stubbornness than

that of Damascus had been. After a siege of four months, in

the winter of A. D. 637, the Christian patriarch or bishop of

Jerusalem, who seems to have been first in authority, proposed

to give up the Holy City, if Omar, the caliph, would come in

person from Medina to settle and sign the terms of surrender.

Omar deemed the prize worthy of this concession and made the

long journey, travelling as simply as the humblest pilgrim and

entering Jerusalem on foot.

{2069}

After this, little remained to make the conquest of all Syria

complete. Aleppo was taken, but not easily, after a siege, and

Antioch, the splendid seat of eastern luxury and wealth, was

abandoned by the emperor and submitted, paying a great ransom

for its escape from spoliation and the sword. The year 639 saw

Syria at the feet of the Arabs whom it had despised six years

before, and the armies of the caliph were ready to advance to

new fields, east, northwards, and west.

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 51.

ALSO IN:

W. Irving,

Mahomet and His Successors,

volume 2, chapters 3-23.

S. Ockley,

History of the Saracens: Abubeker.

Sir W. Muir,

Annals of the Early Caliphate,

chapters 2, 11, 19-21.

See, also,

JERUSALEM: A. D. 637;

and TYRE: A. D. 638.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

Conquest of Persia.

During the invasion of Syria, Abu Bekr, the first of the

Caliphs, sent an expedition towards the Euphrates, under

command of the redoubtable Khaled (633). The first object of

its attack was Hira, a city on the western branch of the

Euphrates, not far from modern Kufa. Hira was the seat of a

small kingdom of Christian Arabs tributary to Persia and under

Persian protection and control. Its domain embraced the

northern part of that fertile tract between the desert and the

Euphrates which the Arab writers call Sawad; the southern part

being a Persian province of which the capital, Obolla, was the

great emporium of the Indian trade. Hira and Obolla were

speedily taken and this whole region subdued. But, Khaled

being then transferred to the army in Syria, the Persians

regained courage, while the energy of the Moslems was relaxed.

In an encounter called the Battle of the Bridge, A. D. 635,

the latter experienced a disastrous check; but the next year

found them more victorious than ever. The great battle of

Cadesia (Kadisiyeh) ended all hope in Persia of doing more

than defend the Euphrates as a western frontier. Within two

years even that hope disappeared. The new Arab general, Sa'ad

Ibn Abi Wakas, having spent the interval in strengthening his

forces, and in founding the city of Busrah, or Bassora, below

the junction of the Euphrates and Tigris, as well as that of

Kufa, which became the Moslem capital, advanced into

Mesopotamia, A. D. 637, crossing the river without opposition.

The Persian capital, Ctesiphon, was abandoned to him so

precipitately that most of its vast treasures fell into his

hands. It was not until six months later that the Persians and

Arabs met in battle, at Jalula, and the encounter was fatal to

the former, 100,000 having perished on the field. "By the

close of the year A. D. 637 the banner of the Prophet waved

over the whole tract west of Zagros, from Nineveh almost to

Susa." Then a brief pause ensued. In 641 the Persian king

Isdigerd—last of the Sassanian house—made a great, heroic

effort to recover his lost dominions and save what remained.

He staked all and lost, in the final battle of Nehavend, which

the Arabs called "Fattah-hul-Futtuh," or "Victory of

Victories." "The defeat of Nehavend terminated the Sassanian

power. Isdigerd indeed, escaping from Rei, and flying

continually from place to place, prolonged an inglorious

existence for the space of ten more years—from A. D. 641 to

A. D. 651; but he had no longer a kingdom. Persia fell to

pieces on the occasion of 'the victory of victories,' and made

no other united effort against the Arabs. Province after

province was occupied by the fierce invaders; and, at length,

in A. D. 651, their arms penetrated to Merv, where the last

scion of the house of Babek had for some years found a refuge.

… The order of conquest seems to have been the following:

Media, Northern Persia, Rhagiana, Azerbijan, Gurgan, Tantrist,

and Khorassan in A. D. 642; Southern Persia, Kerman, Seistan,

Mekran, and Kurdistan in A. D. 643; Merv, Balkh, Herat, and

Kharezm in A. D. 650 or 652."

G. Rawlinson,

Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 26, and foot-notes.

ALSO IN:

W. Irving,

Mahomet and his Successors,

volume 2, chapters 25-34.

Sir W. Muir,

Annals of the Early Caliphate,

chapters 10-18, 25-26.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.

Conquest of Egypt.

"It was in the nineteenth or twentieth year of the Hegira [A.

D. 640 or 641] that Amru, having obtained the hesitating

consent of the Caliph, set out from Palestine for Egypt. His

army, though joined on its march by bands of Bedouins lured by

the hope of plunder, did not at the first exceed 4,000 men.

Soon after he had left, Omar, concerned at the smallness of

his force, would have recalled him; but finding that he had

already gone too far to be stopped, he sent heavy

reinforcements, under Zobeir, one of the chief Companions,

after him. The army of Amru was thus swelled to an imposing

array of from 12,000 to 16,000 men, some of them warriors of

renown. Amru entered Egypt by Arish, and overcoming the

garrison at Faroma [ancient Pelusium], turned to the left and

so passed onward through the desert, reaching thus the

easternmost of the seven estuaries of the Nile. Along this

branch of the river he marched by Bubastis towards Upper

Egypt,"—and, so, to Heliopolis, near to the great ancient

city of Misr, or Memphis. Here, and throughout their conquest

of Egypt, the Moslem invaders appear to have found some

goodwill towards them prevailing among the Christians of the

Jacobite sect, who had never become reconciled to the Orthodox

Greeks. Heliopolis and Memphis were surrendered to their arms

after some hard fighting and a siege of no long duration.

"Amru lost no time in marching upon Alexandria so as to reach

it before the Greek troops, hastily called in from the

outlying garrisons, could rally there for its defence. On the

way he put to flight several columns which sought to hinder

his advance; and at last presented himself before the walls of

the great city, which, offering (as it still does) on the land

side a narrow and well-fortified front, was capable of an

obstinate resistance. Towards the sea also it was open to

succour at the pleasure of the Byzantine Court. But during the

siege Heraclius died, and the opportunity of relief was

supinely allowed to slip away." In the end Alexandria

capitulated and was protected from plunder (see LIBRARIES,

ANCIENT: ALEXANDRIA), paying tribute to the conquerors. "Amru,

it is said, wished to fix his seat of government at

Alexandria, but Omar would not allow him to remain so far away

from his camp, with so many branches of the Nile between. So

he returned to Upper Egypt. A body of the Arabs crossed the

Nile and settled in Ghizeh, on the western bank—a movement

which Omar permitted only on condition that a strong fortress

was constructed there to prevent the possibility of their

being surprised and cut off.

{2070}

The headquarters of the army were pitched near Memphis. Around

them grew up a military station, called from its origin

Fostat, or 'the Encampment.' It expanded rapidly into the

capital of Egypt, the modern Cairo. … This name 'Cahira,'

or City of the Victory, is of later date [see below: A. D.

908-1171]. … Zobeir urged Amru to enforce the right of

conquest, and divide the land among his followers. But Amru

refused; and the Caliph, as might have been expected,

confirmed the judgment. 'Leave the land of Egypt,' was his

wise reply, 'in the people's hands to nurse and fructify.' As

elsewhere, Omar would not allow the Arabs to become

proprietors of a single acre. Even Amru was refused ground

whereupon to build a mansion for himself. … So the land of

Egypt, left in the hands of its ancestral occupants, became a

rich granary for the Hejaz, even as in bygone times it had

been the granary of Italy and the Byzantine empire. … Amru,

with the restless spirit of his faith, soon pushed his

conquests westward beyond the limits of Egypt, established

himself in Barca, and reached even to Tripoli. … Early in

the Caliphate of Othman [A. D. 646] a desperate attempt was

made to regain possession of Alexandria. The Moslems, busy

with their conquests elsewhere, had left the city

insufficiently protected. The Greek inhabitants conspired with

the Court; and a fleet of 300 ships was sent under command of

Manuel, who drove out the garrison and took possession of the

city. Amru hastened to its rescue. A great battle was fought

outside the walls: the Greeks were defeated, and the unhappy

town was subjected to the miseries of a second and a longer

siege. It was at last taken by storm and given up to plunder.

… The city, though still maintaining its commercial import,

fell now from its high estate. The pomp and circumstance of

the Moslem Court were transferred to Fostat, and Alexandria

ceased to be the capital of Egypt."

Sir W. Muir,

Annals of the Early Caliphate,

chapter 24, with foot-note.

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 51.

W. Irving,

Mahomet and his Successors,

volume 2, chapters 24 and 35.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 644.

Assassination of Caliph Omar.

The death of Omar, the second of the Caliphs, was a violent

one. "It occurred in November, A. D. 644. One day a slave who

worked for his master at the carpenter's bench came to see the

Commander of the Faithful, and complained to him of being

overworked, and badly treated by the citizen that owned him.

Omar listened attentively, but arriving at the conclusion that

the charges were false, sternly dismissed the carpenter to his

bench. The man retired, vowing to be revenged. The following

day was Friday, 'the day of the Assembly.' Omar, as usual,

went to lead the prayers of the assembly in the great mosque.

He opened his mouth to speak. He had just said 'Allah,' when

the keen dagger of the offended slave was thrust into his

back, and the Commander of the Faithful fell on the sacred

floor, fatally wounded. The people, in a perfect frenzy of

horror and rage, fell upon the assassin, but with superhuman

strength he threw them off, and rushing about in the madness

of despair he killed some and wounded others, and finally

turning the point of his dagger to his own breast, fell dead.

Omar lingered several days in great agony, but he was brave to

the end. His dying words were, 'Give to my successor this

parting bequest, that he be kind to the men of this city,

Medina, which gave a home to us, and to the Faith. Tell him to

make much of their virtues, and to pass lightly over their

faults. Bid him also treat well the Arab tribes, for verily

they are the backbone of Islam. Moreover, let him faithfully

fulfil the covenants made with the Christians and the Jews! O

Allah! I have finished my course! To him that cometh after me,

I leave the kingdom firmly established and at peace!' Thus

perished one of the greatest Princes the Mohammedans were ever

to know. Omar was truly a great and good man, of whom

any country and any creed might be proud."

J. J. Pool,

Studies in Mohammedanism,

pages 58-59.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709.

Conquest of northern Africa.

"While Egypt was won almost without a blow, Latin Africa

[northern Africa beyond Egypt] took sixty years to conquer. It

was first invaded under Othman in 647, but Carthage was not

subdued till 698, nor was the province fully reduced for

eleven years longer. And why? Doubtless because Africa

contained two classes of inhabitants, not over-friendly to

each other, but both of whom had something to lose by a

Saracenic conquest. The citizens of Carthage were Roman in

every sense, their language was Latin, their faith was

orthodox; they had no wrongs beyond those which always afflict

provincials under a despotism; wrongs not likely to be

alleviated by exchanging a Christian despot at Constantinople

for an infidel one at Medina or Damascus. Beyond them, in the

inland provinces, were the native Moors, barbarians, and many

of them pagans; they had fought for their rude liberty against

the Cæsars, and they had no intention of surrendering it to

the Caliphs. Romans and Moors alike long preferred the chances

of the sword to either Koran or tribute; but their ultimate

fate was different. Latin civilization and Latin Christianity

gradually disappeared by the decay and extermination of their

votaries. The Moors, a people not unlike the Arabs in their

unconverted state, were at last content to embrace their

religion, and to share their destinies and their triumphs.

Arabs and Moors intermingled went on to further conquests; and

the name of the barbarian converts was more familiarly used in

Western Europe to denote the united nation than the terrible

name of the original compatriots of the Prophet."

E. A. Freeman,

History and Conquests of the Saracens,

lecture 3.

"In their climate and government, their diet and habitation,

the wandering Moors resembled the Bedoweens of the desert.

With the religion they were proud to adopt the language, name,

and origin of Arabs; the blood of the strangers and natives

was insensibly mingled; and from the Euphrates to the Atlantic

the same nation might seem to be diffused over the sandy

plains of Asia and Africa. Yet I will not deny that 50,000

tents of pure Arabians might be transported over the Nile and

scattered through the Libyan desert; and I am not ignorant

that five of the Moorish tribes still retain their barbarous

idiom, with the appellation and character of 'white'

Africans."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 51.

"By 647 the Barbary coast was overrun up to the gates of Roman

Carthage; but the wild Berber population was more difficult to

subdue than the luxurious subjects of the Sasanids of Persia

or the Greeks of Syria and Egypt. Kayrawan was founded as the

African capital in 670; Carthage fell in 693, and the Arabs

pushed their arms as far as the Atlantic. From Tangier they

crossed into Spain in 710."

S. Lane-Poole,

The Mohammadan Dynasties,

page 5.

ALSO IN:

W. Irving,

Mahomet and his Successors,

volume 2, chapters 35, 44, 54-55.

R. D. Osborn,

Islam under the Arabs,

part 1, chapters 1-3.

See, also,

CARTHAGE: A. D. 698;

and MOROCCO.

{2071}

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.

Accession of the Omeyyads.

Abu Bekr, the immediate successor of Mahomet, reigned but two

years, dying August, A. D. 634. By his nomination, Omar was

raised to the Caliphate and ruled Islam until 644, when he was

murdered by a Persian slave. His successor was Othman, who had

been the secretary of the Prophet. The Caliphate of Othman was

troubled by many plots and increasing disaffection, which

ended in his assassination, A. D. 656. It was not until then

that Ali, the nephew and son-in-law of Mahomet, was permitted

to take the Prophet's seat. But the dissensions in the Moslem

world had grown more bitter as the fields of ambitious rivalry

were widened, and the factions opposed to Ali were implacable,

"Now begins the tragic tale of the wrongs and martyrdoms of

the immediate family of the Prophet. The province of Syria was

now ruled by the crafty Moawiyah, whose father was Abu-Sofian,

so long the bitterest enemy of Mahomet, and at last a tardy

and unwilling proselyte. … Such was the parentage of the man

who was to deprive the descendants of the Apostle of their

heritage. Moawiyah gave himself out as the avenger of Othman;

Ali was represented as his murderer, although his sons, the

grandsons of the Prophet, had fought, and one of them received

a wound, in the defence of that Caliph. … Ayesha, too, the

Mother of the Faithful, Telha and Zobeir, the Prophet's old

companions, revolted on their own account, and the whole of

the brief reign of Ali was one constant succession of civil

war." Syria adhered to Moawiyah. Ayesha, Zobeir and Telha

gained possession of Bussorah and made that city their

headquarters of rebellion. They were defeated there by Ali in

a great battle, A. D. 656, called the Battle of the Camel,

because the litter which bore Ayesha on the back of a camel

became the center of the fight. But he gained little from the

success; nor more from a long, indecisive battle fought with

Moawiyah at Siffin, in July, A. D. 657. Amru, the conqueror of

Egypt, had now joined Moawiyah, and his influence enlisted

that great province in the revolt. At last, in 661, the civil

war was ended by the assassination of Ali. His eldest son,

Hassan, who seems to have been a spiritless youth, bargained

away his claims to Moawiyah, and the latter became undisputed

Caliph, founding a dynasty called that of the Ommiades, or

Omeyyads (from Ommiah, or Omeyya, the great grandfather of

Moawiyah), which occupied the throne for almost a century—not

at Medina, but at Damascus, to which city the Caliphate was

now transferred. "In thus converting the Caliphate into an

hereditary monarchy he utterly changed its character. It soon

assumed the character of a common oriental empire. … The

Ommiads were masters of slaves instead of leaders of freemen;

the public will was no longer consulted, and the public good

as little; the Commander of the Faithful sank into an earthly

despot, ruling by force, like any Assyrian conqueror of old.

The early Caliphs dwelt in the sacred city of Medina, and

directed the counsels of the Empire from beside the tomb of

the Prophet. Moawiyah transferred his throne to the conquered

splendours of Damascus; and Mecca and Medina became tributary

cities to the ruler of Syria. At one time a rival Caliph,

Abdallah, established himself in Arabia; twice were the holy

cities taken by storm, and the Kaaba itself was battered down

by the engines of the invaders. … Such a revolution however

did not effect itself without considerable opposition. The

partizans of the house of Ali continued to form a formidable

sect. In their ideas the Vicarship of the Prophet was not to

be, like an earthly kingdom, the mere prize of craft or of

valour. It was the inalienable heritage of the sacred

descendants of the Prophet himself. … This was the origin of

the Shiah sect, the assertors of the rights of Ali and his

house."

E. A. Freeman,

History and Conquests of the Saracens,

lecture 3.

ALSO IN:

Sir W. Muir,

Annals of the Early Caliphate,

chapters 31-46.

R. D. Osborn,

Islam Under the Arabs,

part 3.

S. Lane-Poole,

The Mohammadan Dynasties,

pages 9-11.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 680.

The Tragedy at Kerbela.

When Ali, or Aly, the nephew and son-in-law of Mahomet, had

been slain, A. D. 661, and the Caliphate had been seized by

Moawiyah, the first of the Ommiades, "the followers of 'Aly

proclaimed his elder son, Hasan, Khalif; but this

poor-spirited youth was contented to sell his pretensions to

the throne. … On his death, his brother Hoseyn became the

lawful Khalif in the eyes of the partisans of the House of

'Aly, who ignored the general admission of the authority of

the 'Ommiades.' … For a time Hoseyn remained quietly at

Medina, leading a life of devotion, and declining to push his

claims. But at length an opportunity for striking a blow at

the rival House presented itself, and Hoseyn did not hesitate

to avail himself of it. He was invited to join an insurrection

which had broken out at Kufa [A. D. 680], the most mutinous

and fickle of all the cities of the empire; and he set out

with his family and friends, to the number of 100 souls, and

an escort of 500 horsemen, to join the insurgents. As he drew

nigh to Kufa, he discovered that the rising had been

suppressed by the 'Ommiade' governor of the city, and that

the country round him was hostile instead of loyal to him. And

now there came out from Kufa an army of 4,000 horse, who

surrounded the little body of travellers [on the plain of

Kerbela], and cut them off alike from the city and the river.

… A series of single combats, in which Hoseyn and his

followers displayed heroic courage, ended in the death of the

Imam and the men who were with him, and the enslaving of the

women and children."

S. Lane-Poole,

Studies in a Mosque,

chapter 7.

"The scene [of the massacre of Hosein and his band] … is

still fresh as yesterday in the mind of every Believer, and is

commemorated with wild grief and frenzy as often as the fatal

day, the Tenth of the first month of the year [tenth of

Moharram—October 10], comes round. … The tragedy of Kerbala

decided not only the fate of the Caliphate, but of Mahometan

kingdoms long after the Caliphate had waned and disappeared.

… The tragedy is yearly represented on the stage as a

religious ceremony"—in the "Passion Play" of the Moharram

Festival.

Sir W. Muir,

Annals of the Early Caliphate,

chapter 49, with foot-note.

See, also, ISLAM.

{2072}

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 668-675.

First repulse from Constantinople.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 668-675.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 710.

Subjugation of the Turks.

"After the fall of the Persian kingdom, the river Oxus divided

the territories of the Saracens and of the Turks: This narrow

boundary was soon overleaped by the spirit of the Arabs; the

governors of Chorassan extended their successive inroads; and

one of their triumphs was adorned with the buskin of a Turkish

queen, which she dropped in her precipitate flight beyond the

hills of Bochara. But the final conquest of Transoxana, as

well as of Spain, was reserved for the glorious reign of the

inactive Walid; and the name of Catibah, the camel-driver,

declares the origin and merit of his successful lieutenant.

While one of his colleagues displayed the first Mahometan

banner on the banks of the Indus, the spacious regions between

the Oxus, the Jaxartes, and the Caspian sea were reduced by

the arms of Catibah to the obedience of the prophet and of the

caliph. A tribute of two millions of pieces of gold was

imposed on the infidels; their idols were burned or broken;

the Mussulman chief pronounced a sermon in the new mosch

[mosque] of Carizme; after several battles the Turkish hordes

were driven back to the desert; and the emperors of China

solicited the friendship of the victorious Arabs. To their

industry the prosperity of the province, the Sogdiana of the

ancients, may in a great measure be ascribed; but the

advantages of the soil and climate had been understood and

cultivated since the reign of the Macedonian kings. Before the

invasion of the Saracens, Carizme, Bochara, and Samarcand were

rich and populous under the yoke of the shepherds of the

North."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 51.

ALSO IN:

E. A. Freeman,

History and Conquests of the Saracens,

lecture 3.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 711-713.

Conquest of Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

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

[Page 2073 and 2074 are placed here to avoid interrupting

the next article, "The repulse from Gaul.".]

SEVENTH CENTURY.

CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

A.D.

602.

Revolt in Constantinople;

fall and death of Maurice;

accession of Phocas.

604.

Death of Pope Gregory the Great.

Death of St. Augustine of Canterbury. [Uncertain date.]

608.

Invasion of Asia Minor by Chosroes II., king of Persia.

610.

Death of the Eastern Emperor Phocas;

accession of Heraclius.

Venetia ravaged by the Avars.

614.

Invasion of Syria by Chosroes II.;

capture of Damascus.

615.

Capture of Jerusalem by Chosroes;

removal of the supposed True Cross.

616.

First expulsion of the Jews from Spain.

Advance of the Persians to the Bosphorus.

622.

The flight of Mahomet from Mecca (the Hegira).

Romans under Heraclius victorious over the Persians.

626.

Siege of Constantinople by Persians and Avars.

627.

Victory of Heraclius over Chosroes of Persia, at Nineveh.

Conversion of Northumbria to Christianity.

628.

Recovery of Jerusalem and of the supposed True Cross,

from the Persians, by Heraclius.

630.

Submission of Mecca to the Prophet.

632.

Death of Mahomet;

Abu Bekr chosen caliph.

634.

Death of Abu Bekr;

Omar chosen caliph.

Battle of Hieromax or Yermuk;

Battle of the Bridge. [Uncertain date.]

Defeat of Heraclius.

Compilation and arrangement of the Koran. [Uncertain date.]

635.

Siege and capture of Damascus by the Mahometans;

invasion of Persia;

victory at Kadisiyeh. [Uncertain date.]

Defeat of the Welsh by the English

in the battle of the Heavenfield.

636.

Mahometan subjugation of Syria;

retreat of the Romans.

637.

Siege and conquest of Jerusalem by the Moslems;

their victories in Persia.

639.

Publication of the Ecthesis of Heraclius.

640.

Capture of Cæsarea by the Moslems;

invasion of Egypt by Amru.

641.

Death of the Eastern Emperor Heraclius;

three rival emperors;

accession of Constans II.

Victory at Nehavend and final conquest of Persia

by the Mahometans;

end of the Sassanian kingdom;

capture of Alexandria, [Uncertain date.]

founding of Cairo.

643.

Publication of the Lombard Code of Laws.

644.

Assassination of Omar;

Othman chosen caliph.

646.

Alexandria recovered by the Greeks and lost again.

648.

Publication by Constans II. of the edict called "The Type."

649.

Mahometan invasion of Cyprus.

650.

Conquest of Merv, Balkh, and Herat by the Moslems.

[Uncertain date.]

652.

Conversion of the East Saxons in England.

653.

Seizure and banishment of Pope Martin I.

by the Emperor Constans II.

656.

Murder of Caliph Othman;

Ali chosen caliph;

rebellion of Moawiyah;

civil war;

Battle of the Camel.

657.

Ali's transfer of the seat of government to Kufa.

658.

Syria abandoned to Moawiyah;

Egypt in revolt.

661.

Assassination of Ali;

Moawiyah, first of the Omeyyads, made caliph;

Damascus his capital.

663.

Visit of the Emperor Constans to Rome.

668.

Assassination of Constans at Syracuse; [Uncertain date.]

accession of Constantine IV. to the throne of the Eastern Empire.

Beginning of the siege of Constantinople by the Saracens.

670.

The founding of Kairwan, or Kayrawan. [Uncertain date.]

673.

First Council of the Anglo-Saxon Church, at Hereford.

Birth of the Venerable Bede [Uncertain date.] (died 735).

677.

The raising of the siege of Constantinople;

treaty of peace. [Uncertain date.]

680.

Sixth General Council of the Church, at Constantinople;

condemnation of the Monothelite heresy.

Massacre at Kerbela of Hoseyn, son of Ali, and his followers.

685.

Death of the Eastern Emperor, Constantine IV.,

and accession of Justinian II.

The Angles of Northumbria, under King Ecgfrith,

defeated by the Picts at Nectansmere.

687.

Battle of Testri;

victory of Pippin of Heristal over the Neustrians.

695.

Fall and banishment of Justinian II.

696.

Founding of the bishopric of Salzburg.

697.

Election of the first Doge of Venice.

698.

Conquest and destruction of Carthage by the Moslems.

[Uncertain date]

EIGHTH CENTURY.

CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

A.D.

704.

Recovery of the throne by the Eastern Emperor Justinian II.

705.

Accession of the Caliph Welid.

709.

Accession of Roderick to the Gothic throne in Spain.

711.

Invasion of Spain by the Arab-Moors.

Moslem conquest of Transoxiana and Sardinia.

Final fall and death of the Eastern Emperor Justinian II.

712.

Surrender of Toledo to the Moslem invaders of Spain.

717.

Elevation of Leo the Isaurian to the throne of the Eastern Empire.

Second siege of Constantinople by the Moslems.

Great defeat of the Moslems at the Cave of Covadonga in Spain.

718.

Victory of Charles Martel at Soissons;

his authority acknowledged in both Frankish kingdoms.

719.

Mahometan conquest and occupation of Narbonne.

721.

Siege of Toulouse;

defeat of the Moslems.

725.

Mahometan conquests in Septimania.

726.

Iconoclastic edicts of Leo the Isaurian;

tumult and insurrection in Constantinople.

731.

Death of Pope Gregory II.;

election of Gregory III.;

last confirmation of a Papal election by the Eastern Emperor.

732.

Great defeat of the Moslems by the Franks

under Charles Martel at Poitiers, or Tours.

Council held at Rome by Pope Gregory III.;

edict against the Iconoclasts.

733.

Practical termination of Byzantine imperial authority.

735.

Birth of Alcuin (died 804).

740.

Death of Leo the Isaurian, Emperor in the East;

accession of Constantine V.

741.

Death of Charles Martel.

Death of Pope Gregory III.;

election of Zacharias.

742.

Birth of Charlemagne (died 814).

744.

Defeat of the Saxons by Carloman;

their forced baptism.

Death of Liutprand, king of the Lombards.

747.

The Plague in Constantinople.

Pippin the Short made Mayor in both kingdoms of the Franks.

750.

Fall of the Omeyyad dynasty of caliphs and rise of the Abbassides.

751.

Extinction of the Exarchate of Ravenna by the Lombards.

752.

End of the Merovingian dynasty of Frankish kings;

assumption of the crown by Pippin the Short.

Death of Pope Zacharias;

election of Stephen II.

754.

First invasion of Italy by Pippin the Short.

Rome assailed by the Lombards.

755.

Subjugation of the Lombards by Pippin;

his donation of temporalities to the Pope.

Martyrdom of Saint Boniface in Germany.

756.

Founding of the caliphate of Cordova by Abderrahman.

757.

Death of Pope Stephen II.;

election of Paul I.

758.

Accession of Offa, king of Mercia.

759.

Loss of Narbonne, the last foothold of the

Mahometans north of the Pyrenees.

763.

Founding of the capital of the Eastern Caliphs at Bagdad.

[Uncertain date.]

767.

Death of Pope Paul I.;

usurpation of the anti-pope, Constantine.

768.

Conquest of Aquitaine by Pippin the Short.

Death of Pippin;

accession of Charlemagne and Carloman.

Deposition of the anti-pope Constantine;

election of Pope Stephen III.

771.

Death of Carloman, leaving Charlemagne sole king of the Franks.

772.

Charlemagne's first wars with the Saxons.

Death of Pope Stephen III.;

election of Hadrian I.

774.

Charlemagne's acquisition of the Lombard kingdom;

his enlargement of the donation of temporalities to the Pope.

Forgery of the "Donation of Constantine." [Uncertain date.]

775.

Death of the Eastern Emperor Constantine V.;

accession of Leo IV.

778.

Charlemagne's invasion of Spain;

the "dolorous rout" of Roncesvalles.

780.

Death of the Eastern Emperor Leo IV.;

accession of Constantine VI.;

regency of Irene.

781.

Italy and Aquitaine formed into separate kingdoms by Charlemagne.

785.

Great struggle of the Saxons against Charlemagne;

submission of Wittikind.

786.

Accession of Haroun al Raschid in the eastern caliphate.

787.

Seventh General Council of the Church (Second Council of Nicæa).

First incursions of the Danes in England.

788.

Subjugation of the Bavarians by Charlemagne.

Death of Abderrahman.

790.

Composition of the Caroline books. [Uncertain date.]

791.

Charlemagne's first campaign against the Avars.

794.

Accession of Cenwulf, king of Mercia.

795.

Death of Pope Hadrian I.;

election of Leo III.

797.

Deposition and blinding of the Eastern Emperor

Constantine VI., by his mother Irene.

800.

Imperial coronation of Charlemagne;

revival of the Empire.

Accession of Ecgberht, king of Wessex,

the first king of all the English.

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

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.

The repulse from Gaul.

"The deeds of Musa [in Africa and Spain] had been performed

'in the evening of his life,' but, to borrow the words of

Gibbon, 'his breast was still fired with the ardor of youth,

and the possession of Spain was considered as only the first

step to the monarchy of Europe. With a powerful armament by

sea and land, he was preparing to pass the Pyrenees, to

extinguish in Gaul the declining kingdoms of the Franks and

Lombards, and to preach the unity of God on the altar of the

Vatican. Thence, subduing the barbarians of Germany, he

proposed to follow the course of the Danube from its source to

the Euxine Sea, to overthrow the Greek or Roman empire of

Constantinople, and, returning from Europe to Asia, to unite

his new acquisitions with Antioch and the provinces of Syria.'

This vast enterprise … was freely revolved by the successors

of Musa. In pursuance of it, El Haur, the new lieutenant of

the califs, assailed the fugitive Goths in their retreats in

Septimania (715-718). El Zamah, who succeeded him, crossed the

mountains, and, seizing Narbonne, expelled the inhabitants and

settled there a colony of Saracens (719). The following year

they passed the Rhone, in order to extend their dominion over

Provence, but, repelled by the dukes and the militia of the

country, turned their forces toward Toulouse (721). Eudo, Duke

of Aquitain, bravely defending his capital, brought on a

decisive combat. … El Zamah fell. The carnage among his

retreating men then became so great that the Arabs named the

passage from Toulouse to Carcassone the Road of Martyrs (Balat

al Chouda). Supporting their terrible reverses with the

characteristic resignation of their race and faith, the Arabs

were still able to retain a hold of Narbonne and of other

fortresses of the south, and, after a respite of four years,

spent in recruiting their troops from Spain and Africa, to

resume their projects of invasion and pillage in Gaul (725).

Under the Wali Anbessa, they ascended the Rhone as far as the

city of Lyons, devastating the towns and the fields. … When,

… at the close of his expeditions, Anbessa perished by the

hands of the Infidels, all the fanaticism of the Mussulman

heart was aroused into an eager desire for revenge. His

successor, Abd-el-Rahman, a tried and experienced general,

energetic and heroic as he was just and prudent, … entered

into elaborate preparations for the final conquest of Gaul.

For two years the ports of Syria, Egypt, and Africa swarmed

with departing soldiery, and Spain resounded with the calls

and cries to arms (727-729)." The storm broke first on

Aquitaine, and its valiant Duke Eudes, or Eudo, rashly meeting

the enemy in the open field, in front of Bordeaux, suffered an

irretrievable defeat (May, 731). Bordeaux was stormed and

sacked, and all Aquitaine was given up to the ravages of the

unsparing Moslem host. Eudes fled, a helpless fugitive, to his

enemies the Franks, and besought the aid of the great

palace-mayor, Karl Martel, practical sovereign of the Frankish

kingdoms, and father of the Pippin who would soon become king

in name as well as in fact. But, not for Aquitaine, only, but

for all Gaul, all Germany,—all Christendom in Europe,—Karl

and his Franks were called on to rally and do battle against

the sons of the desert, whose fateful march of conquest seemed

never to end. "'During all the rest of the summer, the Roman

clarions and the German horns sounded and groaned through all

the cities of Neustria and Austrasia, through the rustic

palaces of the Frankish leudes, and in the woody gaus of

western Germany.' … Meanwhile, Abel-el-Rahman, laden with

plunder and satiated with blood, had bent his steps toward the

southwest, where he concentrated his troops on the banks of

the Charente. Enriched and victorious as he was, there was

still an object in Gaul which provoked alike the cupidity and

the zeal of his followers. This was the Basilica of St. Martin

of Tours, the shrine of the Gallic Christians, where the

richest treasures of the Church were collected, and in which

the profoundest veneration of its members centred. He yearned

for the pillage and the overthrow of this illustrious

sanctuary, and, taking the road from Poitiers, he encountered

the giants of the North in the same valley of the Vienne and

Clain where, nearly three hundred years before, the Franks and

the Wisigoths had disputed the supremacy of Gaul. There, on

those autumn fields, the Koran and the Bible—Islamism and

Christianity—Asia and Europe—stood face to face, ready to

grapple in a deadly and decisive conflict. …

{2075}

Trivial skirmishes from time to time kept alive the ardor of

both hosts, till at length, at dawn on Saturday, the 11th of

October [A. D. 732], the signal for a general onset was given.

With one loud shout of Allah-Akbar (God is great), the Arab

horsemen charged like a tempest upon their foe, but the deep

columns of the Franks did not bend before the blast. 'Like a

wall of iron,' says the chronicler, 'like a rampart of ice,

the men of the North stood unmoved by the frightful shock.'

All day long the charges were renewed." Still the stout Franks

held their ground, and still the indomitable warriors of Islam

pressed upon them, until late in the afternoon, when the

latter were thrown into confusion by an attack on their rear.

Then Karl and his men charged on them and their lines were

broken—their rout was bloody and complete. When night put an

end to the slaughter, the Franks slept upon their arms,

expecting that the dreaded Saracens would rally and resume the

fight. But they vanished in the darkness. Their leader, the

brave Abd-el-Rahman had fallen in the wild melée and no

courage was left in their hearts. Abandoning everything but

their horses and their arms, they fled to Narbonne. "Europe

was rescued, Christianity triumphant, Karl the hero forever of

Christian civilization."

P. Godwin,

History of France: Ancient Gaul,

chapter 14.

The booty found by the Franks in the Moslem camp "was

enormous; hard-money, ingots of the precious metals, melted

from jewels and shrines; precious vases, rich stuffs,

subsistence stores, flocks and herds gathered and parked in

the camp. Most of this booty had been taken by the Moslemah

from the Aquitanians, who now had the sorrow of seeing it

greedily divided among the Franks."

H. Coppée,

Conquest of Spain by the! Arab-Moors,

book 6, chapter 1 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

E. S. Creasy,

Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World,

chapter 7.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-750.

Omeyyads and Abbassides.

The dividing of the Caliphate.

The tragic death of Hosein and his companions at Kerbela

kindled a passion which time would not extinguish in the

hearts of one great party among the Moslems. The first

ambitious leader to take advantage of the excitement of it, as

a means of overthrowing the Omeyyads, was Abdallah ibn Zobeir,

who, posing first as the "Protector of the Holy House" of Ali,

soon proclaimed himself Caliph and maintained for thirteen

years a rival court at Mecca. In the war which raged during a

great part of those years, Medina was taken by storm and given

over to pillage, while the holy city of Mecca withstood a

siege of forty days, during which the sacred Caaba was

destroyed. Zobeir fell, at last, in a final battle fought

under the walls of Mecca. Meantime, several changes in the

caliphate at Damascus had taken place and the throne was soon

afterwards [A. D. 705] occupied by the Caliph Welid, whose

reign proved more glorious than that of any other prince of

his house. "Elements of disorder still remained, but under the

wise and firm sceptre of Welid they were held in check. The

arts of peace prevailed; schools were founded, learning

cultivated, and poets royally rewarded; public works of every

useful kind were promoted, and even hospitals established for

the aged, lame, and blind. Such, indeed, at this era, was the

glory of the court of Damascus that Weild, of all the Caliphs

both before and after, gives the precedence to Welid. It is

the fashion for the Arabian historians to abuse the Omeyyads

as a dissolute, intemperate, and godless race; but we must not

forget that these all wrote more or less under Abbasside

inspiration. … After Welid, the Omeyyad dynasty lasted

six-and-thirty years. But it began to rest on a precarious

basis. For now the agents of the house of Hashim, descendants

of the Prophet and of his uncle Abbas, commenced to ply

secretly, but with vigour and persistency, their task of

canvass and intrigue in distant cities, and especially in the

provinces of the East. For a long time, the endeavour of these

agitators was directed to the advocacy of the Shiya right;

that is to say, it was based upon the Divine claim of Aly, and

his descendants in the Prophet's line, to the Imamate or

leadership over the empire of Islam. … The discomfiture of

the Shiyas paved the way for the designing advocates of the

other Hashimite branch, namely, that of the house of Abbas,

the uncle of the Prophet. These had all along been plotting in

the background, and watching their opportunity. They now

vaunted the claims of this line, and were barefaced enough to

urge that, being descended from the uncle of Mahomet through

male representatives, they took precedence over the direct

descendants of the Prophet himself, because these came through

Fatima in the female line. About the year 130 of the Hegira,

Abul Abbas, of Abasside descent, was put forward in Persia, as

the candidate of this party, and his claim was supported by

the famous general Abu Muslim. Successful in the East, Abu

Muslim turned his arms to the West. A great battle, one of

those which decide the fate of empires, was fought on the

banks of the Zab [A. D. 750]; and, through the defection of

certain Kharejite and Yemen levies, was lost by the Omeyyad

army. Merwan II., the last of his dynasty, was driven to

Egypt, and there killed in the church of Bussir, whither he

had fled for refuge. At the close of the year 132 [August 5,

A. D. 750], the black flag, emblem of the Abbassides, floated

over the battlements of Damascus. The Omeyyad dynasty, after

ruling the vast Moslem empire for a century, now disappeared

in cruelty and bloodshed. … So perished the royal house of

the Omeyyads. But one escaped. He fled to Spain, which had

never favoured the overweening pretensions of the Prophet's

family, whether in the line of Aly or Abbas. Accepted by the

Arab tribes, whose influence in the West was paramount, Abd al

Rahman now laid the foundation of a new Dynasty and

perpetuated the Omeyyad name at the magnificent court of

Cordova. … Thus, with the rise of the Abbassides, the unity

of the Caliphate came to an end. Never after, either in theory

or in fact, was there a successor to the Prophet, acknowledged

as such over all Islam. Other provinces followed in the wake

of Spain. The Aghlabite dynasty in the east of Africa, and,

west of it, the Edrisites in Fez, both of Alyite descent;

Egypt and Sicily under independent rulers; the Tahirite kings

in Persia, their native soil; these and others, breaking away

from the central government, established kingdoms of their

own. The name of Caliph, however it might survive in the

Abbasside lineage, or be assumed by less legitimate

pretenders, had now altogether lost its virtue and

significance."

Sir W. Muir,

Annals of the Early Caliphate,

chapter 50.

ALSO IN:

S. Lane-Poole,

The Mohammadan Dynasties,

pages 12-14.

R. D. Osborn,

Islam Under the Arabs,

part 3.

{2076}

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 717-718.

Second repulse from Constantinople.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 717-718.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 752-759.

Final expulsion from southern Gaul.

During the year of his coronation (A. D. 752) Pippin, or Pepin

the Short—the first of the Carolingians to assume the

Frankish crown—having taken measures to reduce Aquitaine to

obedience, was diverted, on his march towards that country,

into Septimania. The discord prevailing among the Moslems, who

had occupied this region of Gaul for more than thirty years,

"opened the prospect of an easy conquest. With little

fighting, and through the treachery of a Goth named Ansemond,

who commanded at Beziers, Agde, Maguelonne, and Nismes, under

an Arabian wali, he was enabled to seize those strong-holds,

and to leave a part of his troops to besiege Narbonne, as the

first step toward future success." Then Pippin was called away

by war with the Saxons and in Brittany, and was occupied with

other cares and conflicts, until A. D. 759, when he took up

and finished the task of expelling the Saracens from Gaul.

"His troops left in occupation of Septimania (752) had

steadily prosecuted the siege of Narbonne. … Not till after

a blockade of seven years was the city surrendered, and then

through the treason of the Christians and Goths who were

inside the walls, and made secret terms with the beleaguers.

They rose upon the Arabs, cut them in pieces, and opened the

gates to the Franks. A reduction of Elne, Caucoliberis, and

Carcassone followed hard upon that of Narbonne. … In a

little while the entire Arab population was driven out of

Septimania, after an occupation of forty years; and a large

and important province (equivalent nearly to the whole of

Languedoc), held during the time of the Merovingians by the

Wisigoths, was secured to the possession of the Franks. The

Arabs, however, though expelled, left many traces of their

long residence on the manners and customs of Southern Gaul."

P. Godwin,

History of France: Ancient Gaul,

chapter 15.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 756-1031.

The Omeyyad caliphs of Cordova.

When the struggle of the house of Abbas with the house of

Omeyya, for the throne of the caliphate at Damascus, was ended

by the overthrow of the Omeyyads (A. D. 750), the wretched

members of the fallen family were hunted down with unsparing

ferocity. "A single youth of the doomed race escaped from

destruction. After a long series of romantic adventures, he

found his way into Spain [A. D. 756]; he there found

partizans, by whose aid he was enabled to establish himself as

sovereign of the country, and to resist all the attempts of

the Abbassides to regain, or rather to obtain, possession of

the distant province. From this Abderrahman [or Abdalrahman]

the Ommiad proceeded the line of Emirs and Caliphs of Cordova,

who reigned in splendour in the West for three centuries after

their house had been exterminated in their original

possessions. … When the Ommiad Abdalrahman escaped into

Spain … the peninsula was in a very disordered state. The

authority of the Caliphs of the East was nearly nominal, and

governors rose and fell with very little reference to their

distant sovereign. … The elevation of Abdalrahman may have

been the result, not so much of any blind preference of

Ommiads to Abbassides, as of a conviction that nature designed

the Iberian peninsula to form an independent state. But at

that early period of Mahometan history an independent

Mahometan state could hardly be founded, except under the

guise of a rival Caliphate. … And undoubtedly nothing is

more certain than that the Ommiads of Cordova were in every

sense a rival dynasty to the Abbassides of Bagdad. The race of

Moawiyah seem to have decidedly improved by their migration

westward. The Caliphs of Spain must be allowed one of the

highest places among Mahometan dynasties. In the duration of

their house and in the abundance of able princes which it

produced, they yield only to the Ottoman Sultans, while they

rise incomparably above them in every estimable quality. …

The most splendid period of the Saracen empire in Spain was

during the tenth century. The great Caliph Abdalrahman Annasir

Ledinallah raised the magnificence of the Cordovan monarchy to

its highest pitch. … The last thirty years of the Ommiad

dynasty are a mere wearisome series of usurpations and civil

wars. In 1031 the line became extinct, and the Ommiad empire

was cut up into numerous petty states. From this moment the

Christians advance, no more to retreat, and the cause of Islam

is only sustained by repeated African immigrations."

E. A. Freeman,

History and Conquests of the Saracens,

lectures 4-5.

ALSO IN:

H. Coppée,

Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,

book 6, chapter 5;

book 7, chapters 1-4;

book 8, chapter 1.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 763.

The Caliphate transferred to Bagdad.

"The city of Damascus, full as it was of memorials of the

pride and greatness of the Ommiade dynasty, was naturally

distasteful to the Abbassides. The Caliph Mansur had commenced

the building of a new capital in the neighbourhood of Kufa, to

be called after the founder of his family, Hashimiyeh. The

Kufans, however, were devoted partisans of the descendants of

Ali. … The growing jealousy and distrust between the two

houses made it inadvisable for the Beni Abbas to plant the

seat of their empire in immediate propinquity to the

head-quarters of the Ali faction, and Mansur therefore

selected another site [about A. D. 763]. This was Bagdad, on

the western bank of the Tigris [fifteen miles above Medain,

which was the ancient Seleucia and Ctesiphon]. It was well

suited by nature for a great capital. The Tigris brought

commerce from Diyar Bekr on the north, and through the Persian

Gulf from India and China on the east; while the Euphrates,

which here approaches the Tigris at the nearest point, and is

reached by a good road, communicated directly with Syria and

the west. The name Bagdad is a very ancient one, signifying

'given or founded by the deity,' and testifies to the

importance of the site. The new city rapidly increased in

extent and magnificence, the founder and his next two

successors expending fabulous sums upon its embellishment, and

the ancient palaces of the Sassanian kings, as well as the

other principal cities of Asia, were robbed of their works of

art for its adornment."

E. H. Palmer,

Haroun Alraschid, Caliph of Bagdad,

chapter 2.

"Baghdad, answering to its proud name of 'Dar al Salam,' 'The

City of Peace,' became for a time the capital of the world,

the centre of luxury, the emporium of commerce, and the scat

of learning."

Sir W. Muir,

Annals of the Early Caliphate,

chapter 50.

{2077}

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 815-945.

Decline and temporal fall of the Caliphate at Bagdad.

"It was not until nearly the close of the first century after

the Hejira that the banners of Islam were carried into the

regions beyond the Oxus, and only after a great deal of hard

fighting that the oases of Bokhara and Samarkand were annexed

to the dominions of the khalif. In these struggles, a large

number of Turks—men, women, and children—fell into the power

of the Moslems, and were scattered over Asia as slaves. …

The khalif Mamoun [son of Haroun Alraschid—A. D. 815-834] was

the first sovereign who conceived the idea of basing the royal

power on a foundation of regularly drilled Turkish soldiers."

R. D. Osborn,

Islam under the Khalifs of Bagdad,

part 3, chapter 1.

"The Caliphs from this time leaned for support on great bands

of foreign mercenaries, chiefly Turks, and their captains

became the real lords of the empire as soon as they realised

their own strength. How thoroughly the Abbásid caliphate had

been undermined was shown all at once in a shocking manner,

when the Caliph Mutawakkil was murdered by his own servants at

the command of his son, and the parricide Muntasir set upon

the throne in his stead (December 861). The power of the

Caliphs was now at an end; they became the mere playthings of

their own savage warriors. The remoter, sometimes even the

nearer, provinces were practically independent. The princes

formally recognised the Caliph as their sovereign, stamped his

name upon their coins, and gave it precedence in public

prayer, but these were honours without any solid value. Some

Caliphs, indeed, recovered a measure of real power, but only

as rulers of a much diminished State. Theoretically the

fiction of an undivided empire of Islam was maintained, but it

had long ceased to be a reality. The names of Caliph,

Commander of the Faithful, Imám, continued still to inspire

some reverence; the theological doctors of law insisted that

the Caliph, in spiritual things at least, must everywhere bear

rule, and control all judicial posts; but even theoretically

his position was far behind that of a pope, and in practice

was not for a moment to be compared to it. The Caliph never

was the head of a true hierarchy; Islam in fact knows no

priesthood on which such a system could have rested. In the

tenth century the Buids, three brothers who had left the

hardly converted Gilán (the mountainous district at the

southwest angle of the Caspian Sea) as poor adventurers,

succeeded in conquering for themselves the sovereign command

over wide domains, and over Bagdad itself [establishing what

is known as the dynasty of the Buids or Bouides, or Bowides,

or Dilemites]. They even proposed to themselves to displace

the Abbásids and set descendants of Ali upon the throne, and

abandoned the idea only because they feared that a Caliph of

the house of Ali might exercise too great an authority over

their Shíite soldiers, and so become independent; while, on

the other hand, they could make use of these troops for any

violence they chose against the Abbásid puppet who sat in

Mansúr's seat."

T. Nöldeke,

Sketches from Eastern History,

chapter 3.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 827-878.

Conquest of Sicily.

See SICILY: A. D. 827-878.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 840-890.

The Saracens in southern Italy.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171.

The Fatimite caliphs.

"Egypt, during the ninth and tenth centuries, was the theatre

of several revolutions. Two dynasties of Turkish slaves, the

Tolunides and the Ilkshidites, established themselves in that

country, which was only reunited to the Caliphate of Bagdad

for a brief period between their usurpations. But early in the

ninth century a singular power had been growing up on its

western border. … A schism arose among the followers of Ali

[the shiahs, who recognized no succession to the Prophet, or

Imamate—leadership in Islam—except in the line of descent

from Ali, nephew of Mahomet and husband of Mahomet's daughter,

Fatima], regarding the legitimate succession to the sixth Imam,

Jaffer. His eldest son, Ismail or Ishmael, dying before him,

Jaffer appointed another son, Moussa or Moses, his heir. But a

large body of the sect denied that Jaffer had the right to

make a new nomination; they affirmed the Imamate to be

strictly hereditary, and formed a new party of Ishmaelians,

who seem to have made something very like a deity of their

hero. A chief of this sect, Mahomet, surnamed Al Mehdi, or the

Leader, a title given by the Shiahs to their Imams, revolted

in Africa in 908. He professed himself, though his claims were

bitterly derided by his enemies, to be a descendant of

Ishmael, and consequently to be the legitimate Imam. Armed

with this claim, it was of course his business to acquire, if

he could, the temporal power of a Caliph; and as he soon

obtained the sovereignty of a considerable portion of Africa,

a rival Caliphate was consequently established in that

country. This dynasty assumed the name of Fatimites, in honour

of their famous ancestress Fatima, the daughter of the

Prophet. The fourth in succession, Muezzeddin by name,

obtained possession of Egypt about 967. … The Ilkshidites

and their nominal sovereigns, the Abbassides, lost Egypt with

great rapidity. Al Muezzeddin transferred his residence

thither, and founded [at Fostat—see above, A. D. 640-646] the

city of Cairo, which he made his capital. Egypt thus, from a

tributary province, became again, as in the days of its

Pharaohs and Ptolemies, the scat of a powerful kingdom. The

claims of the Egyptian Caliphs were diligently preached

throughout all Islam, and their temporal power was rapidly

extended into the adjoining provinces of Syria and Arabia.

Palestine became again … the battle-field for the lords of

Egypt and of the East. Jerusalem, the holy city of so many

creeds, was conquered and reconquered. … The Egyptian

Caliphate … played an important part in the history of the

Crusades. At last, in 1171, it was abolished by the famous

Saladin. He himself became the founder of a new dynasty; but

the formal aspect of the change was that Egypt, so long

schismatic, was again restored to the obedience of Bagdad.

Saladin was lord of Egypt, but the titles of the Abbasside

Caliph, the true Commander of the Faithful, appeared again on

the coin and in the public prayers, instead of that of his

Fatimite rival."

E. A. Freeman,

History and Conquests of the Saracens,

lecture 4.

ALSO IN:

S. Lane-Poole,

The Mohammadan Dynasties,

pages 70-73.

W. C. Taylor,

History of Mohammedanism and its Sects,

chapters 8 and 10.

See, also,

JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.

{2078}

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 962-1187.

The Ghaznavide empire.

See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290;

and TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 964-976.

Losses in Syria and Cilicia.

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

also, ANTIOCH, A. D. 969.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1004-1160.

The Seljuk Conquests.

See TURKS: A. D. 1004-1063 to 1092-1160.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1017.

Expulsion from Sardinia by the Pisans and Genoese.

See PISA: ORIGIN OF THE CITY.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1031-1086.

Fragmentary kingdoms in Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1060-1090.

The loss of Sicily.

See ITALY: A. D. 1000-1090.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1086-1147.

The empire of the Almoravides.

See ALMORAVIDES.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1146-1232.

The empire of the Almohades.

See ALMOHADES;

and SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1240-1453.

Conquests of the Ottoman Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1240-1326; 1326-1359;

1360-1389; 1389-1403; 1402-1451; and 1451-1481.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1258.

Extinction of the Caliphate of Bagdad by the Mongols.

See BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1273-1492.

Decay and fall of the last Moorish kingdom in Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460; and 1476-1492.

MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 1519-1605.

The Mogul conquest of India.

See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.

----------MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: End----------

MAHOMETAN ERA.

See ERA, MAHOMETAN.

----------MAHRATTAS: Start--------

MAHRATTAS: 17th Century.

Origin and growth of power.

See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

MAHRATTAS: A. D. 1759-1761.

Disastrous conflict with the Afghans.

Great defeat at Panniput.

See INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.

MAHRATTAS: A. D. 1781-1819.

Wars with the English.

See INDIA: A. D. 1780-1783; 1798-1805; and 1816-1819.

----------MAHRATTAS: End--------

MAID OF NORWAY.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.

MAID OF ORLEANS, The Mission of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

MAIDA, Battle of (1806).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).

MAILLOTINS, Insurrection of the,

See PARIS: A. D. 1381.

----------MAINE: Start--------

MAINE:

The Name.

"Sullivan in 'History of Maine,' and others, say that the

territory was called the Province of Maine, in compliment to

Queen Henrietta, who had that province in France for dowry.

But Folsom, 'Discourse on Maine' (Maine Historical Collection,

volume ii., page 38), says that that province in France did

not belong to Henrietta. Maine, like all the rest of the

coast, was known as the 'Maine,' the mainland, and it is not

unlikely that the word so much used by the early fishers on

the coast, may thus have been permanently given to this part

of it."

W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,

History of the United States,

volume 1, page 337; foot-note.

MAINE:

Aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

ABNAKIS, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

MAINE:

Embraced in the Norumbega of the old geographers.

See NORUMBEGA;

also, CANADA: THE NAMES.

MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.

The Popham colony on the Kennebec.

Fruitless undertaking of the Plymouth Company.

The company chartered in England by King James, in 1606, for

the colonization of the indefinite region called Virginia, was

divided into two branches. To one, commonly spoken of as the

London Company, but sometimes as the Virginia Company, was

assigned a domain in the south, from 34° to 41° North

Latitude. To the other, less familiarly known as the Plymouth

Company, or the North Virginia Company, was granted a range of

territory from 38° to 45° North Latitude.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.

The first named company founded a state; the Plymouth branch

was less fortunate. "Of the Plymouth Company, George Popham,

brother of the Chief Justice, and Raleigh Gilbert, son of the

earlier navigator and nephew of Sir Walter Raleigh, were

original associates. A vessel despatched from Bristol by Sir

John Popham made a further survey of the coast of New England,

and returned with accounts which infused vigorous life into the

undertaking; and it was now prosecuted with eagerness and

liberality. But in little more than a year 'all its former

hopes were frozen to death.' Three ships sailed from Plymouth

with 100 settlers, amply furnished, and taking two of Gorges's

Indians [kidnapped on the voyage of Captain Weymouth in 1605] as

interpreters and guides. After a prosperous voyage they

reached the mouth of the river called Sagadahoc, or Kennebec,

in Maine, and on a projecting point proceeded to organize

their community. After prayers and a sermon, they listened to

a reading of the patent and of the ordinances under which it

had been decreed by the authorities at home that they should

live. George Popham had been constituted their President,

Raleigh Gilbert was Admiral. … The adventurers dug wells,

and built huts. More than half of the number became

discouraged, and returned with the ships to England.

Forty-five remained through the winter, which proved to be

very long and severe. … When the President sickened and

died, and, presently after, a vessel despatched to them with

supplies brought intelligence of the death of Sir John Popham,

and of Sir John Gilbert,—the latter event calling for the

presence of the Admiral, Gilbert's brother and heir, in

England,—they were ready to avail themselves of the excuses

thus afforded for retreating from the distasteful enterprise.

All yielded to their homesickness, and embarked on board of

the returning ship, taking with them a small vessel which they

had built, and some furs and other products of the country.

Statesmen, merchants, and soldiers had not learned the

conditions of a settlement in New England. 'The country was

branded by the return of the plantation as being over cold,

and in respect of that not habitable by Englishmen.' Still the

son of the Chief Justice, 'Sir Francis Popham, could not so give

it over, but continued to send thither several years after, in

hope of better fortunes, but found it fruitless, and was

necessitated at last to sit down with the loss he had already

undergone.' Sir Francis Popham's enterprises were merely

commercial. Gorges alone [Sir Ferdinando Gorges, who had been

among the most active of the original promotors of the

Company], 'not doubting but God would effect that which man

despaired of,' persevered in cherishing the project of a

colony."

J. G. Palfrey,

History of New England,

volume 1, chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,

Popular History of the United States,

chapter 12, volume 1.

R. K. Sewall,

Ancient Dominions of Maine,

chapter 3.

{2079}

MAINE: A. D. 1623-1631.

Gorges' and Mason's grant and the division of it.

First colonies planted.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

MAINE: A. D. 1629-1631.

The Ligonia, or Plow Patent, and other grants.

"The coast from the Piscataqua to the Kennebec was covered by

six … patents, issued in the course of three years by the

Council for New England, with the consent, doubtless, of

Gorges, who was anxious to interest as many persons as

possible in the projects of colonization to which he was

himself so much devoted. Several of these grants were for

small tracts; the most important embraced an extent of 40

miles square, bordering on Casco Bay, and named Ligonia. The

establishments hitherto attempted on the eastern coast had

been principally for fishing and fur-trading; this was to be

an agricultural colony, and became familiarly known as the

'Plow patent.' A company was formed, and some settlers sent

out; but they did not like the situation, and removed to

Massachusetts. Another of these grants was the Pemaquid

patent, a narrow tract on both sides of Pemaquid Point, where

already were some settlers. Pemaquid remained an independent

community for the next forty years."

R. Hildreth,

History of the United States,

chapter 7 (volume 1).

The Plow Patent "first came into notoriety in a territorial

dispute in 1643. The main facts of the case are told shortly

but clearly by Winthrop. According to him, in July, 1631, ten

husbandmen came from England, in a ship named the Plough, with

a patent for land at Sagadahock. But as the place did not

please them they settled in Massachusetts, and were seemingly

dispersed in the religious troubles of 1636. … At a later

day the rights of the patentees were bought up, and were made

a ground for ousting Gorges from a part of his territory."

J. A. Doyle,

The English in America: The Puritan Colonies,

volume 1, chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

J. W. Thornton,

Pemaquid Papers; and Ancient Pemaquid,

(Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 5).

MAINE: A. D. 1639.

A Palatine principality.

The royal charter to Sir Ferdinando Gorges.

"In April 1639 a charter was granted by the King constituting

Gorges Lord Proprietor of Maine. The territory was bounded by

the Sagadahock or Kennebec on the north and the Piscataqua on

the south, and was to extend 120 miles inland. The political

privileges of the Proprietor were to be identical with those

enjoyed by the Bishop of Durham as Count Palatine. He was to

legislate in conjunction with the freeholders of the province,

and with the usual reservation in favour of the laws of

England. His political rights were to be subject to the

control of the Commissioners for Plantations, but his

territorial rights were to be independent and complete in

themselves. He was also to enjoy a monopoly of the trade of

the colony. The only other points specially worth notice were

a declaration that the religion of the colony was to be that

of the Church of England, a reservation on behalf of all

English subjects of the right of fishing with its necessary

incidents, and the grant to the Proprietor of authority to

create manors and manorial courts. There is something painful

in the spectacle of the once vigorous and enterprising soldier

amusing his old age by playing at kingship. In no little

German court of the last century could the forms of government

and the realities of life have been more at variance. To

conduct the business of two fishing villages Gorges called

into existence a staff of officials which might have sufficed

for the affairs of the Byzantine Empire. He even outdid the

absurdities which the Proprietors of Carolina perpetrated

thirty years later. They at least saw that their elaborate

machinery of caciques and landgraves was unfit for practical

purposes, and they waived it in favour of a simple system

which had sprung up in obedience to natural wants. But Gorges

tells complacently and with a deliberate care, which contrasts

with his usually hurried and slovenly style, how he parcelled

out his territory and nominated his officials. … The task of

putting this cumbrous machinery into motion was entrusted by

the Proprietor to his son, Thomas Gorges, as Deputy-Governor."

J. A. Doyle,

The English in America: The Puritan Colonies,

volume 1, chapter 7.

"The Province was divided into two counties, of one of which

Agamenticus, or York, was the principal settlement; of the

other, Saco. … The greatness of York made it arrogant; and

it sent a deputation of aldermen and burgesses to the General

Court at Saco, to save its metropolitan rights by a solemn

protest. The Proprietary was its friend, and before long

exalted it still more by a city charter, authorizing it and

its suburbs, constituting a territory of 21 square miles, to

be governed, under the name of 'Gorgeana,' by a Mayor, twelve

Aldermen, a Common Council of 24 members, and a Recorder, all

to be annually chosen by the citizens. Probably as many as two

thirds of the adult males were in places of authority. The

forms of proceeding in the Recorder's Court were to be copied

from those of the British chancery. This grave foolery was

acted more than ten years."

J. G. Palfrey,

History of New England,

volume 1, chapter 13.

ALSO IN:

Sir F. Gorges,

Brief Narration

(Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 2).

MAINE: A. D. 1643-1677.

Territorial jurisdiction in dispute.

The claims of Massachusetts made good.

"In 1643, the troubles in England between the King and Commons

grew violent, and in that year Alexander Rigby bought the old

grant called Lygonia or 'Plow Patent,' and appointed George

Cleaves his deputy-president. Governor Thomas Gorges about

that time returned to England, and left Vines in his place.

Between Cleaves and Vines there was of course a conflict of

jurisdiction, and Cleaves appealed for aid to Massachusetts;

and both parties agreed to leave their claims (1645) to the

decision of the Massachusetts Magistrates, who decided—that

they could not decide the matter. But the next year the

Commissioners for American plantations in England decided in

favor of Rigby; and Vines left the country. In 1647, at last,

at the age of 74, Sir Ferdinando Gorges died, and with him

died all his plans for kingdoms and power in Maine. In 1651,

Massachusetts, finding that her patent, which included lands

lying three miles north of the head waters of the Merrimack,

took in all the lower part of Maine, began to extend her

jurisdiction, and as most of the settlers favored her

authority, it was pretty well established till the time of the

Restoration (1660).

{2080}

Upon the Restoration of Charles II., the heir of Gorges

claimed his rights to Maine. His agent in the province was

Edward Godfrey. Those claims were confirmed by the Committee

of Parliament, and in 1664 he obtained an order from the King

to the Governor of Massachusetts to restore him his province.

In 1664 the King's Commissioners came over, and proceeded

through the Colonies, and among the rest to Maine; where they

appointed various officers without the concurrence of

Massachusetts; so that for some years Maine was distracted

with parties, and was in confusion. In 1668, Massachusetts

sent four Commissioners to York, who resumed and

re-established the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, with which

the majority of the people were best pleased; and in 1669 the

Deputies from Maine again took their seats in the

Massachusetts Court. Her jurisdiction was, however, disputed

by the heirs of Mason and Gorges, and it was not finally set

at rest till the year 1677, by the purchase of their claims

from them, by Massachusetts, for £1,250."

C. W. Elliott,

The New England History,

volume 1, chapter 26.

ALSO IN:

R. K. Sewall,

Ancient Dominions of Maine,

chapters 3-4.

W. D. Williamson,

History of Maine,

volume 1, chapters 6-21.

MAINE: A. D. 1664.

The Pemaquid patent purchased and granted

to the Duke of York.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

MAINE: A. D. 1675.

Outbreak of the Tarentines.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

MAINE: A. D. 1689-1697.

King William's War.

Indian cruelties.

See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.

MAINE: A. D. 1722-1725.

Renewed Indian war.

See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.

MAINE: A. D. 1744-1748.

King George's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

MAINE: A. D. 1814.

Occupied in large part and held by the English.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814.

MAINE: A. D. 1820.

Separation from Massachusetts.

Recognition as a distinct commonwealth and

admission into the Union.

"Petitions for the separation of the District of Maine were

first preferred to the legislature of Massachusetts in 1816,

and a convention was appointed to be holden at Brunswick. This

convention voted in favor of the step, but the separation was

not effected until 1820, at which time Maine was erected into

a distinct and independent commonwealth, and was admitted into

the American Union."

G. L. Austin,

History of Massachusetts,

page 408.

"In the division of the property all the real estate in

Massachusetts was to be forever hers; all that in Maine to be

equally divided between the two, share and share alike. …

The admission of Maine and Missouri into the Union were both

under discussion in Congress at the same time. The advocates

of the latter, wishing to carry it through the Legislature,

without any restrictive clause against slavery, put both into

a bill together,—determined each should share the same fate.

… Several days the subject was debated, and sent from one

branch to the other in Congress, till the 1st of March, when,

to our joy, they were divorced; and on the 3d of the month

[March, 1820] an act was passed by which Maine was declared to

be, from and after the 15th of that month, one of the United

States."

W. D. Williamson,

History of Maine,

volume 2, chapter 27.

See, also,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

MAINE: A. D. 1842.

Settlement of the northern boundary disputes,

by the Ashburton Treaty.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.

----------MAINE: End----------

MAIWAND, English disaster at (1880).

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

MAJESTAS, The Law of.

"The law of Majestas or Treason … under the [Roman] empire

… was the legal protection thrown round the person of the

chief of the state: any attempt against the dignity or safety

of the community became an attack on its glorified

representative. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that the first

legal enactment which received this title, half a century

before the foundation of the empire, was actually devised for

the protection, not of the state itself, but of a personage

dear to the state, namely, the tribune of the people. Treason

to the State indeed had long before been known, and defined as

Perduellio, the levying of war against the commonwealth. …

But the crime of majesty was first specified by the demagogue

Apuleius, in an enactment of the year 654 [B. C. 100], for the

purpose of guarding or exalting the dignity of the champion of

the plebs. … The law of Apuleius was followed by that of

another tribune, Varius, conceived in a similar spirit. …

[After the constitution of Sulla] the distinction between

Majestas and Perduellio henceforth vanishes: the crime of

Treason is specifically extended from acts of violence to

measures calculated to bring the State into contempt."

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 44.

MAJORCA:

Conquest by King James of Aragon.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.

MAJORIAN, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 457-461.

MAJUBA HILL, Battle of (1881).

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

----------MALAGA: Start--------

MALAGA: A. D. 1036-1055.

The seat of a Moorish kingdom.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.

MALAGA: A. D. 1487.

Siege and capture from the Moors by the Christians.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

----------MALAGA: End--------

MALAKHOFF, The storming of the (1855).

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

MALAMOCCO.

The second capital of the Venetians.

See VENICE: A. D. 697-810; and 452.

MALATESTA FAMILY, The.

"No one with any tincture of literary knowledge is ignorant of

the fame at least of the great Malatesta family—the house of

the Wrongheads, as they were rightly called by some prevision

of their future part in Lombard history. … The story of

Francesca da Polenta, who was wedded to the hunchback Giovanni

Malatesta and murdered by him with her lover Paolo, is known

not merely to students of Dante, but to readers of Byron and

Leigh Hunt, to admirers of Flaxman, Ary Scheffer, Doré—to

all, in fact, who have of art and letters any love. The

history of these Malatesti, from their first establishment

under Otho III. [A. D. 996-1002] as lieutenants for the Empire

in the Marches of Ancona, down to their final subjugation by the

Papacy in the age of the Renaissance, is made up of all the

vicissitudes which could befall a mediæval Italian despotism.

{2081}

Acquiring an unlawful right over the towns of Rimini, Cesena,

Sogliano, Ghiacciuolo, they ruled their petty principalities

like tyrants by the help of the Guelf and Ghibelline factions,

inclining to the one or the other as it suited their humour or

their interest, wrangling among themselves, transmitting the

succession of their dynasty through bastards and by deeds of

force, quarrelling with their neighbours the Counts of Urbino,

alternately defying and submitting to the Papal legates in

Romagna, serving as condottieri in the wars of the Visconti

and the state of Venice, and by their restlessness and genius

for military intrigues contributing in no slight measure to

the general disturbance of Italy. The Malatesti were a race

of strongly marked character: more, perhaps, than any other

house of Italian tyrants, they combined for generations those

qualities of the fox and the lion, which Machiavelli thought

indispensable to a successful despot. … So far as Rimini is

concerned, the house of Malatesta culminated in Sigismondo

Pandolfo, son of Gian Galeazzo Visconti's general, the

perfidious Pandolfo. … Having begun by defying the Holy See,

he was impeached at Rome for heresy, parricide, incest,

adultery, rape, and sacrilege, burned in effigy by Pope Pius

II., and finally restored to the bosom of the Church, after

suffering the despoliation of almost all his territories, in

1463. The occasion on which this fierce and turbulent despiser

of laws human and divine was forced to kneel as a penitent

before the Papal legate in the gorgeous temple dedicated to

his own pride, in order that the ban of excommunication might

be removed from Rimini, was one of those petty triumphs,

interesting chiefly for their picturesqueness, by which the

Popes confirmed their questionable rights over the cities of

Romagna. Sigismondo, shorn of his sovereignty, took the

command of the Venetian troops against the Turks in the Morea,

and returned in 1465, crowned with laurels, to die at Rimini."

J. A. Symonds,

Sketches in Italy and Greece,

pages 217-220.

ALSO IN:

A. M. F. Robinson,

The End of the Middle Ages,

pages 274-299.

MALAYAN RACE, The.

Many ethnologists set up as a distinct stock "the '.Malayan'

or 'Brown' race, and claim for it an importance not less than

any of the darker varieties of the species. It bears, however,

the marks of an origin too recent, and presents Asian

analogies too clearly, for it to be regarded otherwise than as

a branch of the Asian race, descended like it from some

ancestral tribe in that great continent. Its dispersion has

been extraordinary. Its members are found almost continuously

on the land areas from Madagascar to Easter Island, a distance

nearly two-thirds of the circumference of the globe;

everywhere they speak dialects with such affinities that we

must assume for all one parent stem, and their separation must

have taken place not so very long ago to have permitted such a

monoglottic trait as this. The stock is divided at present

into two groups, the western or Malayan peoples, and the

eastern or Polynesian peoples. There has been some discussion

about the original identity of these, but we may consider it

now proved by both physical, linguistic and traditional

evidence. The original home of the parent stem has also

excited some controversy, but this too may be taken as

settled. There is no reasonable doubt but that the Malays came

from the southeastern regions of Asia, from the peninsula of

Farther India, and thence spread south, east and west over the

whole of the island world. Their first occupation of Sumatra

and Java has been estimated to have occurred not later than

1000 B. C., and probably was a thousand years earlier, or

about the time that the Aryans entered Northern India. The

relationship of the Malayic with the other Asian stocks has

not yet been made out. Physically they stand near to the

Sinitic peoples of small stature and roundish heads of

southeastern Asia. The oldest form of their language, however,

was not monosyllabic and tonic, but was disyllabic. … The

purest type of the true Malays is seen in Malacca, Sumatra and

Java. … It has changed slightly by foreign intermixture

among the Battaks of Sumatra, the Dayaks of Borneo, the

Alfures and the Bugis. But the supposition that these are so

remote that they cannot properly be classed with the Malays is

an exaggeration of some recent ethnographers, and is not

approved by the best authorities. … In character the Malays

are energetic, quick of perception, genial in demeanor, but

unscrupulous, cruel and revengeful. Veracity is unknown, and

the love of gain is far stronger than any other passion or

affection. This thirst for gold made the Malay the daring

navigator he early became. As merchant, pirate or explorer,

and generally as all three in one, he pushed his crafts far

and wide over the tropical seas through 12,000 miles of

extent. On the extreme west he reached and colonized

Madagascar. The Hovas there, undoubtedly of Malay blood,

number about 800,000 in a population of five and a half

millions, the remainder being Negroids of various degrees of

fusion. In spite of this disproportion, the Hovas are the

recognized masters of the island. … The Malays probably

established various colonies in southern India. The natives at

Travancore and the Sinhalese of Ceylon bear a strongly Malayan

aspect. … Some ethnographers would make the Polynesians and

Micronesians a different race from the Malays; but the

farthest that one can go in this direction is to admit that

they reveal some strain of another blood. This is evident in

their physical appearance. … All the Polynesian languages

have some affinities to the Malayan, and the Polynesian

traditions unanimously refer to the west for the home of their

ancestors. We are able, indeed, by carefully analyzing these

traditions, to trace with considerable accuracy both the route

they followed to the Oceanic isles, and the respective dates

when they settled them. Thus, the first station of their

ancestors ou leaving the western group, was the small island

of Buru or Boru, between Celebes and New Guinea. Here they

encountered the Papuas, some of whom still dwell in the

interior, while the coast people are fair. Leaving Boru, they

passed to the north of New Guinea, colonizing the Caroline and

Solomon islands, but the vanguard pressing forward to take

possession of Savai in the Samoan group and Tonga to its

south. These two islands formed a second center of

distribution over the western Pacific. The Maoris of New

Zealand moved from Tonga—'holy Tonga' as they call it in

their songs—about 600 years ago. The Society islanders

migrated from Savai, and they in turn sent forth the

population of the Marquesas, the Sandwich islands and Easter

island. The separation of the Polynesians from the western

Malays must have taken place about the beginning of our era."

D. G. Brinton,

Races and Peoples,

lecture 8, section. 2.

ALSO IN:

A. R. Wallace,

The Malay Archipelago,

chapter 40.

R. Brown,

The Races of Mankind,

volume 2, chapter 7.

{2082}

MALCOLM III., King of Scotland, A. D. 1057-1093.

Malcolm IV., King of Scotland, 1153-1165.

MALDON, Battle of.

Fought, A. D. 991, by the English against an invading army of

Norwegians, who proved the victors. The battle, with the

heroic death of the English leader, Brihtnoth, became the

subject of a famous early-English poem, which is translated in

Freeman's "Old English History for Children." The field of

battle was on the Blackwater in Essex.

MALEK SHAH, Seljuk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1073-1092.

MALIANS, The.

One of the early peoples of Greece, who dwelt on the Malian

Gulf, in the lower valley of the Sperchæus. They were a

warlike people, neighbors and close allies of the Dorians,

before the migration of the latter to the Peloponnesus.

C. O. Müller,

History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,

volume 1, book 1, chapter 2.

MALIGNANTS.

"About this time [A. D. 1643] the word 'malignant' was first

born (as to the common use) in England; the deduction thereof

being disputable, whether from 'malus ignis,' bad fire, or

'malum lignum,' bad fuel; but this is sure, betwixt both, the

name made a combustion all over England. It was fixed as a

note of disgrace on those of the king's party."

T. Fuller,

Church History of Britain,

book 11, section 4 (volume 3).

MALINES: Taken by Marlborough and the Allies (1706).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

MALLUM.

MALL.

MALLBERG.

"The Franks … constituted one great army, the main body of

which was encamped round the abode of their Kyning or

commander, and the rest of which was broken up into various

detachments. … Every such detachment became ere long a

sedentary tribe, and the chief of each was accustomed, as

occasion required, to convene the mallum (that is, an assembly

of the free inhabitants) of his district, to deliberate with

him on all the affairs of his immediate locality. The Kyning

also occasionally convened an assembly of the whole of the

Frankish chiefs, to deliberate with him at the Champs de Mars

on the affairs of the whole confederacy. But neither the

mallum nor the Champs de Mars was a legislative convention.

Each of them was a council of war or an assembly of warriors."

Sir J. Stephen,

Lectures on the History of France,

lecture 8.

"The Court was mostly held in a field or on a hill, called

'mallstatt,' or 'mallberg,' that is, the place or hill where

the 'mall' or Court assembled, and the judge set up his shield

of office, without which he might not hold Court."

J. I. Mombert,

History of Charles the Great,

book 1, chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

W. C. Perry,

The Franks,

chapter 10.

See, also.

PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

MALMÖ, Armistice of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

MALO-JOROSLAVETZ, Battle of.

See RUSSIA: A. D.1812 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

MALPLAQUET, Battle of (1709).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.

----------MALTA: Start--------

MALTA: A. D. 1530-1565.

Ceded by the emperor, Charles V., to the Knights of St. John.

Their defense of the island against the Turks in the great siege.

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1530-1565.

MALTA: A. D. 1551.

Unsuccessful attack by the Turks.

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

MALTA: A. D. 1798.

Seizure and occupation by Bonaparte.

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

MALTA: A. D. 1800-1802.

Surrender to an English fleet.

Agreement of restoration to the Knights of St. John.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

MALTA: A. D. 1814.

Ceded to England.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

----------MALTA: End--------

MALTA, Knights of.

During their occupation of the island, the Knights

Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem were commonly called

Knights of Malta, as they had previously been called Knights

of Rhodes:

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

MALVASIA, Battle of (1263).

See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

MALVERN CHASE.

An ancient royal forest in Worcestershire, England, between

Malvern Hills and the River Severn. Few remains of it exist.

J. C. Brown,

Forests of England.

MALVERN HILL, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

MAMACONAS.

See YANACONAS.

MAMELUKE, OR SLAVE, DYNASTY OF INDIA.

See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

MAMELUKES OF BRAZIL.

See BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641.

MAMELUKES OF EGYPT;

their rise;

their sovereignty;

their destruction.

See EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517; and 1803-1811.

MAMELUKES OF GENEVA, The.

See GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.

MAMERTINE PRISON, The.

"Near the Basilica Porcia, and at the foot of the Capitoline

Hill [in ancient Rome], was the ancient carcer or prison. The

original erection of it has been attributed to Ancus Martius,

as we learn from Livy, who says 'he made a prison in the

middle of the city, overlooking the Forum.' The name by which

it is known—Mamertinus—may have been derived from its being

built by Ancus Martius. Mamers was the Sabine name of the god

Mars, and consequently from the name Mamertius, the Sabine way

of spelling Martius, may have been derived Mamertinus. In this

prison there are two chambers, one above the other, built of

hewn stone. The upper is square, while the lower is

semicircular. The style of masonry points to an early date,

when the Etruscan style of masonry prevailed in Rome. … To

these chambers there was no entrance except by a small

aperture in the upper roof, and a similar hole in the upper

floor led to the cell below. From a passage in Livy it would

appear that Tullianum was the name given to the lower cell of

the carcer. … Varro expressly tells us that the lower part

of the prison which was underground was called Tullianum

because it was added by Servius Tullius."

H. M. Westropp,

Early and Imperial Rome,

page 93.

{2083}

"The oldest portion of the horror-striking Mamertine Prisons

… is the most ancient among all Roman buildings still extant

as originally constructed."

C. I. Hemans,

Historic and Monumental Rome,

chapter 4.

"Here, Jugurtha, king of Mauritania, was starved to death by

Marius. Here Julius Cæsar, during his triumph for the conquest

of Gaul, caused his gallant enemy Vercingetorix to be put to

death. … The spot is more interesting to the Christian world

as the prison of SS. Peter and Paul."

A. J. C. Hare,

Walks in Rome,

chapter 3.

MAMERTINES OF MESSENE, The.

See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

MAMUN, AL, Caliph, A. D. 813-833.

MAN, Kingdom of.

See MANX KINGDOM, THE.

MANAOS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

----------MANASSAS: Start--------

MANASSAS: A. D. 1861 (July).

First battle (Bull Run).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (JULY: VIRGINIA).

MANASSAS: A. D. 1862 (March).

Confederate evacuation.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

MANASSAS: A. D. 1862 (August).

Stonewall Jackson's Raid.

The Second Battle.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (AUGUST: VIRGINIA);

and (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).

----------MANASSAS: End--------

----------MANCHESTER: Start--------

MANCHESTER:

Origin.

See MANCUNIUM.

MANCHESTER: A. D. 1817-1819.

The march of the Blanketeers,

and the "Massacre of Peterloo."

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

MANCHESTER: A. D. 1838-1839.

Beginning of the Anti-Corn-Law agitation.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839.

MANCHESTER: A. D. 1861-1865.

The Cotton Famine.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865.

MANCHESTER: A. D. 1894.

Opening of the Ship Canal.

A ship canal, connecting Manchester with Liverpool, and making

the former practically a seaport, was opened on the 1st day of

January, 1894. The building of the canal was begun in 1887.

----------MANCHESTER: End--------

MANCHU TARTAR DYNASTY OF CHINA, The.

See CHINA: A.D. 1294-1882.

MANCUNIUM.

A Roman town in Britain which occupied the site of the modern

city of Manchester.

T. Wright,

Celt, Roman and Saxon,

chapter 5.

MANDANS,

MANDANES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

MANDATA, Roman Imperial.

See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

MANDUBII, The.

A tribe in ancient Gaul, which occupied part of the modern

French department of the Côte-d'Or and whose chief town was

Alesia, the scene of Cæsar's famous siege.

Napoleon III.,

History of Cæsar,

book 3, chapter 2, footnote (volume 2).

MANETHO, List of.

"Of all the Greek writers who have treated of the history of

the Pharaohs, there is only one whose testimony has, since the

deciphering of the hieroglyphics, preserved any great value—a

value which increases the more it is compared with the

original monuments; we speak of Manetho. Once he was treated

with contempt; his veracity was disputed, the long series of

dynasties he unfolds to our view was regarded as fabulous.

Now, all that remains of his work is the first of an

authorities for the reconstruction of the ancient history of

Egypt. Manetho, a priest of the town of Sebennytus, in the

Delta, wrote in Greek, in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, a

history of Egypt, founded on the official archives preserved

in the temples. Like many other books of antiquity, this

history has been lost; we possess now a few fragments only,

with the list of all the kings placed by Manetho at the end of

his work—a list happily preserved in the writings of some

chronologers of the Christian epoch. This list divides into

dynasties, or royal families, all the kings who reigned

successively in Egypt down to the time of Alexander."

F. Lenormant,

Manual of Ancient History of the East,

book 3, chapter 1, section 2 (volume 1).

See, also,

EGYPT: ITS HISTORICAL ANTIQUITY.

----------MANHATTAN ISLAND: Start--------

MANHATTAN ISLAND:

Its aboriginal People and name.

"The earliest notice we have of the island which is now

adorned by a beautiful and opulent city is to be found in

Hudson's journal. 'Mana-hata' is therein mentioned, in

reference to the hostile people whom he encountered on his

return from his exploring of the river, and who resided on

this island. De Laet … calls those wicked people Manatthans,

and names the river Manhattes. … Hartger calls the Indians

and the island Mahattan. … In some of the early transactions

of the colony, it is spelled Monhattoes, Munhatos, and

Manhattoes. Professor Ebeling says, that at the mouth of the

river lived the Manhattans or Manathanes (or as the Englishmen

commonly called it, Manhados), who kept up violent animosities

with their neighbours, and were at first most hostile towards

the Dutch, but suffered themselves to be persuaded afterwards

to sell them the island, or at least that part of it where New

York now stands. Manhattan is now the name, and it was, when

correctly adopted, so given by the Dutch, and by them it not

only distinguished the Indians, the island and the river, but

it was a general name of their plantations. … Mr.

Heckewelder observes that hitherto an his labours had been

fruitless in inquiring about a nation or tribe of Indians

called the 'Manhattos' or 'Manathones'; Indians both of the

Mahicanni and Delaware nations assured him that they never had

heard of any Indian tribe by that name. He says he is

convinced that it was the Delawares or Munseys (which last was

a branch of the Delawares) who inhabited that part of the

country where New York now is. York Island is called by the

Delawares to this day [1824] Manahattani or Manahachtanink.

The Delaware word for 'Island' is 'Manátey'; the Monsey word

for the same is 'Manáchtey' … Dr. Barton also has given as

his belief that the Manhattæ were a branch of the Munsis."

J. V. N. Yates and J. W. Moulton,

History of the State of New York,

volume 1, pages 223-224.

ALSO IN:

Memorial History of the City of New York,

volume 1, chapter 2.

See, also,

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES,

and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

MANHATTAN ISLAND: A. D. 1613.

First settlements.

Argall's visit.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

----------MANHATTAN ISLAND: End--------

{2084}

MANICHEANS, The.

"A certain Mani (or Manes, as the ecclesiastical writers call

him), born in Persia about A. D. 240, grew to manhood under

Sapor, exposed to … various religious influences. … With a

mind free from prejudice and open to conviction, he studied the

various systems of belief which he found established in

Western Asia—the Cabalism of the Babylonian Jews, the Dualism

of the Magi, the mysterious doctrines of the Christians, and

even the Buddhism of India. At first he inclined to

Christianity, and is said to have been admitted to priest's

orders and to have ministered to a congregation; but after a

time he thought that he saw his way to the formation of a new

creed, which should combine all that was best in the religious

systems which he was acquainted with, and omit what was

superfluous or objectionable. He adopted the Dualism of the

Zoroastrians, the metempsychosis of India, the angelism and

demonism of the Talmud and Trinitarianism of the Gospel of

Christ. Christ himself he identified with Mithra, and gave Him

his dwelling in the sun. He assumed to be the Paraclete

promised by Christ, who should guide men into all truth, and

claimed that his 'Ertang,' a sacred book illustrated by

pictures of his own painting, should supersede the New

Testament. Such pretensions were not likely to be tolerated by

the Christian community; and Manes had not put them forward

very long when he was expelled from the church and forced to

carry his teaching elsewhere. Under these circumstances he is

said to have addressed himself to Sapor [the Persian king],

who was at first inclined to show him some favour; but when he

found out what the doctrines of the new teacher actually were,

his feelings underwent a change, and Manes, proscribed, or at

any rate threatened with penalties, had to retire into a

foreign country. … Though the morality of the Manichees was

pure, and though their religion is regarded by some as a sort

of Christianity, there were but few points in which it was an

improvement on Zoroastrianism."

G. Rawlinson,

The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 4.

First in Persia and, afterwards, throughout Christendom, the

Manicheans were subjected to a merciless persecution; but they

spread their doctrines, notwithstanding, in the west and in

the east, and it was not until several centuries had passed

that the heresy became extinct.

J. L. Mosheim,

Christianity during the first 325 years, Third Century,

lectures 39-55.

See, also, PAULICIANS.

MANIFESTATION, The Aragonese process of.

See CORTES. THE EARLY SPANISH.

MANILIAN LAW, The.

See ROME: B. C. 69-63.

MANIMI, The.

See LYGIANS.

MANIN, Daniel, and the struggle for Venetian independence.

See ITALY: A. D.1848-1849.

MANIOTO,

MAYNO, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

MANIPULI.

See LEGION, ROMAN.

MANITOBA.

See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

MANNAHOACS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

POWHATAN CONFEDERACY.

----------MANNHEIM: Start--------

MANNHEIM: A. D. 1622.

Capture by Tilly.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

MANNHEIM: A. D. 1689.

Destroyed by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

MANNHEIM: A. D. 1799.

Capture by the Austrians.

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

----------MANNHEIM: End--------

MANOA, The fabled city of.

See EL DORADO.

MANORS.

"The name manor is of Norman origin, but the estate to which

it was given existed, in its essential character, long before

the Conquest; it received a new name as the shire also did,

but neither the one nor the other was created by this change.

The local jurisdictions of the thegns who had grants of sac

and soc, or who exercised judicial functions amongst their

free neighbours, were identical with the manorial

jurisdictions of the new owners. … The manor itself was, as

Ordericus tells us, nothing more nor less than the ancient

township, now held by a lord who possessed certain judicial

rights varying according to the terms of the grant by which he

was infeoffed. Every manor had a court baron, the ancient

gemot of the township, in which by-laws were made and other

local business transacted, and a court customary in which the

business of the villenage was despatched. Those manors whose

lords had under the Anglo-Saxon laws possessed sac and soc, or

who since the Conquest had had grants in which those terms

were used, had also a court-leet, or criminal jurisdiction,

cut out as it were from the criminal jurisdiction of the

hundred, and excusing the suitors who attended it from going

to the court-leet of the hundred."

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 9, section 98,

and chapter 11, section 129 (volume 1).

"From the Conquest to the 14th century we find the same

agricultural conditions prevailing over the greater part of

England. Small gatherings of houses and cots appear as oases

in the moorland and forest, more or less frequent according to

the early or late settlement of the district, and its freedom

from, or exposure to, the ravages of war and the punishment of

rebellion. These oases, townships or vills if of some extent,

hamlets if of but a few houses, gather round one or more

mansions of superior size and importance, the Manor houses, or

abodes of the Lords of the respective Manors. Round each

township stretch the great ploughed fields, usually three in

number, open and uninclosed. Each field is divided into a

series of parallel strips a furlong in length, a rod wide,

four of which would make an acre, the strips being separated

by ridges of turf called balks, while along the head of each

series of strips runs a broad band of turf known as a

headland, on which the plough is turned, when it does not by

custom turn on some fellow-tenant's land, and which serves as

a road to the various strips in the fields. These strips are

allotted in rotation to a certain number of the dwellers in

the township, a very common holding being that known as a

virgate or yardland, consisting of about 30 acres. … Mr.

Seebohm's exhaustive researches have conclusively connected

this system of open fields and rotation of strips with the

system of common ploughing, each holder of land providing so

many oxen for the common plough, two being the contribution of

the holder of a virgate, and eight the normal number drawing

the plough, though this would vary with the character of the

soil. … At the date of Domesday (1086), the holders of land

in the common fields comprise the Lord; the free tenants,

socmanni or liberi homines, when there are any; the villani or

Saxon geburs, the holders of virgates or half virgates; and

the bordarii or cotarii, holders of small plots of 5 acres or

so, who have fewer rights and fewer duties. Besides ploughing

the common-fields, the villani as part of their tenure have to

supply the labour necessary to cultivate the arable land that

the Lord of the Manor keeps in his own hands as his domain,

dominicum, or demesne."

T. E. Scrutton,

Commons and Common Fields,

chapter 1.

{2085}

Relative to the origin of the manor and the development of the

community from which it rose there are divergent views much

discussed at the present day. "The interpretation, current

fifteen years ago, was the natural outcome of the Mark theory

and was somewhat as follows: The community was a voluntary

association, a simple unit within which there were households

or families of various degrees of wealth, rank and authority,

but in point of status each was the equal of the other. Each

was subject only to the customs and usages of the community

and to the court of the Mark. The Mark was therefore a

judicial and political as well as an agricultural unit, though

cultivation of the soil was the primary bond of union. All

offices were filled by election, but the incumbent in due time

sank back into the general body of 'markgenossen.' He who was

afterwards to be the lord of the manor was originally only the

first Marksman,' who attained to this preeminence in part by

the prestige of election to a position of headship, in part by

usurpation, and in part by the prerogatives which protection

and assistance to weaker Marksmen brought. Thus the first

Marksman became the lord and held the others in a kind of

subjection to himself, and received from them, though free,

dues and services which grew increasingly more severe. The

main difficulty here seems to be in the premise, and it is the

evident artificiality of the voluntary association of freemen

which has led to such adverse criticism upon the whole theory.

… While the free village community was under fire at home as

well as abroad, Mr. Seebohm presented a new view of an exactly

opposite character, with the formula of the community in

villeinage under a lord. Although this view has for the moment

divided thinkers on the subject, it has proved no more

satisfactory than the other; for while it does explain the

origin of the lord of the manor, it leaves wholly untouched

the body of free Saxons whom Earle calls the rank and file of

the invading army. Other theories have sought to supply the

omissions in this vague non-documentary field, all erected

with learning and skill, but unfortunately not in harmony with

one another. Coote and Finlason have given to the manor an

unqualified Roman origin. Lewis holds to a solid British

foundation, the Teutonists would make it wholly Saxon, while

Gomme is inclined to see an Aryo-British community under Saxon

overlordship. Thus there is a wide range from which to select;

all cannot be true; no one is an explanation of all

conditions, yet most of them have considerable sound evidence

to support them. It is this lack of harmony which drives the

student to discover some theory which shall be in touch with

known tribal conditions and a natural consequence of their

development, and which at the same time shall be sufficiently

elastic to conform to the facts which confront us in the early

historical period. An attempt has been made [in the work here

quoted from] to lay down two premises, the first of which is

the composite character of the tribal and village community,

and the second the diverse ethnological conditions of Britain

after the Conquest, conditions which would allow for different

results. … Kemble in his chapter on Personal Rank has a

remark which is ill in keeping with his peaceful Mark theory.

He says: 'There can be no doubt that some kind of military

organization preceded the peaceful settlement, and in many

respects determined its mode and character.' To this statement

Earle has added another equally pregnant: 'Of all principles

of military regiment there is none so necessary or so

elementary as this, that all men must be under a captain, and

such a captain as is able to command prompt and willing

obedience. Upon this military principle I conceive the English

settlements were originally founded, that each several

settlement was under a military leader, and that this military

leader was the ancestor of the lord of the manor.' Professor

Earle then continues in the endeavor to apply the suggestion

contained in the above quotation. He shows that the 'hundreds'

represent the first permanent encampment of the invading host,

and that the military occupation preceded the civil

organization, the latter falling into the mould which the

former had prepared. According to this the manorial

organization was based upon a composite military foundation,

the rank and file composing the one element, the village

community; the captain or military leader composing the other,

settled with suitable provision by the side of his company;

the lord by the side of free owners. In this attempt to give

the manor a composite origin, as the only rational means

whereby the chief difficulty can be removed, and in the

attempt to carry the seignorial element to the very beginning

we believe him to be wholly right. But an objection must be

raised to the way in which Professor Earle makes up his

composite element. It is too artificial, too exclusively

military; the occupiers of the village are the members of the

'company,' the occupier of the adjacent seat is the

'captain,' afterwards to become the lord. … We feel certain

that the local community, the village, was simply the kindred,

the sub-clan group, which had become a local habitation, yet

when we attempt to test its presence in Anglo-Saxon Britain we

meet with many difficulties."

C. McL. Andrews,

The Old English Manor,

pages 7-51.

ALSO IN:

F. Seebohm,

English Village Communities,

chapter 2, section 12.

Sir H. Maine,

Village Communities,

lecture 5.

MANSFIELD, OR

SABINE CROSS ROADS, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

MANSOURAH, Battle of (1250).

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.

MANSUR, Al, Caliph, A. D. 754-775.

----------MANTINEA: Start--------

MANTINEA.

"Mantinea was the single city of Arcadia which had dared to

pursue an independent line of policy [see SPARTA: B. C.

743-510]. Not until the Persian Wars the community coalesced

out of five villages into one fortified city; this being done

at the instigation of Argos, which already at this early date

entertained thoughts of forming for itself a confederation in

its vicinity: Mantinea had endeavored to increase its city

and territory by conquest, and after the Peace of Nicias had

openly opposed Sparta."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 5, chapter 5 (volume 4).

MANTINEA: B. C. 418.

Battle.

See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.

{2086}

MANTINEA: B. C. 385.

Destruction by the Spartans.

See GREECE: B. C. 385.

MANTINEA: B. C. 371-362.

Restoration of the city.

Arcadian union and disunion.

The great battle.

Victory and death of Epaminondas.

See GREECE: B. C. 371; and 371-362.

MANTINEA: B. C. 222.

Change of name.

In the war between Cleomenes of Sparta and the Achæan League,

the city of Mantinea was, first, surprised by Aratus, the

chief of the League, B. C. 226, and occupied by an Achæan

garrison; then recaptured by Cleomenes, and his partisans, B.

C. 224, and finally, B. C. 222, stormed by Antigonus, king of

Macedonia, acting in the name of the League, and given up to

pillage. Its citizens were sold into slavery. "The dispeopled

city was placed by the conqueror at the disposal of Argos,

which decreed that a colony should be sent to take possession

of it under the auspices of Aratus. The occasion enabled him

to pay another courtly compliment to the king of Macedonia. On

his proposal, the name of the 'lovely Mantinea'—as it was

described in the Homeric catalogue—was exchanged for that of

Antigonea, a symbol of its ruin and of the humiliation of

Greece."

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 62 (volume 8).

MANTINEA: B. C. 207.

Defeat of the Lacedæmonians.

In the wars of the Achæan League, the Lacedæmonians were

defeated under the walls of Mantinea with great slaughter, by

the forces of the League, ably marshalled by Philopœmen, and

the Lacedaemonian king Machanidas was slain. "It was the third

great battle fought on the same, or nearly the same, ground.

Here, in the interval between the two parts of the

Peloponnesian War, had Agis restored the glory of Sparta after

her humiliation at Sphakteria; here Epameinôndas had fallen in

the moment of victory; here now [B. C. 207] was to be fought

the last great battle of independent Greece."

E. A. Freeman,

History of Federal Government,

chapter 8, section 2.

----------MANTINEA: End----------

MANTUA: 11-12th Centuries.

Rise and acquisition of republican independence.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

MANTUA: A. D. 1077-1115.

In the dominions of the Countess Matilda.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

MANTUA: A. D. 1328-1708.

The house of Gonzaga.

See GONZAGA.

MANTUA: A. D. 1627-1631.

War of France, Spain and the Empire over the disputed

succession to the duchy.

Siege and capture of the city by the Imperialists.

Rights of the Duke de Nevers established.

See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

MANTUA: A. D. 1635.

Alliance with France against Spain.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

MANTUA: A. D. 1796-1797.

Siege and reduction by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);

and 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

MANTUA: A. D. 1797.

Ceded by Austria to the Cisalpine Republic.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

MANTUA: A. D. 1799.

Siege and capture by Suwarrow.

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

MANTUA: A. D. 1814.

Restoration to Austria.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

MANTUA: A. D. 1866.

The Austrians retained Mantua until their final withdrawal

from the peninsula, in 1866, when it was absorbed in the new

kingdom of Italy.

MANU, Laws of.

"The Indians [of Hindostan] possess a series of books of law,

which, like that called after Manu, bear the name of a saint

or seer of antiquity, or of a god. One is named after Gautama,

another after Vasishtha, a third after Apastamba, a fourth

after Yajnavalkya; others after Bandhayana and Vishnu.

According to the tradition of the Indians the law of Manu is

the oldest and most honourable. … The conclusion is …

inevitable that the decisive precepts which we find in the

collection must have been put together and written down about

the year 600 [B. C.]."

M. Duncker,

History of Antiquity,

book 5, chapter 6.

"The name, 'Laws of Manu,' somewhat resembles a 'pious fraud';

for the 'Laws' are merely the laws or customs of a school or

association of Hindus, called the Manavas, who lived in the

country rendered holy by the divine river Saraswati. In this

district the Hindus first felt themselves a settled people,

and in this neighbourhood they established colleges and

hermitages, or 'asramas,' from some of which we may suppose

Brahmanas, Upanishads, and other religious compositions may

have issued; and under such influences we may imagine the Code

of Manu to have been composed."

Mrs. Manning,

Ancient and Mediæval India,

volume 1, page 276.

MANUAL TRAINING.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &C.: A. D. 1865-1886.

MANUEL I. (Comnenus),

Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1143-1181.

Manuel II. (Palæologus),

Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1391-1425.

MANX KINGDOM, The.

The Isle of Man in the Irish Sea gets its English name, Man,

by an abbreviation of the native name, Mannin, the origin of

which is unknown. The language, called Manx (now little used),

and the inhabitants, called Manxmen, are both of Gaelic, or

Irish derivation. From the sixth to the tenth century the

island was successively ruled by the Scots (Irish), the Welsh

and the Norwegians, finally becoming a separate petty kingdom,

with Norwegian claims upon it. In the thirteenth century the

little kingdom was annexed to Scotland. Subsequently, after

various vicissitudes, it passed under English control and was

granted by Henry IV. to Sir John Stanley. The Stanleys, after

some generations, found a dignity which they esteemed higher,

in the earldom of Derby, and relinquished the title of King of

Man. This was done by the second Earl of Derby, 1505. In 1765

the sovereignty and revenues of the island were purchased by

the British government; but its independent form of government

has undergone little change. It enjoys "home rule" to

perfection. It has its own legislature, called the Court of

Tynwald, consisting of a council, or upper chamber, and a

representative body called the House of Keys. Acts of the

imperial parliament do not apply to the Isle of Man unless it

is specifically named in them. It has its own courts, with

judges called deemsters (who are the successors of the ancient

Druidical priests), and its own governor, appointed by the

crown. The divisions of the island, corresponding to English

counties, are called sheadings.

S. Walpole,

The Land of Home Rule.

ALSO IN:

H. I. Jenkinson,

Guide to Isle of Man.

Hall Caine,

The Little Manx Nation.

Our Own Country,

volume 5.

See

MONAPIA:

and NORMANS: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.

{2087}

MANZIKERT, Battle of (1071).

See TURKS: A. D. 1063-1073.

MAONITES, The.

"We must … regard them as a remnant of the Amorites, which,

in later times, … spread to the west of Petra."

H. Ewald,

History of Israel,

introduction, section 4.

MAORIS.

MAORI WAR.

See NEW ZEALAND: THE ABORIGINES: A. D. 1853-1883;

also, MALAYAN RACE.

MAPOCHINS, The.

See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

MAQUAHUITL, The.

This was a weapon in use among the Mexicans when the Spaniards

found them. It "was a stout stick, three feet and a half long,

and about four inches broad, armed on each side with a sort of

razors of the stone itztli (obsidian), extraordinarily sharp,

fixed and firmly fastened to the stick with gum lack. … The

first stroke only was to be feared, for the razors became soon

blunt."

F. S. Clavigero,

History of Mexico,

book 7.

ALSO IN:

Sir A. Helps,

The Spanish Conquest of America,

book 10 (volume 2).

MARACANDA.

The chief city of the ancient Sogdiani, in Central Asia—now

Samarcand.

MARAGHA.

See PERSIA: A. D. 1258-1393.

MARAIS, OR PLAIN, The Party of the.

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

MARANHA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

MARANGA, Battle of.

One of the battles fought by the Romans with the Persians

during the retreat from Julian's fatal expedition beyond the

Tigris, A. D. 363. The Persians were repulsed.

G. Rawlinson,

Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 10.

MARAPHIANS, The.

One of the tribes of the ancient Persians.

M. Duncker,

History of Antiquity,

book 8, chapter 3.

MARAT AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1790, to 1793 (MARCH-JUNE).

Assassination by Charlotte Corday.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY).

MARATA.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

MARATHAS.

See MAHRATTAS.

MARATHON, Battle of.

See GREECE: B. C. 490.

MARAVEDIS.

See SPANISH COINS.

MARBURG CONFERENCE, The.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.

MARCEL, Etienne, and the States General of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1356-1358.

MARCELLUS II., Pope, A. D. 1555, April to May.

MARCH.

MARK.

The frontier or boundary of a territory; a border. Hence came

the title of Marquis, which was originally that of an officer

charged with the guarding of some March or border district of

a kingdom. In Great Britain this title ranks second in the

five orders of nobility, only the title of Duke being superior

to it. The old English kingdom of Mercia was formed by the

Angles who were first called the "Men of the March," having

settled on the Welsh border, and that was the origin of its

name. The kingdom of Prussia grew out of the "Mark of

Brandenburg," which was originally a military border district

formed on the skirts of the German empire to resist the Wends.

Various other European states had the same origin.

See, also, MARGRAVE.

MARCH CLUB.

See CLUBS: THE OCTOBER AND THE MARCH.

MARCHFELD OR MARSCHFELD, Battle of the (1278).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.

(1809) (also called the battle of Aspern-Esslingen,

or of Aspern).

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

MARCIAN, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 450-457.

MARCIANAPOLIS.

See GOTHS: A. D. 244-251.

----------MARCOMANNI AND QUADI: Start--------

MARCOMANNI AND QUADI, The.

"The Marcomanni [an ancient German people who dwelt, first, on

the Rhine, but afterwards occupied southern Bohemia] stand

first in strength and renown, and their very territory, from

which the Boii were driven in a former age, was won by valour.

Nor are the Narisci [settled in the region of modern Ratisbon]

and Quadi [who probably occupied Moravia] inferior to them.

This I may call the frontier of Germany, so far as it is

completed by the Danube. The Marcomanni and Quadi have, up to

our time, been ruled by kings of their own nation, descended

from the noble stock of Maroboduus and Tudrus. They now submit

even to foreigners; but the strength and power of the monarch

depend on Roman influence."

Tacitus,

Germany, translated by Church and Brodribb,

chapter 42.

"The Marcomanni cannot be demonstrated as a distinct people

before Marbod. It is very possible that the word up to that

point indicates nothing but what it etymologically

signifies—the land or frontier guard."

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 5, chapter 7, foot-note.

See, also, AGRI DECUMATES.

MARCOMANNI AND QUADI:

War with Tiberius.

See GERMANY: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.

MARCOMANNI AND QUADI:

Wars with Marcus Aurelius.

See SARMATIAN AND MARCOMANNIAN WARS

OF MARCUS AURELIUS.

----------MARCOMANNI AND QUADI: End--------

MARCUS AURELIUS ANTONINUS,

Roman Emperor, A. D. 161-180.

MARDIA, Battle of (A. D. 313).

See ROME: A. D. 305-323.

MARDIANS, The.

One of the tribes of the ancient Persians;

also called Amardians.

M. Duncker,

History of Antiquity,

book 8, chapter 3.

See, also, TAPURIANS.

----------MARDYCK: Start--------

MARDYCK: A. D. 1645-1646.

Thrice taken and retaken by French and Spaniards.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.

MARDYCK: A. D. 1657.

Siege and capture by the French.

Delivery to the English.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.

----------MARDYCK: End--------

MARENGO, Battle of (1800).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

MARFEE, Battle of (1641).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.

MARGARET,

Queen of the North: Denmark and Norway, A. D. 1387-1412;

Sweden, 1388-1412.

Margaret (called The Maid of Norway),

Queen of Scotland, 1286-1290.

Margaret of Anjou, and the Wars of the Roses.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

Margaret of Navarre, or Marguerite d'Angouléme,

and the Reformation in France.

See PAPACY: A.D. 1521-1535;

and NAVARRE: A.D. 1528-1563.

Margaret of Parma and her Regency in the Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555-1559, and after.

{2088}

MARGHUSH.

See MARGIANA.

MARGIANA.

The ancient name of the valley of the Murghab or Moorghab

(called the Margos). It is represented at the present day by

the oasis now called Merv; was the Bactrian Mourn and the

Marghush of the old Persians. It was inhabited by the

Margiani.

M. Duncker,

History of Antiquity,

book 7, chapter 1.

MARGRAVE.

MARQUIS.

"This of Markgrafs (Grafs of the Marches, 'marked' Places, or

Boundaries) was a natural invention in that state of

circumstances [the circumstances of the Germany of the 10th

century, under Henry the Fowler]. It did not quite originate

with Henry; but was much perfected by him, he first

recognising how essential it was. On all frontiers he had his

'Graf' (Count, 'Reeve,' 'G'reeve,' whom some think to be only

'Grau,' Gray, or 'Senior,' the hardiest, wisest steel-gray man

he could discover) stationed on the Marck, strenuously doing

watch and ward there: the post of difficulty, of peril, and

naturally of honour too, nothing of a sinecure by any means.

Which post, like every other, always had a tendency to become

hereditary, if the kindred did not fail in fit men. And hence

have come the innumerable Margraves, Marquises, and such like,

of modern times; titles now become chimerical, and more or

less mendacious, as most of our titles are."

T. Carlyle,

Frederick the Great,

book 2, chapter 1.

"The title derived from the old imperial office of markgrave

[margrave], 'comes marchensis,' or count of the marches, had

belonged to several foreigners who were brought into relation

with England in the twelfth century; the duke of Brabant was

marquess of Antwerp, and the count of Maurienne marquess of

Italy; but in France the title was not commonly used until the

seventeenth century, and it is possible that it came to

England direct from Germany. … The fact that, within a

century of its introduction into England, it was used in so

unmeaning a designation as the marquess of Montague, shows

that it had lost all traces of its original application."

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 20, section 751.

See MARCH; also, GRAF.

MARGUS, Treaty of.

A treaty which Attila the Hun extorted from the Eastern Roman

Emperor, Theodosius, A. D. 434,—called by Sismondi "the most

shameful treaty that ever monarch signed." It gave up to the

savage king every fugitive from his vengeance or his jealousy

whom he demanded, and even the Roman captives who had escaped

from his bonds. It promised, moreover, an annual tribute to

him of 700 pounds of gold.

J. C. L. de Sismondi,

Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 7 (volume 1).

MARHATTAS.

See MAHRATTAS.

MARIA,

Queen of Hungary, A. D. 1399-1437.

Maria, Queen of Sicily, 1377-1402.

Maria I., Queen of Portugal, 1777-1807.

Maria II., Queen of Portugal, 1826-1853.

Maria Theresa, Archduchess of Austria and

Queen of Hungary and Bohemia, 1745-1780.

MARIA THERESA, The military order of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).

MARIANA.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

MARIANDYNIANS, The.

See BITHYNIANS.

MARIANS, The.

See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

MARICOPAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

MARIE ANTOINETTE,

Imprisonment, trial and execution of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST);

and 1793 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

Marie Louise of Austria, Napoleon's marriage to.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.

Marie de Medicis, The regency and the intrigues of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619, to 1630-1632.

Marie.

See, also, MARY.

MARIETTA, OHIO:

The Settlement and Naming of the town.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1786-1788.

MARIGNANO, OR MELIGNANO, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1515.

MARINUS, Pope.

See MARTIN.

MARIOLATRY, Rise of.

See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

MARION, Francis, and the partisan warfare in the Carolinas.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-DECEMBER), and 1780-1781.

MARIPOSAN F AMIL Y, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MARIPOSAN FAMILY.

MARITIME PROVINCES.

The British American provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,

Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland, are commonly referred

to as the Maritime Provinces.

MARIUS AND SULLA, The civil war of.

See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

MARIZZA, Battle of the (1363).

See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1360-1389.

MARJ DABIK, Battle of (1516).

See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

MARK.

A border.

See MARCH, MARK.

MARK, The.

"The theory of the Mark, or as it is more generally called in

its later form, the free village community, has been an

accepted hypothesis for the historical and economic world for

more than half a century. Elaborated and expanded by the

writings of Kemble in England and v. Maurer in Germany, taken

up by later English writers and given wide currency through

the works of Sir Henry Maine, Green, and Freeman, it has been

accepted and extended by scores of historical writers on this

side of the Atlantic as well as the other until it has become

a commonplace in literature. Firm as has been its hold and

important as has been its work, it is almost universally

conceded that further modification or entire rejection must be

the next step to be taken in the presence of the more thorough

and scholarly research which is becoming prominent, and before

all questions can be answered which this study brings to

light. A change has taken place in the thought upon this

subject; a reaction against the idealism of the political

thinkers of half a century ago. The history of the hypothesis

forms an interesting chapter in the relation between modern

thought and the interpretation of past history, and shows that

in the formation of an opinion both writer and reader are

unconsciously dependent upon the spirit of the age in which

they live. The free village community, as it is commonly

understood, standing at the dawn of English and German history

is discoverable in no historical documents, and for that

reason it has been accepted by prudent scholars with caution.

{2089}

But the causes which have made it a widely acceptable

hypothesis and have served to entrench it firmly in the mind

of scholar and reader alike, have easily supplied what was

wanting in the way of exact material, and have led to

conclusions which are now recognized as often too hazy,

historically inaccurate, though agreeable to the thought

tendencies of the age. … The Mark as defined by Kemble, who

felt in this interpretation the influence of the German

writers, … was a district large or small with a well-defined

boundary, containing certain proportions of heath, forest, fen

and pasture. Upon this tract of land were communities of

families or households, originally bound by kindred or tribal

ties, but who had early lost this blood relationship and were

composed of freemen, voluntarily associated for mutual support

and tillage of the soil, with commonable rights in the land

within the Mark. The Marks were entirely independent, having

nothing to do with each other, self-supporting and isolated,

until by continual expansion they either federated or

coalesced into larger communities. Such communities varying in

size covered England, internally differing only in minor

details, in all other respects similar. This view of the Mark

had been taken already more or less independently by v. Maurer

in Germany, and five years after the appearance of Kemble's

work, there was published the first of the series of volumes

which have rendered Maurer's name famous as the establisher of

the theory. As his method was more exact, his results were

built upon a more stable foundation than were those of Kemble,

but in general the two writers did not greatly differ."

C. McL. Andrews,

The Old English Manor,

pages 1-6.

ALSO IN:

J. M. Kemble,

The Saxons in England,

book 1, chapter 2.

E. A. Freeman,

History of the Norman Conquest,

chapter 3, section 2.

W. Stubbs,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 3, section 24 (volume 1).

See, also, MANOR.

MARKLAND.

See AMERICA: 10TH-11TH CENTURIES.

MARKS, Spanish.

See SPANISH COINS.

MARLBOROUGH, John Churchill, Duke of;

and the fall of the English Whigs.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

Campaigns.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, to 17101712;

and GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

----------MAROCCO: Start--------

MAROCCO:

Ancient.

See MAURETANIA.

MAROCCO:

The Arab conquest, and since.

The tide of Mahometan conquest, sweeping across North Africa

(see MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709), burst upon Marocco in

698. "Eleven years were required to overcome the stubborn

resistance of the Berbers, who, however, when once conquered,

submitted with a good grace and embraced the new creed with a

facility entirely in accordance with the adaptive nature they

still exhibit. Mingled bands of Moors and Arabs passed over

into Spain, under Tarik and Moossa, and by the defeat of

Roderic at the battle of Guadalete, in 711, the foundation of

their Spanish empire was laid [see SPAIN: A. D. 711-713], on

which was afterwards raised the magnificent fabric of the

Western Khalifate. This is not the place to dwell on the

glories of their dominion. … Suffice it to say, that a

reflection of this glory extended to Marocco, where the

libraries and universities of Fez and Marocco City told of the

learning introduced by wise men, Moorish and Christian alike,

who pursued their studies without fear of interruption on the

score of religious belief. The Moors in the days of their

greatness, be it observed, were far more liberal-minded than

the Spanish Catholics afterwards showed themselves, and

allowed Christians to practise their own religion in their own

places of worship—in striking contrast to the fanaticism of

their descendants in Marocco at the present day. … The

intervals of repose under the rule of powerful and enlightened

monarchs, during which the above-mentioned institutions

flourished, were nevertheless comparatively rare, and the

general history of Marocco during the Moorish dominion in

Spain seems to have been one monotonous record of strife

between contending tribes and dynasties. Early in the tenth

century, the Berbers got the mastery of the Arabs, who never

afterwards appear in the history of the country except under

the general name of Moors. Various principalities were formed

[11-13th centuries—see ALMORAVIDES and ALMOHADES], of which

the chief were Fez, Marocco, and Tafilet, though now and

again, and especially under the Marin dynasty, in the 13th

century, the two former were consolidated into one kingdom. In

the 15th century the successes of the Spaniards caused the

centre of Moorish power to shift from Spain to Marocco. In the

declining days of the Hispano-Moorish empire, and after its

final extinction, the Spaniards and Portuguese revenged

themselves on their conquerors by attacking the coast-towns of

Marocco, many of which they captured. It is not improbable

that they would eventually have possessed themselves of the

entire country, but for the disastrous defeat of King

Sebastian in 1578, at the battle of the Three Kings, on the

banks of the Wad El Ma Hassen, near Alcazar [see PORTUGAL: A.

D. 1579-1580]. This was the turning-point in Moorish history,

and an African Creasy would have to rank the conflict at

Alcazar among the decisive battles of the continent. With the

rout and slaughter of the Portuguese fled the last chance of

civilizing the country, which from that period gradually

relapsed into a state of isolated barbarism. … For 250 years

the throne has been in the hands of members of the Shereefian

family of Fileli, who have remained practically undisputed

masters of the whole of the empire. All this time, as in the

earlier classical ages, Marocco has been practically shut out

from the world. … The chief events of importance in Moorish

affairs in the present century were the defeat of the Moors by

the French at the battle of Isly [see BARBARY STATES: A. D.

1830-1846], near the Algerian frontier, in 1844, and the

subsequent bombardment of Mogador and the coast-towns, and the

Spanish war which terminated in 1860 with the peace of Tetuan.

These reverses taught the Moors the power of European states,

and brought about a great improvement in the position of

Christians in the country. The Government of Marocco is in

effect a kind of' graduated despotism, where every official,

while possessing complete authority over those beneath him,

must render absolute submission to his superiors. The supreme

power is vested in the Sultan, the head of the State in all

things spiritual and temporal. … Of the ultimate dissolution

of the Moorish dominion there can be little doubt. …

European States have long had their eyes upon it, but the same

mutual distrust and jealousy which preserves the decaying fabric

of the Turkish Empire has hitherto done the like for Marocco,

whose Sultan serves the same purpose on the Straits of

Gibraltar as the Turkish Sultan does on the Bosphorus."

H. E. M. Stutfield,

El Maghreb,

chapter 16.

See, also, BARBARY STATES.

----------MAROCCO: End--------

{2090}

MARONITES, The.

See MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY.

MAROONS.

See JAMAICA: A. D. 1655-1796.

MARQUETTE'S EXPLORATIONS.

See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

MARQUIS.

See MARGRAVE.

MARRANA, The.

An ancient ditch running from Alba to Rome,—being part of a

channel by which the Vale of Grotta was drained.

B. G. Niebuhr,

Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography.,

volume 2, page 50.

MARRANOS.

See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

MARRIAGE, Republican.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

MARRUCINIANS, The.

See SABINES.

MARS' HILL.

See AREOPAGUS.

MARSAGLIA, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (OCTOBER).

MARSCHFELD.

See MARCHFELD.

MARSEILLAISE, The.

Origin of the Song.

Its introduction into Paris.

In preparation for the insurrection of August 10, 1792, which

overthrew the French monarchy, and made the Revolution begun

in 1789 complete, the Jacobins had summoned armed bands of

their supporters from an parts of France, ostensibly as

volunteers to join the army on the frontier, but actually and

immediately as a reinforcement for the attack which they had

planned to make on the king at the Tuileries.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (JUNE-AUGUST).

Among the "fédérés" who came was a battalion of 500 from

Marseilles, which arrived at the capital on the 30th of July.

"This battalion has been described by every historian as a

collection of the vagabonds who are always to be found in a

great seaport town, and particularly in one like Marseilles,

where food was cheap and lodging unnecessary. But their

character has lately been vindicated, and it has been shown

that these Marseillais were picked men from the national

guards of Marseilles, like the other fédérés, and contained

the most hardy as well as the most revolutionary men of the

city. …. They left Marseilles 513 strong, with two guns, on

July 2, and had been marching slowly across France, singing

the immortal war song to which they gave their name. … The

'Marseillaise' had in itself no very radical history. On April

24, 1792, just after the declaration of war, the mayor of

Strasbourg, Dietrich, who was himself no advanced republican,

but a constitutionalist, remarked at a great banquet that it

was very sad that all the national war songs of France could

not be sung by her present defenders, because they all treated

of loyalty to the king and not to the nation as well. One of

the guests was a young captain of engineers, Rouget de Lisle,

who had in 1791 composed a successful 'Hymne à la Liberté,'

and Dietrich appealed to him to compose something suitable.

The young man was struck by the notion, and during the night

he was suddenly inspired with both words and air, and on the

following day he sang over to Dietrich's guests the famous

song which was to be the war-song of the French Republic.

Madame Dietrich arranged the air for the orchestra; Rouget de

Lisle dedicated it to Marshal Lückner, as the 'Chant de guerre

pour l'armée du Rhin,' and it at once became popular in

Strasbourg. Neither Dietrich nor Rouget were advanced

republicans. The watchword of the famous song was not 'Sauvons

la République,' but' Sauvons la Patrie.' The air was a taking

one. From Strasbourg it quickly spread over the south of

France, and particularly attracted the patriots of Marseilles.

… There are many legends on the origin of the

'Marseillaise'; the account here followed is that given by

Amedée Rouget de Lisle, the author's nephew, in his 'La verité

sur la paternité de la Marseillaise,' Paris, 1865, which is

confirmed by a letter of Madame Dietrich's, written at the

time, and first published in 'Souvenirs d' Alsace—Rouget de

Lisle à Strasbourg et a Huningue,' by Adolphe Morpain."

H. M. Stephens,

History of the French Revolution,

volume 2, page 114-115.

A quite different but less trustworthy

version of the story may be found in

A. de Lamartine

History of the Girondists,

book 16, section 26-30 (volume 1).

----------MARSEILLES: Start--------

MARSEILLES:

The founding of.

See ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539,

and PHOCÆANS.

MARSEILLES: B. C. 49.

Conquest by Cæsar.

See ROME: B. C. 49.

MARSEILLES: 10th Century.

In the kingdom of Aries.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.

MARSEILLES: 11th Century.

The Viscounts of.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

MARSEILLES: 12th Century.

Prosperity and freedom.

See PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.

MARSEILLES: A. D. 1524.

Unsuccessful siege by the Spaniards and the Constable Bourbon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.

MARSEILLES: A. D. 1792.

The Marseillais sent to Paris, and their war-song.

See MARSEILLAISE.

MARSEILLES: A. D. 1793.

Revolt against the Revolutionary Government at Paris.

Fearful vengeance of the Terrorists.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE), (JULY-DECEMBER);

and 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

MARSEILLES: A. D. 1795.

Reaction against the Reign of Terror.

The White Terror.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

----------MARSEILLES: End--------

MARSHAL, The.

See CONSTABLE.

MARSHALL, John,

and the Federal Constitution of the United States.

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

and SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

MARSI, The.

See SAXONS; also, FRANKS.

MARSIAN WAR, The.

See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

MARSIANS, The.

See SABINES;

also, ITALY: ANCIENT.

MARSIGNI, The.

The Marsigni were an ancient German tribe who inhabited "what

is now Galatz, Jagerndorf and part of Silesia."

Tacitus,

Germany;

Oxford translation, foot-note.

MARSTON MOOR, Battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (JANUARY-JULY).

MARTHA'S VINEYARD:

Named by Gosnold.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.

MARTIN,

King of Aragon, A. D. 1395-1410;

King of Sicily, A. D. 1409-1410.

Martin I., Pope, 649-655.

Martin I., King of Sicily, 1402-1409.

Martin II. (or Marinus I.), Pope, 882-884.

Martin II., King of Sicily, 1409-1410.

Martin III. (or Marinus II.), Pope, 942-946.

Martin IV., Pope, 1281-1285.

Martin V., Pope, 1417-1431 (elected by the Council of Constance).

{2091}

MARTLING MEN.

In February, 1806, when DeWitt Clinton and his political

followers were organizing opposition to Governor Lewis, and

were forming an alliance to that end with the political

friends of Aaron Burr, a meeting of Republicans (afterwards

called Democrats) was held at "Martling's Long Room," in New

York City. Hence Mr. Clinton's Democratic opponents, "for a

long time afterwards, were known in other parts of the state

by the name of Martling Men."

J. D. Hammond,

History of Political Parties in the State of New York,

volume 1, page 230.

MARY

(called Mary Tudor), Queen of England, A. D. 1553-1558.

Mary of Burgundy, The Austrian marriage of.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.

Mary II., Queen of England

(with King William III., her consort), 1689-1694.

Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, 1542-1567.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548, to 1561-1568;

and ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.

Mary.

See, also, MARIE.

----------MARYLAND: Start--------

MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.

The charter granted to Lord Baltimore.

An American palatinate.

"Among those who had become interested in the London or

Virginia, Company, under its second charter, in 1609, was Sir

George Calvert, afterwards the founder of Maryland. … Upon

the dissolution of the Virginia Company … he was named by

the king one of the royal commissioners to whom the government

of that colony was confided. Hitherto he had been a

Protestant, but in 1624, having become unsettled in his

religious convictions, he renounced the church of England, in

which he had been bred, and embraced the faith of the Catholic

church. Moved by conscientious scruples, he determined no

longer to hold the office of secretary of state [conferred on

him in 1619], which would make him, in a manner, the

instrument of persecution against those whose faith he had

adopted, and tendered his resignation to the king. … The

king, … while he accepted his resignation, continued him as

a member of his privy council for life, and soon after created

him Lord Baltimore, of Baltimore, in Ireland. The spirit of

intolerance at that time pervaded England. … The laws

against the Catholics in England were particularly severe and

cruel, and rendered it impossible for any man to practice his

religion in quiet and safety. Sir George Calvert felt this;

and although he was assured of protection from the gratitude

and affection of the king, he determined to seek another land

and to found a new state, where conscience should be free and

every man might worship God according to his own heart, in

peace and perfect security. … At first he fixed his eyes on

New-found-land, in the settlement of which he had been

interested before his conversion. … Having purchased a ship,

he sailed with his family to that island, in which, a few

years before, he had obtained a grant of a province under the

name of Avalon. Here he only resided two years [see

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655], when he found the climate and

soil unsuited for the establishment of a flourishing

community, and determined to seek a more genial country in the

south. Accordingly, in 1628, he sailed to Virginia, with the

intention of settling in the limits of that colony, or more

probably to explore the uninhabited country on its borders, in

order to secure a grant of it from the king. Upon his arrival

within the jurisdiction of the colony, the authorities

tendered him the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, to which,

as then framed, no Catholic could subscribe. Lord Baltimore

refused to take them, but prepared a form of an oath of

allegiance which he and all his followers were willing to

accept. His proposal was rejected, and being compelled to

leave their waters, he explored the Chesapeake above the

settlements. He was pleased with the beautiful and well wooded

country, which surrounded the noble inlets and indentations of

the great bay, and determined there to found his principality.

… He returned to England to obtain a grant from Charles I,

who had succeeded his father, James I, upon the throne.

Remembering his services to his father, and perhaps moved by

the intercessions of Henrietta Maria, his Catholic queen, who

desired to secure an asylum abroad for the persecuted members

of her church in England, Charles directed the patent to be

issued. It was prepared by Lord Baltimore himself; but before

it was finally executed that truly great and good, man died,

and the patent was delivered to his son Cecilius, who

succeeded as well to his noble designs as to his titles and

estates. The charter was issued on the 20th of June, 1632, and

the new province, in honor of Queen Henrietta Maria, was named

'Terra Mariæ'—Maryland."

J. McSherry,

History of Maryland,

introduction.

"The boundaries of Maryland, unlike those of the other

colonies, were precisely defined. Its limits were: on the

north, the fortieth parallel of north latitude; on the west

and southwest, a line running south from this parallel to the

farthest source of the Potomac, and thence by the farther or

western bank of that river to Chesapeake Bay; on the south by

a line running across the bay and peninsula to the Atlantic;

and on the east by the ocean and the Delaware Bay and River.

It included, therefore, all the present State of Delaware, a

large tract of land now forming part of Pennsylvania, and

another now occupied and claimed by West Virginia. The charter

of Maryland contained the most ample rights and privileges

ever conferred by a sovereign of England. It erected Maryland

into a palatinate, equivalent to a principality, reserving

only the feudal supremacy of the crown. The Proprietary was

made absolute lord of the land and water within his

boundaries, could erect towns, cities, and ports, make war or

peace, call the whole fighting population to arms, and declare

martial law, levy tolls and duties, establish courts of

justice, appoint judges, magistrates, and other civil

officers, execute the laws, and pardon offenders. He could

erect manors with courts-baron and courts-leet, and confer

titles and dignities, so that they differed from those of

England. He could make laws with the assent of the freemen of

the province, and, in cases of emergency, ordinances not

impairing life, limb, or property, without their assent. He

could found churches and chapels, have them consecrated

according to the ecclesiastical laws of England, and appoint

the incumbents. All this territory, with these royal rights,

'jura regalia,' was to be held of the crown in free socage, by

the delivery of two Indian arrows yearly at the palace of

Windsor, and the fifth of all gold or silver mined. The

colonists and their descendants were to remain English

subjects. …

{2092}

The King furthermore bound himself and his successors to lay

no taxes, customs, subsidies, or contributions whatever upon

the people of the province. … This charter, by which

Maryland was virtually an independent and self-governed

community, placed the destinies of the colonists in their own

hands. … Though often attacked, and at times held in

abeyance, the charter was never revoked."

W. H. Browne,

Maryland,

chapter 2.

The intention to create a palatine principality in Maryland is

distinctly expressed in the fourth section of the charter,

which grants to Lord Baltimore, his heirs and assigns, "as

ample rights, jurisdictions, privileges, prerogatives,

royalties, liberties, immunities, and royal rights … as any

bishop of Durham, within the bishoprick or county palatine of

Durham, in our kingdom of England, ever heretofore hath had,

held, used, or enjoyed, or of right could, or ought to have,

held, use, or enjoy."

J. L. Bozman,

History of Maryland,

volume 2, page. 11.

ALSO IN:

H. W. Preston,

Documents Illustrative of American History,

page 62.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1633-1637.

The planting of the colony at St. Mary's.

"Cecil, Lord Baltimore, after receiving his charter for

Maryland, in June, 1632, prepared to carry out his father's

plans. Terms of settlement were issued to attract colonists,

and a body of emigrants was soon collected to begin the

foundation of the new province. The leading gentlemen who were

induced to take part in the project were Catholics; those whom

they took out to till the soil, or ply various trades, were

not all or, indeed, mainly Catholics, but they could not have

been very strongly Protestant to embark in a venture so

absolutely under Catholic control. At Avalon Sir George

Calvert, anxious for the religious life of his colonists, had

taken over both Catholic and Protestant clergymen, and was ill

repaid for his liberal conduct. To avoid a similar ground of

reproach, Baron Cecil left each part of his colonists free to

take their own clergymen. It is a significant fact that the

Protestant portion were so indifferent that they neither took

over any minister of religion, nor for several years after

Maryland settlements began made any attempt to procure one. On

behalf of the Catholic settlers, Lord Baltimore applied to

Father Richard Blount, at that time provincial of the Jesuits

in England, and wrote to the General of the Society, at Rome,

to excite their zeal in behalf of the English Catholics who

were about to proceed to Maryland. He could offer the clergy

no support. … The Jesuits did not shrink from a mission

field where they were to look for no support from the

proprietary or their flock, and were to live amid dangers. It

was decided that two Fathers were to go as gentlemen

adventurers, taking artisans with them, and acquiring lands

like others, from which they were to draw their support. …

The Maryland pilgrims under Leonard Calvert, brother of the

lord proprietary, consisted of his brother George, some 20

other gentlemen, and 200 laboring men well provided. To convey

these to the land of Mary, Lord Baltimore had his own pinnace,

the Dove, of 50 tons, commanded by Robert Winter, and the Ark,

a chartered vessel of 350 tons burthen, Richard Lowe being

captain. Leonard Calvert was appointed governor, Jerome Hawley

and Thomas Cornwaleys being joined in the commission." After

many malicious hindrances and delays, the two vessels sailed

from Cowes, November 22, 1633, and made their voyage in

safety, though encountering heavy storms. They came to anchor

in Chesapeake Bay, near one of the Heron Islands, which they

named St. Clement; and on that island they raised a cross and

celebrated mass. "Catholicity thus planted her cross and her

altar in the heart of the English colonies in America, March

25, 1634. The land was consecrated, and then preparations were

made to select a spot for the settlement. Leaving Father White

at St. Clement's, the governor, with Father Altham, ran up the

river in a pinnace, and at Potomac on the southern shore met

Archihau, regent of the powerful tribe that held sway over

that part of the land." Having won the goodwill of the

savages, "Leonard Calvert sailed back to Saint Clement's. Then

the pilgrims entered the Saint Mary's, a bold, broad stream,

emptying into the Potomac about 12 miles from its mouth. For

the first settlement of the new province, Leonard Calvert, who

had landed, selected a spot a short distance above, about a

mile from the eastern shore of the river. Here stood an Indian

town, whose inhabitants, harassed by the Susquehannas, had

already begun to emigrate to the westward. To observe strict

justice with the Indian tribes, Calvert purchased from the

werowance, or king, Yaocomoco, 30 miles of territory. The

Indians gradually gave up some of their houses to the

colonists, agreeing to leave the rest also after they had

gathered in their harvest. … The new settlement began with

Catholic and Protestant dwelling together in harmony, neither

attempting to interfere with the religious rights of the

other, 'and religious liberty obtained a home, its only home

in the wide world, at the humble village which bore the name

of St. Mary's' [Bancroft, i, 247]. … The settlers were soon

at work. Houses for their use were erected, crops were

planted, activity and industry prevailed. St. Mary's chapel

was dedicated to the worship of Almighty God, and near it a

fort stood, ready to protect the settlers. It was required by

the fact that Clayborne [a trading adventurer and a member of

the Virginia Council], the fanatical enemy of Lord Baltimore

and his Catholic projects, who had already settled on Kent

Island, was exciting the Indians against the colonists of

Maryland. The little community gave the priests a field too

limited for their zeal. … The Indian tribes were to be

reached. … Another priest, with a lay brother, came to share

their labors before the close of the year 1635; and the next

year four priests were reported as the number assigned to the

Maryland mission. Of their early labors no record is

preserved. … Sickness prevailed in the colony, and the

missionaries did not escape. Within two months after his

arrival Father Knolles, a talented young priest of much hope,

sank a victim to the climate, and Brother Gervase, one of the

original band of settlers, also died. … Lord Baltimore's

scheme embraced not only religious but legislative freedom,

and his charter provided for a colonial assembly. … In less

than three years an assembly of the freemen of the little

colony was convened and opened its sessions on the 25-26th of

January, 1637. All who had taken up lands were summoned to

attend in person." Some of the resulting legislation was

disapproved by the missionaries, and "the variance of opinion

was most unfortunate in its results to the colony, as

impairing the harmony which had hitherto prevailed."

J. G. Shea,

The Catholic Church in Colonial Days,

chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

J. L. Bozman,

History of Maryland,

chapter 1

W. H. Browne,

George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert,

chapters 3-4.

{2093}

MARYLAND: A. D. 1634.

Embraced in the palatine grant of New Albion.

See NEW ALBION.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1635-1638.

The troubles with Clayborne.

William Clayborne "was the person most aggrieved by the

Maryland charter. Under a general license from Charles I. to

trade, he had established a lucrative post on Kent Island. The

King, as he had unquestioned right to do under the theory of

English law, granted to Lord Baltimore a certain tract of wild

land, including Kent Island. Clayborne had no legal right

there except as the subject of Baltimore; but, since his real

injuries coincided with the fancied ones of the Virginians

generally, his claim assumed importance. … There was … so

strong a feeling in favor of Clayborne in Virginia that he was

soon able to send an armed pinnace up the Chesapeake to defend

his invaded rights at Kent Island, but the expedition was

unfortunate. Governor Calvert, after a sharp encounter,

captured Clayborne's pinnace, and proclaimed its owner a

rebel. Calvert then demanded that the author of this trouble

should be given up by Virginia; but Harvey [the governor], who

had been in difficulties himself on account of his

lukewarmness toward Clayborne, refused to comply. Clayborne,

however, solved the problem in his own way, by going at once

to England to attack his enemies in their stronghold. … On

his arrival in England he … presented a petition to the

King, and by adroitly working on the cupidity of Charles, not

only came near recovering Kent Island, but almost obtained a

large grant besides. After involving Lord Baltimore in a good

deal of litigation, Clayborne was obliged, by an adverse

decision of the Lords Commissioners of Plantations, to abandon

all hopes in England, and therefore withdrew to Virginia to

wait for better times."

H. C. Lodge,

Short History of the English Colonies in America,

chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

J. L. Bozman,

History of Maryland,

volume 2, chapter 1.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1643-1649.

Colonial disturbances from the English Civil War.

Lord Baltimore and the Puritans.

The struggle of parties incident to the overthrow of the

monarchy and the civil war, in England, was attended in

Maryland "with a degree of violence disproportionate to its

substantial results. It is difficult to fasten the blame of

the first attack definitely on either party. In 1643 or 1644

the King gave letters of marque to Leonard Calvert

commissioning him to seize upon all ships belonging to the

Parliament. It would seem, however, as if the other side had

begun to be active, since only three months later we find the

Governor issuing a proclamation for the arrest of Richard

Ingle, a sea-captain, apparently a Puritan and an ally of

Clayborne. … Ingle … landed at St. Mary's [1645], while

Clayborne at the same time made a fresh attempt upon Kent

Island. Later events showed that under a resolute leader the

Maryland Royalists were capable of a determined resistance,

but now either no such leader was forthcoming, or the party

was taken by surprise. Cornwallis, who seems to have been the

most energetic man in the colony, was absent in England, and

Leonard Calvert fled into Virginia, apparently without an

effort to maintain his authority. Ingle and his followers

landed and seized upon St. Mary's, took possession of the

government, and plundered Cornwallis's house and goods to the

value of £300. Their success was short-lived. Calvert

returned, rallied his party, and ejected Clayborne and Ingle.

The Parliament made no attempt to back the proceedings of its

supporters, and the matter dwindled into a petty dispute

between Ingle and Cornwallis, in which the latter obtained at

least some redress for his losses. The Isle of Kent held out

somewhat longer, but in the course of the next year it was

brought back to its allegiance. This event was followed in

less than a twelvemonth by the death of the Governor [June 9,

1647]. Baltimore now began to see that in the existing

position of parties he must choose between his fidelity to a

fallen cause and his position as the Proprietor of Maryland.

As early as 1642 we find him warning the Roman Catholic

priests in his colony that they must expect no privileges

beyond those which they would enjoy in England. He now showed

his anxiety to propitiate the rising powers by his choice of a

successor to his brother. The new Governor, William Stone, was

a Protestant. The Council was also reconstituted and only two

Papists appeared among its members. … Furthermore he [Lord

Baltimore] exacted from Stone an oath that he would not molest

any persons on the ground of their religion, provided they

accepted the fundamental dogmas of Christianity. The Roman

Catholics were singled out as the special objects of this

protection, though we may reasonably suppose that it was also

intended to check religious dissensions. So far Baltimore only

acted like a prudent, unenthusiastic man, who was willing to

make the best of a defeat and save what he could out of it by

a seemingly free sacrifice of what was already lost. … The

internal condition of the colony had now been substantially

changed since the failure of Ingle and Clayborne. The Puritan

party there had received an important addition. … A number

of Nonconformists had made an attempt to establish themselves

on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay. … The toleration which

was denied them by the rigid and narrow-minded Anglicanism of

Virginia was conceded by the liberality or the indifference of

Baltimore. The precise date and manner of their immigration

cannot be discovered, but we know that by 1650 their

settlement was important enough to be made into a separate

county under the name of Ann Arundel, and by 1653 they formed

two distinct communities, numbering between them close upon

140 householders. All that was required of them was an oath of

fidelity to the Proprietor, and it seems doubtful whether even

that was exacted at the outset. They seem, in the unsettled

and anarchical condition of the colony, to have been allowed

to form a separate and well-nigh independent body, holding

political views openly at variance with those of the

Proprietor. To what extent the settlers on the Isle of Kent

were avowedly hostile to Baltimore's government is doubtful.

But it is clear that discontent was rife among them, and that

in conjunction with the new-comers they made up a formidable

body, prepared to oppose the Proprietor and support the

Parliament. Symptoms of internal disaffection were seen in the

proceedings of the Assembly of 1649."

J. A. Doyle,

The English in America: Virginia, Maryland, &c.,

chapter 10.

ALSO IN:

G. P. Fisher,

The Colonial Era,

chapter 5.

{2094}

MARYLAND: A. D. 1649.

The Act of Toleration.

Religious liberty was a vital part of the earliest common-law

of the province. At the date of the charter, Toleration

existed in the heart of the proprietary. And it appeared in

the earliest administration of the affairs of the province.

But an oath was soon prepared by him, including a pledge from

the governor and the privy counsellors, 'directly or

indirectly' to 'trouble, molest, or discountenance' no 'person

whatever,' in the province, 'professing to believe in Jesus

Christ.' Its date is still an open question—some writers

supposing it was imposed in 1637; and others, in 1648. I am

inclined to think the oath of the latter was but 'an augmented

edition' of the one in the former year. The grant of the

charter marks the era of a special Toleration. But the

earliest practice of the government presents the first, the

official oath the second, the action of the Assembly in 1649

the third, and to advocates of a republican government the

most important phasis, in the history of the general

Toleration. … To the legislators of 1649 was it given … to

take their own rank among the foremost spirits of the age.

Near the close of the session, … by a solemn act [the 'Act

Concerning Religion'], they endorsed that policy which ever

since has shed the brightest lustre upon the legislative

annals of the province. … The design was five-fold:—to

guard by an express penalty 'the most sacred things of God';

to inculcate the principle of religious decency and order; to

establish, upon a firmer basis, the harmony already existing

between the colonists; to secure, in the fullest sense,

freedom as well as protection to all believers in

Christianity; and to protect quiet disbelievers against every

sort of reproach or ignominy."

G. L. Davis,

The Daystar of American Freedom,

chapters 4-7.

"In the wording of this act we see evident marks of a

compromise between the differing sentiments in the Assembly.

… It was as good a compromise as could be made at the time,

and an immense advance upon the principles and practice of the

age. In reality, it simply formulated in a statute what had

been Baltimore's policy from the first. … From the

foundation of the colony no man was molested under Baltimore's

rule on account of religion. Whenever the Proprietary's power

was overthrown, religious persecution began, and was checked

so soon as he was reinstated."

W. H. Browne,

Maryland,

chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

W. H. Browne,

George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert,

chapter 8.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1650-1675.

In Puritan times, and after.

"To whatever causes … toleration was due, it worked well in

populating Maryland. There was an influx of immigration,

composed in part of the Puritans driven from Virginia by

Berkeley. These people, although refusing the oath of

fidelity, settled at Providence, near the site of Annapolis.

Not merely the Protestant but the Puritan interest was now

predominant in Maryland, and in the next Assembly the Puritan

faction had control. They elected one of their leaders

Speaker, and expelled a Catholic who refused to take an oath

requiring secrecy on the part of the Burgesses. … Yet they

passed stringent laws against Clayborne, and an act reciting

their affection for Lord Baltimore, who had so vivid an idea

of their power that he deemed it best to assent to sumptuary

laws of a typically Puritan character. The Assembly appears to

have acknowledged the supremacy of Parliament, while their

proprietary went so far in the same direction that his loyalty

was doubted, and Charles II. afterward appointed Sir William

Davenant in his place to govern Maryland. This discreet

conduct on the part of Lord Baltimore served, however, as a

protection neither to the colonists nor to the proprietary

rights. To the next Assembly, the Puritans of Providence

refused to send delegates, evidently expecting a dissolution

of the proprietary government, and the consequent supremacy of

their faction. Nor were they deceived. Such had been the

prudence of the Assembly and of Lord Baltimore that Maryland

was not expressly named in the Parliamentary commission for

the 'reducement' of the colonies; but, unfortunately,

Clayborne was the ruling spirit among the Parliamentary

commissioners, and he was not the man to let any informality

of wording in a document stand between him and his revenge.

… Clayborne and Richard Bennet, one of the Providence

settlers, and also a commissioner, soon gave their undivided

attention to Maryland." Stone was displaced from the

Governorship, but reinstated after a year, taking sides for a

time with the Puritan party. "He endeavored to trim at a time

when trimming was impossible. … Stone's second change,

however, was a decided one. Although he proclaimed Cromwell as

Lord-Protector, he carried on the government exclusively in

Baltimore's interest, ejected the Puritans, recalled the

Catholic Councillors, and issued a proclamation against the

inhabitants of Providence as factious and seditious. A

flagrant attempt to convert a young girl to Catholicism added

fuel to the flames. Moderation was at an end. Clayborne and

Bennet, backed by Virginia, returned and called an Assembly,

from which Catholics were to be excluded. In Maryland, as in

England, the extreme wing of the Puritan party was now in the

ascendant, and exercised its power oppressively and

relentlessly. Stone took arms and marched against the

Puritans. A battle was fought at Providence, in which the

Puritans, who, whatever their other failings, were always

ready in a fray, were completely victorious. A few executions

and some sequestrations followed, and severe laws against the

Catholics were passed. The policy of the Puritans was not

toleration, and they certainly never believed in it.

Nevertheless, Lord Baltimore kept his patent, and the Puritans

did not receive in England the warm sympathy they had

expected." In the end (1657) there was a compromise. The

proprietary government was re-established, and Fendall, whom

Baltimore had appointed Governor in place of Stone, was

recognized. "The results of all this turbulence were the right

to carry arms, the practical assertion of the right to make

laws and lay taxes, relief from the oath of fealty with the

obnoxious clauses, and the breakdown of the Catholic interest

in Maryland politics. Toleration was wisely restored. The

solid advantages were gained by the Puritan minority at the

expense of the lord proprietary.

{2095}

In the interregnum which ensued on the abdication of Richard

Cromwell, the Assembly met and claimed supreme authority in

the province, and denied their responsibility to anyone but

the sovereign in England. Fendall, a weak man of the agitator

species, acceded to the claims of the Assembly; but Baltimore

removed Fendall, and kept the power which the Assembly had

attempted to take away. … Maryland did not suffer by the

Restoration, as was the case with her sister colonies, but

gained many solid advantages. The factious strife of years was

at last allayed, and order, peace, and stability of government

supervened. Philip Calvert, an illegitimate son of the first

proprietary, was governor for nearly two years, and was then

succeeded [1661] by his nephew, Charles, the oldest son of

Lord Baltimore, whose administration lasted for fourteen. It

would have been difficult to find at that time better

governors than these Calverts proved themselves. Moderate and

just, they administered the affairs of Maryland sensibly and

well. Population increased, and the immigration of Quakers and

foreigners, and of the oppressed of all nations, was greatly

stimulated by a renewal of the old policy of religious

toleration. The prosperity of the colony was marked."

H. C. Lodge,

Short History of the English Colonies,

chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

J. Grahame,

History of the United States (Colonial),

book 3 (volume 1).

D. R. Randall,

A Puritan Colony in Maryland.

(Johns Hopkins University Studies, 4th series, no. 6).

W. H. Browne,

George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert,

chapters 8-9.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1664-1682.

Claims to Delaware disputed by the Duke of York.

Grant of Delaware by the Duke to William Penn.

See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1682.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1681-1685.

The Boundary dispute with William Penn, in its first stages.

See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1685.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1688-1757.

Lord Baltimore deprived of the government.

Change of faith and restoration of his son.

Intolerance revived.

Lord Baltimore, "though guilty of no maladministration in his

government, though a zealous Roman catholic, and firmly

attached to the cause of King James II., could not prevent his

charter from being questioned in that arbitrary reign, and a

suit from being commenced to deprive him of the property and

jurisdiction of a province granted by the royal favour, and

peopled at such a vast expense of his own. But it was the

error of that weak and unfortunate reign, neither to know its

friends, nor its enemies; but by a blind precipitate conduct

to hurry on everything of whatever consequence with almost

equal heat, and to imagine that the sound of the royal

authority was sufficient to justify every sort of conduct to

every sort of people. But these injuries could not shake the

honour and constancy of Lord Baltimore, nor tempt him to

desert the cause of his master. Upon the revolution [1688] he

had no reason to expect any favour; yet he met with more than

king James had intended him; he was deprived indeed of all his

jurisdiction [1691], but he was left the profits of his province,

which were by no means inconsiderable; and when his

descendents had conformed to the church of England, they were

restored [1741] to all their rights as fully as the

legislature has thought fit that any proprietor should enjoy

them. When upon the revolution power changed hands in that

province, the new men made but an indifferent requital for the

liberties and indulgences they had enjoyed under the old

administration. They not only deprived the Roman Catholics of

all share in the government, but of all the rights of freemen;

they have even adopted the whole body of the penal laws of

England against them; they are at this day [1757] meditating

new laws in the same spirit, and they would undoubtedly go to

the greatest lengths in this respect, if the moderation and

good sense of the government in England did not set some

bounds to their bigotry."

E. Burke,

Account of the European Settlements in America,

part 7, chapter 18 (volume 2).

"We may now place side by side the three tolerations of

Maryland. The toleration of the Proprietaries lasted fifty

years, and under it all believers in Christ were equal before

the law, and all support to churches or ministers was

voluntary; the Puritan toleration lasted six years, and

included all but Papists, Prelatists, and those who held

objectionable doctrines; the Anglican toleration lasted eighty

years, and had glebes and churches for the Establishment,

connivance for Dissenters, the penal laws for Catholics."

W. H. Browne,

Maryland,

chapter 11.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1690.

The first Colonial Congress.

King William's War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690;

and CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1729-1730.

The founding of Baltimore.

"Maryland had never taken kindly to towns, and though in Queen

Anne's reign, in conformity with the royal wish, a number were

founded, the reluctant Assembly 'erecting' them by batches—42 at

once in 1706—scarcely any passed beyond the embryonic stage.

… St. Mary's and Annapolis, the one waning as the other

waxed, remained the only real towns of the colony for the

first 90 years of its existence; Joppa, on the Gunpowder, was

the next, and had a fair share of prosperity for 50 years and

more, until her young and more vigorous rival, Baltimore, drew

off her trade, and she gradually dwindled, peaked, and pined

away to a solitary house and a grass-grown grave-yard, wherein

slumber the mortal remains of her ancient citizens. Baltimore on

the Patapsco was not the first to bear that appellation. At

least two Baltimores had a name, if not a local habitation,

and perished, if they can be said ever to have rightly

existed, before their younger sister saw the light. … In

1729, the planters near the Patapsco, feeling the need of a

convenient port, made application to the Assembly, and an act

was passed authorising the purchase of the necessary land,

whereupon 60 acres bounding on the northwest branch of the

river, at the part of the harbor now called the Basin, were

bought of Daniel and Charles Carroll at 40 shillings the acre.

The streets and lots were laid off in the following January,

and purchasers invited. The waterfronts were immediately taken

up."

W. H. Browne,

Maryland,

chapter 12.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1754.

The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's Plan of Union.

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

MARYLAND: A. D. 1755-1760.

The French and Indian War.

See

CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;

OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;

and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

{2096}

MARYLAND: A. D. 1760-1767.

Settlement of the boundary dispute with Pennsylvania.

Mason and Dixon's line.

See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1760-1767.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1760-1775.

Opening events of the Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775, to 1775;

and BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1776.

The end of proprietary and royal government.

Formation and adoption of a state constitution.

"In Maryland the party in favor of independence encountered

peculiar obstacles. Under the proprietary rule the colony

enjoyed a large measure of happiness and prosperity. The

Governor, Robert Eden, was greatly respected, and to the last

was treated with forbearance. … The political power was

vested in a Convention which created the Council of Safety and

provided for the common defence. This was, however, so much

under the control of the proprietary party and timid Whigs

that, on the 21st of May [1776], it renewed its former

instructions against independence. … The popular leaders

determined 'to take the sense of the people.' Charles Carroll

of Carrolton, and Samuel Chase, who had just returned from

Canada, entered with zeal into the movement on the side of

independence and revolution. Meetings were called in the

counties. … Anne Arundel County declared that the province,

except in questions of domestic policy, was bound by the

decisions of Congress. … Charles County followed,

pronouncing for independence, confederation, and a new

government. … Frederick County (June 17) unanimously

resolved: 'That what may be recommended by a majority of the

Congress equally delegated by the people of the United

Colonies, we will, at the hazard of our lives and fortunes,

support and maintain.' … This was immediately printed. 'Read

the papers,' Samuel Chase wrote on the 21st to John Adams,

'and be assured Frederick speaks the sense of many counties.'

Two days afterward the British man-of-war, Fowey, with a flag

of truce at her top-gallant mast, anchored before Annapolis;

the next day, Governor Eden was on board; and so closed the

series of royal governors on Maryland soil."

R. Frothingham,

The Rise of the Republic,

pp. 525-527.

"Elections were held throughout the state on the 1st day of

August, 1776, for delegates to a new convention to form a

constitution and state government. … On the 14th of August

this new body assembled. … On the 3d of November the bill of

rights was adopted. On the 8th of the same month the

constitution of the State was finally agreed to, and elections

ordered to carry it into effect."

J. McSherry,

History of Maryland,

chapter 10.

See, also,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.D. 1776-1779.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1776-1783.

The War of Independence, to the Peace with Great Britain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1783.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1776-1808.

Anti-Slavery opinion and the causes of its disappearance.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1776-1808.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1777-1781.

Resistance to the western territorial claims of states

chartered to the Pacific Ocean.

Influence upon land-cessions to the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1787-1788.

Adoption and ratification of the Federal Constitution.

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

MARYLAND: A. D. 1813.

The coast of Chesapeake Bay harried by the British.

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

MARYLAND: A. D. 1861 (April).

Reply of Governor Hicks to President Lincoln's call for troops.

See

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

PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S CALL TO ARMS.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1861 (April).

Secession activity.

Baltimore mastered by the rebel mob.

Attack on the Sixth Massachusetts Regiment.

See

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (APRIL) ACTIVITY OF REBELLION.

MARYLAND: A. D. 1861 (April-May).

Attempted "neutrality" and the end of it.

General Butler at Annapolis and Baltimore.

See

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).

MARYLAND: A. D. 1862 (September).

Lee's first invasion and his cool reception.

The battles of South Mountain and Antietam.

See

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).

MARYLAND: A. D. 1863.

Lee's second invasion.

Gettysburg.

See

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA).

MARYLAND: A. D. 1864.

Early's invasion.

See

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA—MARYLAND).

MARYLAND: A. D. 1867.

The founding of Johns Hopkins University.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1867.

----------MARYLAND: End----------

MARZOCCO.

"'Marzocco' was the name given to the Florentine Lion, a stone

figure of which was set up in all subject places and the name

shouted as a battle-cry by their armies. It is said to be

derived from the Hebrew, 'Mare' (form, or appearance, or

aspect) and 'Sciahhal,' 'a great Lion.'"

H. E. Napier,

Florentine History,

volume 4, page 103, foot-note.

MASANIELLO'S REVOLT.

See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.

MASKOKI FAMILY OF INDIANS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

MASKOUTENS,

MASCONTENS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SACS, &c.

MASNADA,

See CATTANI.

MASON, John, and his grant in New Hampshire.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

MASON AND DIXON'S LINE.

See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1760-1767.

MASON AND SLIDELL, The seizure of.

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

MASORETES,

MASSORETES

MASORETIC.

When the Hebrew language had ceased to be a living language

"the so-called Masoretes, or Jewish scribes, in the sixth

century after the Christian era, invented a system of symbols

which should represent the pronunciation of the Hebrew of the

Old Testament as read, or rather chanted, at the time in the

great synagogue of Tiberias in Palestine. It is in accordance

with this Masoretic mode of pronunciation that Hebrew is now

taught."

A. H. Sayce,

Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,

chapter 3.

"Massora denotes, in general, tradition … ; but more

especially it denotes the tradition concerning the text of the

Bible. Hence those who made this special tradition their

object of study were called Massoretes. … As there was an

eastern and western, or Babylonian and Palestinian Talmud, so

likewise there developed itself a twofold Massora,—a

Babylonian, or eastern, and a Palestinian, or western: the

more important is the former. At Tiberias the study of the

Massora had been in a flourishing condition for a long time.

Here lived the famous Massorete, Aaron ben-Moses ben-Asher,

commonly called Ben-Asher, in the beginning of the tenth

century, who finally fixed the so-called Massoretic text."

Shaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.

{2097}

MASPIANS, The.

One of the tribes of the ancient Persians.

M. Duncker,

History of Antiquity,

book 8, chapter 3.

MASSACHUSETTS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

----------MASSACHUSETTS: Start--------

MASSACHUSETTS:

The Name.

"The name Massachusetts, so far as I have observed, is first

mentioned by Captain Smith in his 'Description of New

England,' 1616. He spells the word variously, but he appears

to use the term Massachuset and Massachewset to denote the

country, while he adds a final's' when he is speaking of the

inhabitants. He speaks of Massachusets Mount and Massachusets

River, using the word also in its possessive form; while in

another place he calls the former 'the high mountain of

Massachusit.' To this mountain, on his map, he gives the

English name of 'Chevyot Hills.' Hutchinson (i. 460) supposes

the Blue Hills of Milton to be intended. He says that a small

hill near Squantum, the former seat of a great Indian sachem,

was called Massachusetts Hill, or Mount Massachusetts, down to

his time. Cotton, in his Indian vocabulary, says the word

means 'a hill in the form of an arrow's head.' See, also,

Neal's 'New England,' ii. 215, 216. In the Massachusetts

charter the name is spelled in three or four different ways,

to make sure of a description of the territory."

C. Deane,

New England (Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 3, page 342, footnote).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1602.

The Bay visited by Gosnold.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1605.

The Bay visited by Champlain.

See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

The Pilgrim Fathers.

Whence and why they came to New England.

See INDEPENDENTS OR SEPARATISTS.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

The voyage of the Mayflower.

The landing of the Pilgrims.

The founding of Plymouth colony.

The congregation of John Robinson, at Leyden, having, after

long efforts, procured from the London Company for Virginia a

patent or grant of land which proved useless to them, and

having closed a hard bargain with certain merchants of London

who supplied to some limited extent the means necessary for

their emigration and settlement (see INDEPENDENTS, OR

SEPARATISTS: A. D. 1617-1620), were prepared, in the summer of

1620, to send forth the first pilgrims from their community,

across the ocean, seeking freedom in the worship of God. "The

means at command provided only for sending a portion of the

company; and 'those that stayed, being the greater number,

required the pastor to stay with them,' while Elder Brewster

accompanied, in the pastor's stead, the almost as numerous

minority who were to constitute a church by themselves; and in

every church, by Robinson's theories, the 'governing elder,'

next in rank to the pastor and the teacher, must be 'apt to

teach.' A small ship,—the 'Speedwell,'—of some 60 tons

burden, was bought and fitted out in Holland, and early in

July those who were ready for the formidable voyage, being

'the youngest and strongest part,' left Leyden for embarkation

at Delft-Haven, nearly 20 miles to the southward,—sad at the

parting, 'but,' says Bradford, 'they knew that they were

pilgrims.' About the middle of the second week of the month

the vessel sailed for Southampton, England. On the arrival

there they found the 'Mayflower,' a ship of about 180 tons

burden, which had been hired in London, awaiting them with

their fellow passengers,—partly laborers employed by the

merchants, partly Englishmen like-minded with themselves, who

were disposed to join the colony. Mr. Weston, also, was there,

to represent the merchants; but, when discussion arose about

the terms of the contract, he went off in anger, leaving the

contract unsigned, and the arrangements so incomplete that the

Pilgrims were forced to dispose of sixty pounds' worth of

their not abundant stock of provisions to meet absolutely

necessary charges. The ships, with perhaps 120 passengers, put

to sea about August 5/15, with hopes of the colony being well

settled before winter; but the 'Speedwell' was soon pronounced

too leaky to proceed without being overhauled, and so both ships

put in at Dartmouth, after eight days' sail. Repairs were

made, and before the end of another week they started again;

but when about a hundred leagues beyond Land's End, Reynolds,

the master of the' Speedwell,' declared her in imminent danger

of sinking, so that both ships again put about. On reaching

Plymouth Harbor it was decided to abandon the smaller vessel,

and thus to send back those of the company whom such a

succession of mishaps had disheartened. … It was not known

till later that the alarm over the 'Speedwell's' condition was

owing to deception practised by the master and crew. … At

length, on Wednesday, September 6/16, the Mayflower left

Plymouth, and nine weeks from the following day, on November

9/19, sighted the eastern coast of the flat, but at that time

well-wooded shores of Cape Cod. She took from Plymouth 102

passengers, besides the master and crew; on the voyage one

man-servant died and one child was born, making 102 (73 males

and 29 females) who reached their destination. Of these, the

colony proper consisted of 34 adult males, 18 of them

accompanied by their wives and 14 by minor children (20 boys

and 8 girls); besides these, there were 3 maid-servants and 19

men-servants, sailors, and craftsmen,—5 of them only

half-grown boys,—who were hired for temporary service. Of the

34 men who were the nucleus of the colony, more than half are

known to have come from Leyden; in fact, but 4 of the 34 are

certainly known to be of the Southampton accessions. … And

whither were they bound? As we have seen, a patent was secured

in 1619 in Mr. Wincob's name; but 'God so disposed as he never

went nor they ever made use of this patent,' says Bradford,—not

however making it clear when the intention of colonizing under

this instrument was abandoned.

{2098}

The 'merchant adventurers' while negotiating at Leyden seem to

have taken out another patent from the Virginia Company, in

February, 1620, in the names of John Peirce and of his

associates; and this was more probably the authority under

which the Mayflower voyage was undertaken. As the Pilgrims had

known before leaving Holland of an intended grant of the

northern parts of Virginia to a new company,—the Council for

New England,—when they found themselves off Cape Cod, 'the

patent they had being for Virginia and not for New England,

which belonged to another Government, with which the Virginia

Company had nothing to do,' they changed the ship's course,

with intent, says Bradford, 'to find some place about Hudson's

River for their habitation,' and so fulfil the conditions of

their patent; but difficulties of navigation and opposition

from the master and crew caused the exiles, after half a day's

voyage, to retrace their course and seek a resting-place on

the nearest shore. … Their radical change of destination

exposed the colonists to a new danger. As soon as it was

known, some of the hired laborers threatened to break loose

(upon landing) from their engagements, and to enjoy full

license, as a result of the loss of the authority delegated in

the Virginia Company's patent. The necessity of some mode of

civil government had been enjoined on the Pilgrims in the

farewell letter from their pastor, and was now availed of to

restrain these insurgents and to unite visibly the

well-affected. A compact, which has often been eulogized as

the first written constitution in the world, was drawn up. …

Of the 41 signers to this compact, 34 were the adults called

above the nucleus of the colony, and seven were servants or

hired workmen; the seven remaining adult males of the latter

sort were perhaps too ill to sign with the rest (all of them

soon died), or the list of signers may be imperfect. This

needful preliminary step was taken on Saturday, November

11/21, by which time the Mayflower had rounded the Cape and

found shelter in the quiet harbor on which now lies the

village of Provincetown; and probably on the same day they

'chose, or rather confirmed,' as Bradford has it, … Mr. John

Carver governor for the ensuing year. On the same day an armed

delegation visited the neighboring shore, finding no

inhabitants. There were no attractions, however, for a

permanent settlement, nor even accommodations for a

comfortable encampment while such a place was being sought."

Some days were spent in exploring Cape Cod Bay, and the harbor

since known as Plymouth Bay was chosen for the settlement of

the colony. The exploring party landed, as is believed, at the

famous Rock, on Monday December 11/21. "Through an unfortunate

mistake, originating in the last century, the 22d has been

commonly adopted as the true date. … Tradition divides the

honor of being the first to step on Plymouth Rock between John

Alden and Mary Chilton, but the date of their landing must

have been subsequent to December 11 [N. S. 21]." It was not

till the end of the week, December 16/26, that the Mayflower

was anchored in the chosen haven. "The selection of a site and

the preparation of materials, in uncertain weather, delayed

till Monday, the 25th [January 4, N. S.] the beginning of 'the

first house for common use, to receive them and their goods.'

Before the new year, house-lots were assigned to families, and

by the middle of January most of the company had left the ship

for a home on land."

F. B. Dexter,

The Pilgrim Church and Plymouth Colony

(Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 3, chapter 8, with foot-notes).

"Before the Pilgrims landed, they by a solemn instrument

founded the Puritan republic. The tone of this instrument and

the success of its authors may afford a lesson to

revolutionists who sever the present from the past with the

guillotine, fling the illustrious dead out of their tombs, and

begin history again with the year one. These men had been

wronged as much as the Jacobins. 'In the name of God. Amen. We

whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread

Sovereign Lord King James, by the grace of God of Great

Britain and Ireland, defender of the faith, etc., having

undertaken, for the glory of God and advancement of the

Christian faith, and honour of our king and country, a voyage

to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia,

do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of

God and of one another, covenant and combine ourselves

together into a civil body politic for our better ordering and

preservation, and for the furtherance of the ends aforesaid;

and by virtue hereof to exact, constitute, and frame such just

and equal laws, ordinances and acts, constitutions and

offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet for

the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due

submission and obedience.' And then follows the roll of

plebeian names, to which the Roll of Battle Abbey is a poor

record of nobility. There are points in history at which the

spirit which moves the whole shows itself more clearly through

the outward frame. This is one of them. Here we are passing

from the feudal age of privilege and force to the age of due

submission and obedience, to just and equal offices and laws,

for our better ordering and preservation. In this political

covenant of the Pilgrim fathers lies the American Declaration

of Independence. From the American Declaration of Independence

was borrowed the French Declaration of the Rights of Man.

France, rushing ill-prepared, though with overweening

confidence, on the great problems of the eighteenth century,

shattered not her own hopes alone, but nearly at the same

moment the Puritan Republic, breaking the last slight link

that bound it to feudal Europe, and placing modern society

firmly and tranquilly on its new foundation. To the free

States of America we owe our best assurance that the oldest,

the most famous, the most cherished of human institutions are

not the life, nor would their fall be the death, of social

man; that all which comes of Charlemagne, and all which comes

of Constantine, might go to the tombs of Charlemagne and

Constantine, and yet social duty and affection, religion and

worship, free obedience to good government, free reverence for

just laws, continue as before. They who have achieved this

have little need to talk of Bunker's Hill."

Goldwin Smith,

On the Foundation of the American Colonies

(Lectures on the Study of History).

ALSO IN:

W. Bradford,

History of Plymouth Plantation

(Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,

4th series, volume 3), book 1.

Mourt's Relation,

or Journal of the Plantation at Plymouth;

edited by H. M. Dexter.

J. S. Barry,

History of Massachusetts,

volume 1, chapter 3.

{2099}

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1621.

The first year of the Plymouth Colony and its sufferings.

The Pierce patent.

The naming of Plymouth.

"The labor of providing habitations had scarcely begun, when

sickness set in, the consequence of exposure and bad food.

Within four months it carried off nearly half their number.

Six died in December, eight in January, seventeen in February,

and thirteen in March. At one time during the winter, only six or

seven had strength enough left to nurse the dying and bury the

dead. Destitute of every provision, which the weakness and the

daintiness of the invalid require, the sick lay crowded in the

unwholesome vessel, or in half-built cabins heaped around with

snow-drifts. The rude sailors refused them even a share of

those coarse sea-stores which would have given a little

variety to their diet, till disease spread among the crew, and

the kind ministrations of those whom they had neglected and

affronted brought them to a better temper. The dead were

interred in a bluff by the water-side, the marks of burial

being carefully effaced, lest the natives should discover how

the colony had been weakened. … Meantime, courage and

fidelity never gave out. The well carried out the dead through

the cold and snow, and then hastened back from the burial to

wait on the sick; and as the sick began to recover, they took

the places of those whose strength had been exhausted." In

March, the first intercourse of the colonists with the few

natives of the region was opened, through Samoset, a friendly

Indian, who had learned from fishermen on the more eastern

coast to speak a little English. Soon afterwards, they made a

treaty of friendship and alliance with Massasoit, the chief of

the nearest tribe, which treaty remained in force for 54

years. On the 5th of April the Mayflower set sail on her

homeward voyage, "with scarcely more than half the crew which

had navigated her to America, the rest having fallen victims

to the epidemic of the winter. … She carried back not one of

the emigrants, dispiriting as were the hardships which they

had endured, and those they had still in prospect." Soon after

the departure of the Mayflower, Carver, the Governor, died.

"Bradford was chosen to the vacant office, with Isaac

Allerton, at his request, for his Assistant. Forty-six of the

colonists of the Mayflower were now dead,—28 out of the 48

adult men. Before the arrival of the second party of emigrants

in the autumn, the dead reached the number of 51, and only an

equal number survived the first miseries of the enterprise.

… Before the winter set in, tidings from England had come,

to relieve the long year's lonesomeness; and a welcome

addition was made to the sadly diminished number. The Fortune,

a vessel of 55 tons' burden, reached Plymouth after a passage

of four months, with Cushman and some 30 other emigrants. The

men who now arrived outnumbered those of their predecessors

who were still living. … Some were old friends of the

colonists, at Leyden. Others were persons who added to the

moral as well as to the numerical strength of the settlement.

But there were not wanting such as became subjects for anxiety

and coercion." The Fortune also brought to the colonists a

patent from the Council for New England, as it was commonly

known—the corporation into which the old Plymouth Company, or

North Virginia branch of the Virginia Company, had been

transformed (see NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623). "Upon lands of

this corporation Bradford and his companions had sat down

without leave, and were of course liable to be summarily

expelled. Informed of their position by the return of the

Mayflower to England in the spring, their friends obtained

from the Council a patent which was brought by the Fortune. It

was taken out in the name of 'John Pierce, citizen and

cloth-worker of London, and his associates,' with the

understanding that it should be held in trust for the

Adventurers, of whom Pierce was one. It allowed 100 acres of

land to every colonist gone and to go to New England, at a

yearly rent of two shillings an acre after seven years. It

granted 1,500 acres for public uses, and liberty to 'hawk,

fish, and fowl'; to 'truck, trade, and traffic with the

savages'; to 'establish such laws and ordinances as are for

their better government, and the same, by such officer or

officers as they shall by most voices elect and choose, to put

in execution'; and 'to encounter, expulse, repel, and resist

by force of arms' all intruders. … The instrument was signed

for the Council by the Duke of Hamilton, the Duke of Lenox,

the Earl of Warwick, Lord Sheffield, and Sir Ferdinando

Gorges. … The precise time of the adoption of the name which

the settlement has borne since its first year is not known.

Plymouth is the name recorded on Smith's map as having been

given to the spot by Prince Charles. It seems very likely that

the emigrants had with them this map, which had been much

circulated. … Morton (Memorial, 56) assigns as a reason for

adopting it that 'Plymouth in Old England was the last town

they left in their native country, and they received many

kindnesses from some Christians there.' In Mourt, 'Plymouth'

and 'the now well-defended town of New Plymouth' are used as

equivalent. Later, the name Plymouth came to be appropriated

to the town, and New Plymouth to the Colony."

J. G. Palfrey,

History of New England,

volume 1, chapter 5, and foot-note.

ALSO IN:

J. A. Goodwin,

The Pilgrim Republic,

chapters 9-16.

F. Baylies,

Historical Memoir of the Colony of New Plymouth,

volume 1, chapters 5-6.

A. Young,

Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1622-1628.

Weston at Wessagusset, Morton at Merrymount,

and other settlements.

"During the years immediately following the voyage of the

Mayflower, several attempts at settlement were made about the

shores of Massachusetts bay. One of the merchant adventurers,

Thomas Weston, took it into his head in 1622 to separate from

his partners and send out a colony of seventy men on his own

account. These men made a settlement at Wessagusset, some

twenty-five miles north of Plymouth. They were a disorderly,

thriftless rabble, picked up from the London streets, and soon

got into trouble with the Indians; after a year they were glad to

get back to England as best they could, and in this the

Plymouth settlers willingly aided them. In June of that same

year 1622 there arrived on the scene a picturesque but ill

understood personage, Thomas Morton, 'of Clifford's Inn,

Gent.,' as he tells on the title-page of his quaint and

delightful book, the 'New English Canaan.' Bradford

disparagingly says that he 'had been a kind of petiefogger of

Furnifell's Inn'; but the churchman Samuel Maverick declares

that he was a 'gentleman of good qualitie.'

{2100}

He was an agent of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, and came with some

thirty followers, to make the beginnings of a royalist and

Episcopal settlement in the Massachusetts bay, He was

naturally regarded with ill favour by the Pilgrims as well as

by the later Puritan settlers, and their accounts of him will

probably bear taking with a grain or two of salt. In 1625

there came one Captain Wollaston, with a gang of indented

white servants, and established himself on the site of the

present town of Quincy. Finding this system of industry ill

suited to northern agriculture, he carried most of his men off

to Virginia, where he sold them. Morton took possession of the

site of the settlement, which he called Merrymount. There,

according to Bradford, he set up a 'schoole of athisme,' and

his men did quaff strong waters and comport themselves 'as if

they had anew revived and celebrated the feasts of ye Roman

Goddes Flora, or the beastly practices of ye madd

Bachanalians.' Charges of atheism have been freely hurled

about in all ages. In Morton's case the accusation seems to

have been based upon the fact that he used the Book of Common

Prayer. His men so far maintained the ancient customs of merry

England as to plant a Maypole eighty feet high, about which

they frolicked with the redskins, while furthermore they

taught them the use of firearms and sold them muskets and rum.

This was positively dangerous, and in the summer of 1628 the

settlers at Merrymount were dispersed by Miles Standish.

Morton was sent to England, but returned the next year, and

presently again repaired to Merrymount. By this time other

settlements were dotted about the coast. There were a few

scattered cottages or cabins at Nantasket and at the mouth of

the Piscataqua, while Samuel Maverick had fortified himself on

Noddle's Island, and William Blackstone already lived upon the

Shawmut peninsula, since called Boston. These two gentlemen

were no friends to the Puritans; they were churchmen and

representatives of Sir Ferdinando Gorges."

J. Fiske,

The Beginnings of New England,

chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

C. F. Adams, Jr.,

Old Planters about Boston Harbor

(Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, June, 1878).

C. F. Adams, Jr.,

Introduction to Morton's New English Canaan

(Prince Society, 1883).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623.

Grant to Robert Gorges on the Bay.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.

Plymouth Colony.

Land allotments.

Buying freedom from the adventurers at London.

The new patent.

"In 1623 the Ann and Little James, the former of 140 tons, and

the latter of 44 tons, arrived with 60 persons to be added to

the colony, and a number of others who had come at their own

charge and on their own account. … The passengers in the Ann

and Little James completed the list of those who are usually

called the first-comers. The Ann returned to England in

September, carrying Mr. Winslow to negotiate with the

merchants, for needful supplies, and the Little James remained

at Plymouth in the service of the company. … Up to that time

the company had worked together on the company lands, and,

each sharing in the fruits of another's labors, felt little of

that personal responsibility which was necessary to secure the

largest returns. … 'At length, after much debate of things,

the Governor (with the advise of the cheefest amongest them)

gave way that they should set corne every man for his owne

perticuler, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all

other things to goe on in the generall way as before. And so

assigned to every family a parcell of land, according to the

proportion of their number for that end. … This had very

good success; for it made all hands very industrious.' …

Such is the language of Bradford concerning a measure which

was adopted from motives of necessity, but which was, to a

certain extent, an infringement of the provisions of the

contract with the adventurers. Before the planting season of

the next year a more emphatic violation of the contract was

committed. 'They (the colony) begane now highly to prise corne

as more pretious then silver, and those that had some to spare

begane to trade one with another for smale things, by the

quarte, potle, & peck &C.: for money they had none, and if any

had, corne was prefered before it. That they might therfore

encrease their tillage to better advantage, they made suite to

the Governor to have some portion of land given them for

continuance, and not by yearly lotte. … Which being well

considered, their request was granted. And to every person was

given only one acre of land, to them and theirs, as nere the

towne as might be, and they had no more till the 7 years were

expired.' This experience gradually led the colony in the

right track, and the growing necessity for some other

circulating medium than silver secured abundant harvests."

Winslow returned from England in 1624, "bringing, besides a

good supply, '3 heifers & a bull the first begining of any

catle of that kind in the land.' At that time there were 180

persons in the colony, 'some cattle and goats, but many swine

and poultry and thirty-two dwelling houses.' In the latter

part of the year Winslow sailed again for England in the

Little James and returned in 1625. The news he brought was

discouraging to the colonists. The debt due to the adventurers

was £1,400, and the creditors had lost confidence in their

enterprise." On this intelligence, Capt. Standish was sent to

England, followed next year by Mr. Allerton, "to make a

composition with the adventurers," and obtain, if possible, a

release from the seven years contract under which the

colonists were bound. Allerton returned in 1627, having

concluded an agreement with the adventurers at London for the

purchase of all their rights and interests in the plantation,

for the sum of £1,800. The agreement was approved by the

colony, and Bradford, Standish, Allerton, Winslow, Brewster,

Howland, Alden, and others, assumed the debt of £1,800, the

trading privileges of the colony being assigned to them for

their security. "In accordance with this agreement these

gentlemen at once entered vigorously into the enterprise, and

by the use of wampum, as a circulating medium, carried on so

extensive a trade with the natives, in the purchase of furs

and other articles for export to England as within the

prescribed period [six years] to pay off the entire debt and

leave the colony in the undisputed possession of their lands.

No legal-tender scheme, in these later days, has been bolder

in its conception, or more successful in its career, than that

of the Pilgrim Fathers, which, with the shells of the shore,

relieved their community from debt, and established on a

permanent basis the wealth and prosperity of New England. …

{2101}

After the negotiations with the adventurers had been

completed, the colonists were anxious to obtain another patent

from the New England Company conferring larger powers and

defining their territorial limits. After three visits to

England, Allerton was sent a fourth time, in 1629, and secured

a patent dated January 13, 1629 (old style), and signed by the

Earl of Warwick on behalf of the Council of New England,

enlarging the original grant, and establishing the boundaries

of what has been since known as the Old Colony. It granted to

William Bradford and his associates 'all that part of New

England in America, the tract and tracts of land that lie

within or between a certain rivolet or rundlett, then commonly

caned Coahasset alias Conahasset, towards the north, and the

river commonly called Naraganset river towards the south, and

the great Western ocean towards the east," and between two

lines described as extending, severally, from the mouth of the

Naraganset and the mouth of the Coahasset, "up into the

mainland westward," "to the utmost limits and bounds of a

country or place in New England called Pokernacutt, alias

Puckenakick, alias Sawaamset."

W. T. Davis,

Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth,

chapter 2.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.

The Dorchester Company and the royal Charter to the Governor

and Company of Massachusetts Bay.

"While the people of Plymouth were struggling to establish

their colony, some of the English Puritans, restless under the

growing despotism of Charles, began to turn their eyes to New

England. Under the lead of the Rev. John White, the Dorchester

Company was formed for trading and fishing, and a station was

established at Cape Ann [A. D. 1623]; but the enterprise did

not prosper, the colonists were disorderly, and the Company

made an arrangement for Roger Conant and others, driven from

Plymouth by the rigid principles of the Separatists, to come

to Cape Ann. Still matters did not improve and the Company was

dissolved; but White held to his purpose, and Conant and a few

others moved to Naumkeag, and determined to settle there.

Conant induced his companions to persevere, and matters in

England led to a fresh attempt; for discontent grew rapidly as

Charles proceeded in his policy. A second Dorchester Company,

not this time a small affair for fishing and trading, but one

backed by men of wealth and influence, was formed, and a large

grant of lands [from three miles north of the Merrimac to

three miles south of the Charles, and to extend from the

Atlantic to the Western Ocean] was made by the Council for New

England to Sir Henry Roswell and five others [March, 1628].

One of the six patentees, John Endicott, went out during the

following summer with a small company, assumed the government

at Naumkeag, which was now called Salem, and sent out

exploring parties. The company thus formed in England was

merely a voluntary partnership, but it paved the way for

another and much larger scheme. Disaffection had become

wide-spread. The Puritans began to fear that religious and

political liberty alike were not only in danger but were

doomed to destruction, and a large portion of the party

resolved to combine for the preservation of all that was

dearest to them by removal to the New World. The Dorchester

Company was enlarged, and a royal charter was obtained

incorporating the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay,"

March 4, 1629.

H. C. Lodge,

Short History of the English Colonies in America,

chapter 18.

"This [the royal charter named above] is the instrument under

which the Colony of Massachusetts continued to conduct its

affairs for 55 years. The patentees named in it were Roswell

and his five associates, with 20 other persons, of whom White

was not one. It gave power forever to the freemen of the

Company to elect annually, from their own number, a Governor,

Deputy-Governor, and 18 Assistants, on the last Wednesday of

Easter term, and to make laws and ordinances not repugnant to

the laws of England, for their own benefit and the government

of persons inhabiting their territory. Four meetings of the

Company were to be held in a year, and others might be

convened in a manner prescribed. Meetings of the Governor,

Deputy-Governor, and Assistants, were to be held once a month

or oftener. The Governor, Deputy-Governor, and any two

Assistants, were authorized, but not required, to administer

to freemen the oaths of supremacy and allegiance. The Company

might transport settlers not 'restrained by special name.'

They had authority to admit new associates, and establish the

terms of their admission, and elect and constitute such

officers as they should see fit for the ordering and managing

of their affairs. They were empowered to 'encounter, repulse,

repel, and resist by force of arms … all such person and

persons as should at any time thereafter attempt or enterprise

the destruction, invasion, detriment, or annoyance to the said

plantation or inhabitants.' Nothing was said of religious

liberty. The government may have relied upon its power to

restrain it, and the emigrants on their distance and obscurity

to protect it."

J. G. Palfrey,

History of New England,

volume 1, chapter 8.

"In anticipation of a future want the grantees resisted the

insertion of any condition which should fix the government of

the Company in England. Winthrop explicitly states that the

advisers of the Crown had originally imposed such a condition,

but that the patentees succeeded, not without difficulty, in

freeing themselves from it. That fact is a full answer to

those who held that in transferring the government to America

the patentees broke faith with the Crown."

J. A. Doyle,

The English in America: The Puritan Colonies,

volume 1, chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

Records of the Government and Company of Massachusetts Bay;

edited by N. B. Shurtleff,

volume 1 (containing the Charter).

S. F. Haven,

Origin of the Company

(Archœologia Americana, volume 3).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.

The immigration of the Governor and Company of

Massachusetts Bay, with their Royal Charter.

"Several persons, of considerable importance in the English

nation, were now enlisted among the adventurers, who, for the

unmolested enjoyment of their religion, were resolved to

remove into Massachusetts. Foreseeing, however, and dreading

the inconvenience of being governed by laws made for them

without their own consent, they judged it more reasonable that

the colony should be ruled by men residing in the plantation,

than by those dwelling at a distance of three thousand miles,

and over whom they should have no control. At a meeting of the

company on the 28th of July [1629], Matthew Cradock, the

governor, proposed that the charter should be transferred to

those of the freemen who should become inhabitants of the

colony, and the powers conferred by it be executed for the

future in New England.

{2102}

An agreement was accordingly made at Cambridge, in England, on

the 26th of August, between Sir Richard Saltonstall, Thomas

Dudley, Isaac Johnson, John Winthrop, and a few others, that,

on those conditions, they would be ready the ensuing March,

with their persons and families, to embark for New England,

for the purpose of settling in the country. The governor and

company, entirely disposed to promote the measure, called a

general court [at which, after a serious debate, adjourned

from one day to the next,] … it was decreed that the

government and the patent of the plantation should be

transferred from London to Massachusetts Bay. An order was

drawn up for that purpose, in pursuance of which a court was

holden on the 20th of October for a new election of officers,

who would be willing to remove with their families; and 'the

court having received extraordinary great commendation of Mr.

John Winthrop, both for his integrity and sufficiency, as

being one very well fitted for the place, with a full consent

chose him governor for the year ensuing.' … Preparations

were now made for the removal of a large number of colonists,

and in the spring of 1630 a fleet of 14 sail was got ready.

Mr. Winthrop having by the consent of all been chosen for

their leader, immediately set about making preparations for

his departure. He converted a fine estate of £600 or £700 per

annum into money and in March embarked on board the Arbella,

one of the principal ships. Before leaving Yarmouth, an

address to their fathers and brethren remaining in England was

drawn up, and subscribed on the 7th of April by Governor

Winthrop and others, breathing an affectionate farewell to the

Church of England and their native land. … In the same ship

with Governor Winthrop came Thomas Dudley, who had been chosen

deputy governor after the embarkation, and several other

gentlemen of wealth and quality; the fleet containing about

840 passengers, of various occupations, some of whom were from

the west of England, but most from the neighborhood of London.

The fleet sailed early in April; and the Arbella arrived off

Cape Ann on Friday, the 11th of June, and on the following day

entered the harbor of Salem. A few days after their arrival,

the governor, and several of the principal persons of the

colony, made an excursion some 20 miles along the bay, for the

purpose of selecting a convenient site for a town. They

finally pitched down on the north side of Charles river

(Charlestown), and took lodgings in the great house built

there the preceding year; the rest of the company erected

cottages, booths, and tents, for present accommodation, about

the town hill. Their place of assembling for divine service

was under a spreading tree. On the 8th of July, a day of

thanksgiving was kept for the safe arrival of the fleet. On

the 30th of the same month, after a day of solemn prayer and

fasting, the foundation of a church was laid at Charlestown,

afterwards the first church of Boston, and Governor Winthrop,

Deputy Governor Dudley, and the Rev. Mr. Wilson, entered into

church covenant. The first court of assistants was held at

Charlestown, on the 23d of August, and the first question

proposed was a suitable provision for the support of the

gospel. Towards the close of autumn, Governor Winthrop and

most of the assistants removed to the peninsula of Shawmut

(Boston), and lived there the first winter, intending in the

spring to build a fortified town, but undetermined as to its

situation. On the 6th of December they resolved to fortify the

isthmus of that peninsula; but, changing their minds before

the month expired, they agreed upon a place about three miles

above Charlestown, which they called first Newtown, and

afterwards Cambridge, where they engaged to build houses the

ensuing spring. The rest of the winter they suffered much by

the severity of the season, and were obliged to live upon

acorns, groundnuts, and shell-fish. … They had appointed the

6th of February for a fast, in consequence of their alarm for

the safety of a ship which had been sent to Ireland for

provisions; but fortunately the vessel arrived on the 5th, and

they ordered a public thanksgiving instead thereof."

J. B. Moore,

Lives of the Governors of New Plymouth

and Massachusetts Bay;

part 2: Winthrop.

ALSO IN:

R. C. Winthrop,

Life and Letters of John Winthrop,

volume 1, chapters 15-19,

and volume 2, chapters 1-4.

A. Young,

Chronicles of the first Planters of Massachusetts Bay,

chapters 14-19.

J. S. Barry,

History of Massachusetts,

volume 1, chapter 7.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1630.

The founding of Boston.

"The English people who came with Governor Winthrop first

located upon the peninsula of Mishawum, which they called

Charlestown. … They found here a single white man named

Thomas Walford, living very peaceably and contentedly among

the Indians. They also discovered that the peninsula of

Shawmut had one solitary white inhabitant whose name was

William Blackstone. They could see every day the smoke curling

above this man's lonely cabin. He, too, was a Puritan

clergyman, like many of those who had now come to make a home

in the New World, free from the tyranny of the English

bishops. Still another Englishman, Samuel Maverick by name,

had built a house, and with the help of David Thompson, a fort

which mounted four small cannon, truly called 'murtherers,'

and was living very comfortably on the island that is now East

Boston. And again, by looking across the bay, to the south,

the smoke of an English cottage, on Thompson's Island, was

probably seen stealing upward to the sky. So that we certainly

know these people were the first settlers of Boston. But

scarcity of water, and sickness, which soon broke out among

them, made the settlers at Charlestown very discontented. They

began to scatter. Indeed this peninsula was too small properly

to accommodate all of them with their cattle. Therefore good

William Blackstone, with true hospitality, came in their

distress to tell them there was a fine spring of pure water at

Shawmut, and to invite them there. Probably his account

induced quite a number to remove at once; while others,

wishing to make farms, looked out homes along the shores of

the mainland, at Medford, Newtown (Cambridge), Watertown and

Roxbury. A separate company of colonists also settled at

Mattapan, or Dorchester. The dissatisfaction with Charlestown

was so general that at last only a few of the original

settlers remained there. … While those in chief authority

were still undecided, Isaac Johnson, one of the most

influential and honored men among the colonists, began, with

others, in earnest, the settlement of Boston. He chose for

himself the square of land now enclosed by Tremont, Court,

Washington and School Streets.

{2103}

Unfortunately this gentleman, who was much beloved, died

before the removal to Boston became general. … Although the

chief men of the colony continued for some time yet to favor

the plan of a fortified town farther inland, Boston had now

become too firmly rooted, and the people too unwilling, to

make a second change of location practicable, or even

desirable. So this project was abandoned, though not before

high words passed between Winthrop and Dudley about it. The

governor then removed the frame of his new house from

Cambridge, or Newtown, to Boston, setting it up on the land

between Milk Street, Spring Lane, and Washington Street. One

of the finest springs being upon his lot, the name Spring Lane

is easily traced. The people first located themselves within

the space now comprised between Milk, Bromfield, Tremont, and

Hanover Streets, and the water, or, in general terms, upon the

southeasterly slope of Beacon Hill. Pemberton Hill soon became

a favorite locality. The North End, including that portion of

the town north of Union Street, was soon built up by the new

emigrants coming in, or by removals from the South End, as all

the town south of this district was called. In time a third

district on the north side of Beacon Hill grew up, and was

called the West End. And in the old city these general

divisions continue to-day. Shawmut, we remember, was the first

name Boston had. Now the settlers at Charlestown, seeing

always before them a high hill topped with three little peaks,

had already, and very aptly too, we think, named Shawmut

Trimountain [the origin of the name Tremont in Boston]. But

when they began to remove there they called it Boston, after a

place of that name in England, and because they had determined

beforehand to give to their chief town this name. So says the

second highest person among them, Deputy Governor Thomas

Dudley. The settlers built their first church on the ground

now covered by Brazer's Building, in State Street. …

Directly in front of the meeting-house was the town

market-place. Where Quincy Market is was the principal

landing-place. The Common was set apart as a pasture-ground

and training-field. … A beacon was set up on the summit of

Trimountain and a fort upon the southernmost hill of the town.

From this time these hills took the names of Windmill, Beacon,

and Fort Hills."

S. A. Drake,

Around the Hub,

chapter 2.

"The order of the Court of Assistants,—Governor Winthrop

presiding,—'That Trimontaine shall be called Boston,' was

passed on the 7th of September, old style, or, as we now count

it, the 17th of September, 1630. The name of Boston was

specially dear to the Massachusetts colonists, from its

association with the old St. Botolphs' town, or Boston, of

Lincolnshire, England, from which the Lady Arbella Johnson and

her husband had come, and where John Cotton was still

preaching in its noble parish church. But the precise date of

the removal of the Governor and Company to the peninsula is

nowhere given."

R. C. Winthrop,

Boston Founded

(Memorial History of Boston;

edited by J. Winsor,

volume 1), pages 116-117.

ALSO IN:

C. F. Adams, Jr.,

Earliest Exploration and Settlement of Boston Harbor

(Mem. History, pages 63-86).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636.

The Puritan Theocracy and its intolerance.

"The charter of the Massachusetts Company had prescribed no

condition of investment with its franchise,—or with what

under the circumstances which had arisen was the same thing,

the prerogatives of citizenship in the plantation,—except the

will and vote of those who were already freemen. At the first

Cisatlantic General Court for election, 'to the end the body

of the commons may be preserved of honest and good men,' it

was 'ordered and agreed, that, for the time to come, no man

shall be admitted to the freedom of this body politic, but

such as are members of some of the churches within the limits

of the same." The men who laid this singular foundation for

the commonwealth which they were instituting, had been

accustomed to feel responsibility, and to act upon

well-considered reasons. By charter from the English crown,

the land was theirs as against all other civilized people, and

they had a right to choose according to their own rules the

associates who should help them to occupy and govern it.

Exercising this right, they determined that magistracy and

citizenship should belong only to Christian men, ascertained

to be such by the best test which they knew how to apply. They

established a kind of aristocracy hitherto unknown."

J. G. Palfrey,

History of New England,

volume 1, chapter 9.

"The aim of Winthrop and his friends in coming to

Massachusetts was the construction of a theocratic state which

should be to Christians, under the New Testament dispensation,

all that the theocracy of Moses and Joshua and Samuel had been

to the Jews in Old Testament days. They should be to all

intents and purposes freed from the jurisdiction of the Stuart

king, and so far as possible the text of the Holy Scriptures

should be their guide both in weighty matters of general

legislation and in the shaping of the smallest details of

daily life. In such a scheme there was no room for religious

liberty as we understand it."

J. Fiske,

The Beginnings of New England,

chapter 4.

"The projected religious commonwealth was to be founded and

administered by the Bible, the whole Bible, not by the New

Testament alone. … They revered and used and treated the

Holy Book as one whole. A single sentence from any part of it

was an oracle to them: it was as a slice or crumb from any

part of a loaf of bread, all of the same consistency. God, as

King, had been the Lawgiver of Israel: he should be their

Lawgiver too. … The Church should fashion the State and be

identical with it. Only experienced and covenanted Christian

believers, pledged by their profession to accordance of

opinion and purpose with the original proprietors and exiles,

should be admitted as freemen, or full citizens of the

commonwealth. They would restrain and limit their own liberty

of conscience, as well as their own freedom of action, within

Bible rules. In fact,—in spirit even more than in the

letter,—they did adopt all of the Jewish code which was in

any way practicable for them. The leading minister of the

colony was formally appointed by the General Court to adapt

the Jewish law to their case [1636]; and it was enacted that,

till that work was really done, 'Moses, his Judicials,' should

be in full force. Mr. Cotton in due time presented the results

of his labor in a code of laws illustrated by Scripture texts.

This code was not formally adopted by the Court; but the spirit

of it, soon rewrought into another body, had full sway. …

{2104}

That frankly avowed and practically applied purpose of the

Fathers, of establishing here a Bible Commonwealth, 'under a

due form of government, both civil and ecclesiastical,'

furnishes the key to, the explanation of, all dark things and

all the bright things in their early history. The young people

educated among us ought to read our history by that simple,

plain interpretation. The consciences of our Fathers were not

free in our sense of that word. They were held under rigid

subjection to what they regarded as God's Holy Word, through

and through in every sentence of it, just as the consciences

of their Fathers were held, under the sway of the Pope and the

Roman Church. The Bible was to them supreme. Their church was

based on it, modelled by it, governed by it; and they intended

their State should be also."

G. E. Ellis,

Lowell Institute Lectures

on the Early History of Massachusetts,

pages 50-55.

"Though communicants were not necessarily voters, no one could

be a voter who was not a communicant; therefore the

town-meeting was nothing but the church meeting, possibly

somewhat attenuated, and called by a different name. By this

insidious statute the clergy seized the temporal power, which

they held till the charter fell. The minister stood at the

head of the congregation and moulded it to suit his purposes

and to do his will. … Common men could not have kept this

hold upon the inhabitants of New England, but the clergy were

learned, resolute, and able, and their strong but narrow minds

burned with fanaticism and love of power; with their beliefs

and under their temptations persecution seemed to them not

only their most potent weapon, but a duty they owed to

Christ—and that duty they unflinchingly performed."

B. Adams,

The Emancipation of Massachusetts,

chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

J. S. Barry,

History of Massachusetts,

volume 1, chapter 10.

P. Oliver,

The Puritan Commonwealth,

chapter 2, part 1.

D. Campbell,

The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,

chapter 22 (volume 2).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1633-1635.

Hostilities between the Plymouth Colony and

the French on the Maine coast.

See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1634-1637.

Threatening movements in England.

The Charter demanded.

"That the government of Charles I. should view with a hostile

eye the growth of a Puritan state in New England is not at all

surprising. The only fit ground for wonder would seem to be

that Charles should have been willing at the outset to grant a

charter to the able and influential Puritans who organized the

Company of Massachusetts Bay. Probably, however, the king

thought at first it would relieve him at home if a few dozen

of the Puritan leaders could be allowed to concentrate their

minds upon a project of colonization in America. It might

divert attention for a moment from his own despotic schemes.

Very likely the scheme would prove a failure and the

Massachusetts colony incur a fate like that of Roanoke Island;

and at all events the wealth of the Puritans might better be

sunk in a remote and perilous enterprise than employed at home

in organizing resistance to the crown. Such, very likely, may

have been the king's motive in granting the Massachusetts

charter two days after turning his Parliament out of doors.

But the events of the last half-dozen years had come to

present the case in a new light. The young colony was not

languishing. It was full of sturdy life; it had wrought

mischief to the schemes of Gorges; and what was more, it had

begun to take unheard-of liberties with things ecclesiastical

and political. Its example was getting to be a dangerous one.

It was evidently worth while to put a strong curb upon

Massachusetts. Any promise made to his subjects Charles

regarded as a promise made under duress which he was quite

justified in breaking whenever it suited his purpose to do so.

Enemies of Massachusetts were busy in England. Schismatics

from Salem and revellers from Merrymount were ready with their

tales of woe, and now Gorges and Mason were vigorously

pressing their territorial claims."

J. Fiske,

The Beginnings of New England,

chapter 3.

In April, 1634, "the superintendence of the colonies was …

removed from the privy council to an arbitrary special

commission, of which William Laud, archbishop of Canterbury,

and the archbishop of York, were the chief. These, with ten of

the highest officers of State, were invested with full power

to make laws and orders, … to appoint judges and magistrates

and establish courts for civil and ecclesiastical affairs, …

to revoke all charters and patents which had been

surreptitiously obtained, or which conceded liberties

prejudicial to the royal prerogative. Cradock, who had been

governor of the corporation in England before the transfer of

the charter of Massachusetts, was strictly charged to deliver

it up; and he wrote to the governor and council to send it

home. Upon receipt of his letter, they resolved 'not to return

any answer or excuse at that time.' In September, a copy of

the commission to Archbishop Laud and his associates was

brought to Boston; and it was at the same time rumored that

the colonists were to be compelled by force to accept a new

governor, the discipline of the church of England, and the

laws of the commissioners. The intelligence awakened 'the

magistrates and deputies to discover their minds each to

other, and to hasten their fortifications,' towards which,

poor as was the colony, £600 were raised. In January, 1635,

all the ministers assembled at Boston; and they unanimously

declared against the reception of a general governor, saying:

'We ought to defend our lawful possessions, if we are able; if

not, to avoid and protract.' In the month before this

declaration, it is not strange that Laud and his associates

should have esteemed the inhabitants of Massachusetts to be

men of refractory humors. … Restraints were placed upon

emigration; no one above the rank of a serving man might

remove to the colony without the special leave of Laud and his

associates. … Willingly as these acts were enforced by

religious bigotry, they were promoted by another cause. A

change had come over the character of the great Plymouth

council for the colonization of New England," which now

schemed and bargained with the English court to surrender its

general charter, on the condition that the vast territory

which it had already ceded to the Massachusetts Company and

others should be reclaimed by the king and granted anew, in

severalty, to its members (see NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635). "At

the Trinity term of the court of king's bench, a quo warranto

was brought against the Company of the Massachusetts bay. At

the ensuing Michaelmas, several of its members who resided in

England made their appearance, and judgment was pronounced

against them individually; the rest of the patentees stood

outlawed, but no judgment was entered against them.

{2105}

The unexpected death of Mason, the proprietary of New

Hampshire, in December, 1635, removed the chief instigator of

these aggressions. In July, 1637, the king, professing 'to

redress the mischiefs that had arisen out of the many

different humours,' took the government of New England into

his own hands, and appointed over it Sir Ferdinando Gorges as

governor-general. … But the measure was feeble and

ineffectual." Gorges "never left England, and was hardly heard

of except by petitions to its government." Troubles had

thickened about king Charles and his creature Laud until they

no longer had time or disposition to bestow more of their

thoughts on Massachusetts. A long-suffering nation was making

ready to put an end to their malignant activities, and the

Puritans of New England and Old England were alike delivered.

G. Bancroft,

History of the United States

(Author's last revision),

part 1, chapter 17 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

T. Hutchinson,

History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,

volume 1, pages 51 and 86-89.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1635-1636.

The founding of Boston Latin School and Harvard College.

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

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1635-1637.

The migration to Connecticut.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636.

The banishment of Roger Williams.

"The intolerance of England had established the New England

colonies. The time was at hand when those colonies should in

their turn alienate from them their own children, and be the

unwilling parents of a fresh state. In 1631, there arrived at

Boston a young minister, Roger Williams, 'godly and zealous,

having precious gifts.' … His theological doctrines seem to

have been those generally received among the Puritans, but in

questions of church discipline he went far beyond most of his

sect. He was a rigid separatist, and carried the doctrine of

toleration, or, as perhaps it might be more properly called,

state indifference, to its fullest length. Accordingly it was

impossible to employ him as a minister at Boston. He went to

Salem, which was then without a preacher, and was appointed to

the vacant office. But a message from Winthrop and the

assistants compelled the church of Salem to retract its

choice, and the young enthusiast withdrew to Plymouth," where

he remained two years, until August, 1633, when he returned to

Salem. "In 1634, he incurred the displeasure of some of his

congregation by putting forward the doctrine that no tenure of

land could be valid which had not the sanction of the natives.

His doctrine was censured by the court at Boston, but on his

satisfying the court of his 'loyalty,' the matter passed over.

But before long he put forward doctrines, in the opinion of

the government, yet more dangerous. He advocated complete

separation from the Church of England, and denounced

compulsory worship and a compulsory church establishment.

Carrying the doctrine of individual liberty to its fullest

extent, he asserted that the magistrate was only the agent of

the people, and had no right to protect the people against

itself; that his power extends only as far as such cases as

disturb the public peace. … On the 8th of August, 1635,

Williams was summoned before the general court; his opinions

were denounced as 'erroneous and very dangerous,' and notice

was given to the church at Salem that, unless it could explain

the matter to the satisfaction of the court, Williams must be

dismissed. In October, Williams was again brought before the

court, and after a 'disputation' with Mr. Hooker, which failed

to reduce him from any of his errors, he was sentenced to

depart out of the jurisdiction of Massachusetts in six weeks.

The church of Salem acquiesced in the condemnation of their

pastor. Their own experience might have taught the fathers of

New England that the best way to strengthen heresy is to

oppose it. The natural result followed; the people were 'much

taken with the apprehension of Williams 'godliness,' and a

large congregation, including 'many devout women,' gathered

round him. Since they had failed to check the evil, the

Massachusetts government resolved to exterminate it and to

ship Williams for England. The crew of a pinnace was sent to

arrest him, but, fortunately for the future of New England, he

had escaped. … He had set out [January, 1636] for the territory

of Narragansett, and there founded the village of Providence."

A. Doyle,

The American Colonies,

chapter 2.

"His [Roger Williams'] own statement is, it was 'only for the

holy truth of Christ Jesus that he was denied the common air

to breathe in, and a civil cohabitation upon the same common

earth.' But the facts of the case seem to show that it was

because his opinions differed from the opinions of those among

whom he lived, and were considered by them as dangerous and

seditious, tending to the utter destruction of their

community, that he was a sacrifice to honest convictions of

truth and duty. … The sentence of banishment, however, was

not passed without reluctance. Governor Winthrop remained his

friend to the day of his death, and even proposed, in view of

his services in the Pequot war, that his sentence should be

revoked. Governor Haynes, of Connecticut, who pronounced his

sentence, afterwards regretted it. Governor Winslow, of

Plymouth, who had no hand in his expulsion, 'put a piece of

gold in the hands of his wife,' to relieve his necessities,

and though Mr. Cotton hardly clears himself from the charge of

having procured his sentence, there was no private feud

between them. Cotton Mather concedes that 'many judicious

persons judged him to have had the root of the matter in him.'

Later writers declare him, 'from the whole course and tenor of

his life and conduct, to have been one of the most

disinterested men that ever lived, a most pious and

heavenly-minded soul.' And the magnanimous exile himself says,

'I did ever from my soul honor and love them, even when their

judgment led them to afflict me.'"

J. S. Barry,

History of Massachusetts,

volume 1, chapter 9.

ALSO IN:

J. D. Knowles,

Memoir of Roger Williams,

chapters 3-5.

E. B. Underhill,

introduction to Williams' 'Bloudy Tenent of Persecution'

(Hansard Knollys Society).

G. E. Ellis,

The Puritan Age and Rule,

chapter 8.

See, also, RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636.

{2106}

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638.

Mrs. Anne Hutchinson and the Antinomian troubles.

"The agitation and strife connected with the Antinomian

controversy, opened by Mrs. Ann Hutchinson, came dangerously

near to bringing the fortunes of the young Massachusetts

colony to a most disastrous ruin. … The peril overhung at a

time when the proprietary colonists had the most reasonable

and fearful forebodings of the loss of their charter by the

interference of a Privy Council Commission. … Ominously

enough, too, Mrs. Hutchinson arrived here, September 18, 1634,

in the vessel which brought the copy of that commission.

Winthrop describes her as a woman of a 'ready wit and bold

spirit.' Strongly gifted herself, she had a gentle and weak

husband, who was guided by her. She had at home enjoyed no

ministrations so much as those of Cotton, and her

brother-in-law, Mr. Wheelwright. She came here to put herself

again under the preaching of the former. … She had been here

for two years, known as a ready, kindly, and most serviceable

woman, especially to her own sex in their straits and

sicknesses. But she anticipated the introduction of 'the woman

question' among the colonists in a more troublesome form than

it has yet assumed for us. Joined by her brother-in-law, who

was also admitted to the church, after those two quiet years

she soon made her influence felt for trouble, as he did

likewise. … The male members of the Boston Church had a

weekly meeting, in which they discussed the ministrations of

Cotton and Wilson. Mrs. Hutchinson organized and presided over

one, held soon twice in a week, for her own sex, attended by

nearly a hundred of the principal women on the peninsula and

in the neighborhood. It was easy to foresee what would come of

it, through one so able and earnest as herself, even if she

had no novel or disjointed or disproportioned doctrine to

inculcate; which, however, it proved that she had. Antinomian

means a denying, or, at least, a weakening, of the obligation

to observe the moral law, and to comply with the external

duties; to do the works associated with the idea of internal,

spiritual righteousness. It was a false or disproportioned

construction of St. Paul's great doctrine of justification by

faith, without the works of the law. … Mrs. Hutchinson, was

understood to teach, that one who was graciously justified by

a spiritual assurance, need not be greatly concerned for

outward sanctification by works. She judged and approved, or

censured and discredited, the preachers whom she heard,

according as they favored or repudiated that view. Her

admirers accepted her opinions. … Word soon went forth that

Mrs. Hutchinson had pronounced in her meetings, that Mr.

Cotton and her brother-in-law Wheelwright, alone of all the

ministers in the colony, were under 'a covenant of grace,' the

rest being 'legalists,' or under 'a covenant of works.' These

reports, which soon became more than opinions, were blazing

brands that it would be impossible to keep from reaching

inflammable material. … As the contention extended it

involved all the principal persons of the colony. Cotton and

all but five members of the Boston Church—though one of these

five was Winthrop, and another was Wilson—proved to be

sympathizers with Mrs. Hutchinson; while the ministers and

leading people outside in the other hamlets were strongly

opposed to her. She had a partisan, moreover, of transcending

influence in the young Governor, Sir Henry Vane," who had come

over from England the year before, and who had been chosen at

the next election for Governor, with Winthrop as deputy.

"Though pure and devout, and ardent in zeal, he had not then

the practical wisdom for which Milton afterwards praised him

in his noble sonnet:—'Vane, young in years, but in sage

counsels old.' … With his strong support, and that of two

other prominent magistrates, and of so overwhelming a

majority of the Boston Church, Mrs. Hutchinson naturally felt

emboldened." But in the end her Church and party were overcome

by the ministers and their supporters in the other parts of

the colony; she was excommunicated and banished (November,

1637, and March, 1638), going forth to perish six years later

at the hands of the Indians, while living on the shore of Long

Island Sound, at a place now known as Pelham Neck, near New

Rochelle. "As the summing up of the strife, 76 persons were

disarmed; two were disfranchised and fined; 2 more were fined;

8 more were disfranchised; 3 were banished; and 11 who had

asked permission to remove had leave, in the form of a

limitation of time within which they must do it. The more

estimable and considerable of them apologized and were

received back."

G. E. Ellis,

Lowell Institute Lectures on the

Early History of Massachusetts,

pages 95-100.

ALSO IN:

B. Adams,

The Emancipation of Massachusetts,

chapter 2.

Ecclesiastical History of New England

(Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,

series 1, volume 9).

G. E. Ellis,

Life of Anne Hutchinson

(Library of American Biographies,

new series, volume 6).

J. Anderson,

Memorable Women of Puritan Times,

volume 1, pages 185-220.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1637.

The Pequot War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1637.

The first Synod of the Churches and its dealings with Heresy.

The election of Sir Harry Vane to be Governor of the colony,

in place of John Winthrop, "took place in the open air upon

what is now Cambridge Common on the 27th day of May [1637].

Four months later it was followed by the gathering of the

first Synod of Massachusetts churches; which again, meeting

here in Cambridge, doubtless held its sessions in the original

meeting-house standing on what is now called Mount Auburn

Street. The Synod sat through twenty-four days, during which

it busied itself unearthing heterodox opinions and making the

situation uncomfortable for those suspected of heresy, until

it had spread upon its record no less than eighty-two such

'opinions, some blasphemous, others erroneous, and all

unsafe,' besides 'nine unwholesome expressions,' all alleged

to be rife in the infant community. Having performed this

feat, it broke up amid general congratulations 'that matters

had been carried on so peaceably, and concluded so comfortably

in all love.' … As the twig is bent, the tree inclines. The

Massachusetts twig was here and then bent; and, as it was

bent, it during hard upon two centuries inclined. The question

of Religious Toleration was, so far as Massachusetts could

decide it, decided in 1637 in the negative. … The turning

point in the history of early Massachusetts was the Cambridge

Synod of September, 1637, … which succeeded in spreading on

its record, as then prevailing in the infant settlement,

eighty-two 'opinions, some blasphemous, others erroneous and

all unsafe,' besides 'nine unwholesome expressions,' the whole

mighty mass of which was then incontinently dismissed, in the

language of one of the leading divines who figured in that

Assembly, 'to the devil of hell, from whence they came.'

{2107}

The mere enumeration of this long list of heresies as then

somewhere prevailing is strong evidence of intellectual

activity in early Massachusetts,—an activity which found

ready expression through such men as Roger Williams, John

Cotton, John Wheelwright and Sir Henry Vane, to say nothing of

Mrs. Hutchinson, while the receptive condition of the mental

soil is likewise seen in the hold the new opinions took. It

was plainly a period of intellectual quickening,—a dawn of

promise. Of this there can no doubt exist. It was freely

acknowledged at the time; it has been stated as one of the

conditions of that period by all writers on it since. The body

of those who listened to him stood by Roger Williams; and the

magistrates drove him away for that reason. Anne Hutchinson so

held the ear of the whole Boston community that she had 'some

of all sorts and quality, in all places to defend and

patronize' her opinions; 'some of the magistrates, some

gentlemen, some scholars and men of learning, some Burgesses

of our General Court, some of our captains and soldiers, some

chief men in towns, and some men eminent for religion, parts

and wit.' These words of a leader of the clerical

faction,—one of those most active in the work of

repression,—describe to the life an active-minded,

intelligent community quick to receive and ready to assimilate

that which is new. Then came the Synod. It was a premonition.

It was as if the fresh new sap,—the young budding leaves,—

the possible, incipient flowers, had felt the chill of an

approaching glacier. And that was exactly what it was;—a

theological glacier then slowly settled down upon

Massachusetts,—a glacier lasting through a period of nearly

one hundred and fifty years."

C. F. Adams,

Massachusetts: Its Historians and its History,

pages 10-59.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1638-1641.

Introduction of Slavery.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1638-1781.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1639.

The first printing press set up.

See PRINTING: A. D. 1535-1709.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1640-1644.

The end of the Puritan exodus.

Numerical growth and political development.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1641.

Jurisdiction extended over New Hampshire.

See NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1641-1679.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1642.

The first Public School law.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1642-1732.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1643.

The Confederation of the Colonies.

The growth of Plymouth.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1643.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1643-1654.

Interest in Acadia and temporary conquest of the Province.

See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1646-1651.

The Presbyterian Cabal and the Cambridge Platform.

"There had now come to be many persons in Massachusetts who

disapproved of the provision which restricted the suffrage to

members of the Independent or Congregational churches of New

England, and in 1646 the views of these people were presented

in a petition to the General Court. … The leading signers of

this menacing petition were William Vassall, Samuel Maverick,

and Dr. Robert Child. … Their request would seem at first

sight reasonable enough. At a superficial glance it seems

conceived in a modern spirit of liberalism. In reality it was

nothing of the sort. In England it was just the critical

moment of the struggle between Presbyterians and Independents

which had come in to complicate the issues of the great civil

war. Vassall, Child, and Maverick seem to have been the

leading spirits in a cabal for the establishment of

Presbyterianism in New England, and in their petition they

simply took advantage of the discontent of the disfranchised

citizens in Massachusetts in order to put in an entering

wedge. This was thoroughly understood by the legislature of

Massachusetts, and accordingly the petition was dismissed and

the petitioners were roundly fined. Just as Child was about to

start for England with his grievances, the magistrates

overhauled his papers and discovered a petition to the

parliamentary Board of Commissioners, suggesting that

Presbyterianism should be established in New England, and that

a viceroy or governor-general should be appointed to rule

there. To the men of Massachusetts this last suggestion was a

crowning horror. It seemed scarcely less than treason. The

signers of this petition were the same who had signed the

petition to the General Court. They were now fined still more

heavily and imprisoned for six months. By and by they found

their way, one after another, to London, while the colonists

sent Edward Winslow, of Plymouth, as an advocate to thwart

their schemes. … The cabal accomplished nothing because of

the decisive defeat of Presbyterianism in England. 'Pride's

Purge' settled all that. The petition of Vassall and his

friends was the occasion for the meeting of a synod of

churches at Cambridge, in order to complete the organization

of Congregationalism. In 1648 the work of the synod was

embodied in the famous Cambridge Platform, which adopted the

Westminster Confession as its creed, carefully defined the

powers of the clergy, and declared it to be the duty of

magistrates to suppress heresy. In 1649 the General Court laid

this platform before the congregations; in 1651 it was

adopted; and this event may be regarded as completing the

theocratic organization of the Puritan commonwealth in

Massachusetts. It was immediately preceded and followed by the

deaths of the two foremost men in that commonwealth. John

Winthrop died in 1649 and John Cotton in 1652."

J. Fiske,

The Beginnings of New England,

chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

C. Mather,

Magnalia Christi Americana,

book 5, part 2.

B. Adams,

The Emancipation of Massachusetts,

chapter 3.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1649-1651.

Under Cromwell and the Commonwealth of England.

"Massachusetts had, from the outset, sympathized with

Parliament in its contest with the king, and had blended her

fortunes with the fortunes of the reformers. She had expressed

her willingness to 'rise and fall with them,' and' sent over

useful men, others going voluntarily, to their aid, who were

of good use, and did acceptable service to the army.' Her

loyalty, therefore, procured for her the protection of

Parliament. Yet the execution of Charles, which royalists have

ever regarded with the utmost abhorrence, was not openly

approved here. 'I find,' says Hutchinson, 'scarce any marks of

approbation of the tragical scene of which this year they

received intelligence.' The few allusions we have discovered

are none of them couched in terms of exultation. Virginia

pursued a different course, and openly resisted Parliament,

refused to submit to its decrees, and adhered to the cause of

royalty. … Yet the legislation of the commonwealth was not

wholly favorable even to Massachusetts.

{2108}

The proclamation relative to Virginia asserted, in general

terms, the power of appointing governors and commissioners to

be placed in all the English colonies, without exception; and

by Mr. Winslow, their agent in England, they were informed

that it was the pleasure of Parliament the patent of

Massachusetts should be returned, and a new one taken out,

under which courts were to be held and warrants issued. With

this request the people were indisposed to comply; and, too

wary to hazard the liberties so dearly purchased, a petition

was drawn up, pleading the cause of the colony with great

force, setting forth its allegiance, and expressing the hope

that, under the new government, things might not go worse with

them than under that of the king, and that their charter might

not be recalled, as they desired no better. This remonstrance

was successful; the measure was dropped, and the charter of

Charles continued in force. Parliament was not 'foiled' by the

colony. Its request was deemed reasonable; and there was no

disposition to invade forcibly its liberties. We have evidence

of this in the course of Cromwell. After his success in the

'Emerald Isle,' conceiving the project of introducing

Puritanism into Ireland, an invitation was extended to the

people of Massachusetts to remove thither and settle. But they

were too strongly attached to the land of their adoption, and

to its government, 'the happiest and wisest this day in the

world,' readily to desert it. Hence the politic proposal of

the lord protector was respectfully declined."

J. S. Barry,

History of Massachusetts,

volume 1, chapter 12.

ALSO IN:

J. A. Doyle,

The English in America: Puritan Colonies,

volume 1, chapter 9.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1651-1660.

The absorption of Maine.

See MAINE: A. D. 1643-1677.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.

The persecution of the Quakers.

"In July, 1656, Mary Fisher and Ann Austin came to Boston from

Barbadoes; and shortly after, nine others, men and women,

arrived in the ship Speedwell from London. It was at once

known, for they did not wish to conceal it, that they were

'Friends,' vulgarly called 'Quakers'; and the Magistrates at

once took them in hand, determined that no people holding (as

they considered them) such damnable opinions, should come into

the Colony. A great crowd collected to hear them questioned,

and Boston was stirred up by a few illiterate enthusiasts.

They stood up before the Court with their hats on, apparently

without fear, and had no hesitation in calling governor

Endicott plain 'John.' … The replies which these men and

women made were direct and bold, and were considered rude and

contemptuous. … They … were committed to prison for their

'Rudeness and Insolence'; there being no law then under which

they could be punished for being Quakers." Before the year

closed, this defect of law was remedied by severe enactments,

"laying a penalty of £100 for bringing any Quaker into the

Colony: forty shillings for entertaining them for an hour;

Quaker men who came against these prohibitions were, upon

first conviction, to lose one ear, upon the second, the other

ear; and women were to be whipped. Upon the third conviction,

their tongues were to be bored with a hot iron. But these

things seemed useless, for the Quakers, knowing their fate,

swarmed into Massachusetts; and the Magistrates were fast

getting more business than they could attend to. It was then

determined to try greater severity, and in October, 1658, a

law was passed in Massachusetts (resisted by the Deputies,

urged by the Magistrates), punishing Quakers, who had been

banished, with death." The first to challenge the dread

penalty were a woman, Mary Dyer, and two men, William Robinson

and Marmaduke Stevenson, who, after being banished (September,

1659), came defiantly back the next month. "Governor Endicott

pronounced sentence of death against them. … On the 27th of

October, in the afternoon, a guard of 200 men, attended with a

drummer, conducted them to the gallows." Stevenson and

Robinson were hanged; but Mary Dyer was reprieved. "Her mind

was made up for death, and her reprieve brought her no joy.

She was taken away by her son. … Mary Dyer was a 'comely and

valiant woman,' and in the next Spring she returned. What now

was to be done? The law said she must be hung, and Endicott

again pronounced sentence, and she was led out to die a

felon's death. Some scoffed and jeered her, but the most

pitied; she died bravely, fearing nothing. … There seemed no

end; for Quaker after Quaker came; they were tried, they were

whipped, and the prison was full. … William Ledra [banished

in 1657] came back (September, 1660), and was subject to

death. They offered him his life, if he would go away and

promise not to return; he said: 'I came here to bear my

testimony, and to tell the truth of the Lord, in the ears of

this people. I refuse to go.' So he was hanged in the

succeeding March (14th). Wenlock Christopherson, or

Christison, came, and was tried and condemned to die. … The

death of Ledra, and the return of Wenlock Christison, brought

confusion among the Magistrates, and some said 'Where will

this end?' and declared it was time to stop. Governor Endicott

found it difficult to get a Court to agree to sentence

Christison to death; but he halted not, and pronounced the

sentence. … But a few days afterward the jailor opened the

prison doors, and Wenlock (with 27 others) was set at liberty,

much to his and their surprise." The friends of the Quakers in

England had prevailed upon King Charles II., then lately

restored, "to order the persecutions to cease in New England

(September 1661). Samuel Shattock, a banished Quaker, was sent

from England by Charles, with a letter to Governor Endicott

[the subject of Whittier's poem, 'The King's Missive'],

commanding that no more Quakers should be hanged or imprisoned

in New England, but should be sent to England for trial. This

ended the persecutions; for, on the 9th of December, 1661, the

Court ordered all Quakers to be set at liberty."

C. W. Elliott,

The New England History,

volume 1, chapter 36.

"Some of our writers, alike in prose and in poetry, have

assumed, and have written on the assumption, that the

deliverance of the Quakers was effected by the interposition

in their behalf of King Charles II. … The royal letter …

had … been substantially anticipated as to its principal

demand by the action of the Court [in Massachusetts]. The

general jail delivery of 31 Quakers, including the three under

the death sentence who had voluntarily agreed to go off, was

ordered by the Court in October, 1660. The King's letter was

dated at Whitehall a year afterward. Let us claim whatever of

relief we can find in reminding ourselves that it was the

stern opposition and protest of the majority of the people of

the Puritan Colony, and not the King's command, that had

opened the gates of mercy."

G. E. Ellis,

The Puritan Age and Rule,

pp. 477-479.

{2109}

While the Quakers first arrested at Boston were lying in jail,

"the Federal Commissioners, then in session at Plymouth,

recommended that laws be forthwith enacted to keep these

dreaded heretics out of the land. Next year they stooped so

far as to seek the aid of Rhode Island, the colony which they

had refused to admit into their confederacy. … Roger

Williams was then president of Rhode Island, and in full

accord with his noble spirit was the reply of the assembly.

'We have no law amongst us whereby to punish any for only

declaring by words their minds and understandings concerning

the things and ways of God as to salvation and our eternal

condition.' As for these Quakers, we find that where they are

'most of all suffered to declare themselves freely and only

opposed by arguments in discourse, there they least of all

desire to come.' Any breach of the civil law shall be

punished, but the 'freedom of different consciences shall be

respected.' This reply enraged the confederated colonies, and

Massachusetts, as the strongest and most overbearing,

threatened to cut off the trade of Rhode Island, which

forthwith appealed to Cromwell for protection. … In thus

protecting the Quakers, Williams never for a moment concealed

his antipathy to their doctrines. … The four confederated

colonies all proceeded to pass laws banishing Quakers. …

Those of Connecticut … were the mildest."

J. Fiske,

The Beginnings of New England,

chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

B. Adams,

The Emancipation of Massachusetts,

chapter 5.

R. P. Hallowell,

The Quaker Invasion of Massachusetts.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1657-1662.

The Halfway Covenant.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.

Under the Restored Monarchy.

The first collision with the crown.

"In May, 1660, Charles II. mounted the throne of his

ancestors. … In December of this year, intelligence of the

accession of a new king had reached Massachusetts; the General

Court convened and prepared addresses to his majesty. … In

the following May a reply, signed by Mr. Secretary Morrice,

together with a mandate for the arrest of Goffe and Whalley,

the regicides who had escaped to Massachusetts, was received

in Boston. The king's response contained a general expression

of good will, which, however, did not quiet the apprehensions

of the colonists. The air was filled with rumors, and

something seemed to forebode an early collision with the

crown. At a special session of the court, held in June, 'a

declaration of natural and chartered rights' was approved and

published. In this document the people affirmed their right

'to choose their own governor, deputy governor, and

representatives; to admit freemen on terms to be prescribed at

their own pleasure; to set up all sorts of officers, superior

and inferior, and point out their power and places; to

exercise, by their annually elected magistrates and deputies,

all power and authority, legislative, executive, and judicial;

to defend themselves by force of arms against every

aggression; and to reject, as an infringement of their rights,

any parliamentary or royal imposition, prejudicial to the

country, and contrary to any just act of colonial

legislation.' More than a year elapsed from the restoration of

Charles II. to his public recognition at Boston. … Even the

drinking of his health was forbidden, and the event was

celebrated only amid the coldest formalities. Meanwhile the

colonists not only declared, but openly assumed, their rights;

and in consequence complaints were almost daily instituted by

those who were hostile to the government. Political opinion

was diversified; and while 'a majority were for sustaining,

with the charter, an independent government in undiminished

force, a minority were willing to make some concessions.' In

the midst of the discussions, John Norton, 'a friend to

moderate counsels,' and Simon Bradstreet were induced to go to

England as agents of the colony. Having been instructed to

convince the king of the loyalty of the people of

Massachusetts, and to 'engage to nothing prejudicial to their

present standing according to their patent, and to endeavor

the establishment of the rights and privileges then enjoyed,'

the commissioners sailed from Boston on the 10th of February,

1662. In England they were courteously received by king

Charles, and from him obtained, in a letter dated June 28, a

confirmation of their charter, and an amnesty for all past

offences. At the same time the king rebuked them for the

irregularities which had been complained of in the government;

directed 'a repeal of all laws derogatory to his authority;

the taking of the oath of allegiance; the administration of

justice in his name; a concession of the elective franchise to

all freeholders of competent estate; and as 'the principle of

the charter was the freedom of the liberty of conscience,' the

allowance of that freedom to those who desired to use 'the

booke of common prayer, and perform their devotion in the

manner established in England.' These requisitions of the king

proved anything but acceptable to the people of Massachusetts.

With them the question of obedience became a question of

freedom, and gave rise to the parties which continued to

divide the colony until the establishment of actual

independence. It was not thought best to comply immediately

with his majesty's demands; on the other hand, no refusal to

do so was promulgated." Presently a rumor reached America

"that royal commissioners were to be appointed to regulate the

affairs of New England. Precautionary measures were now taken.

The patent and a duplicate of the same were delivered to a

committee of four, with instructions to hold them in safe

keeping. Captain Davenport, at Castle Fort, was ordered to

give early announcement of the arrival of his Majesty's ships.

Officers and soldiers were forbidden to land from ships,

except in small parties. … On the 23d of July, 1664, 'about

five or six of the clock at night,' the 'Guinea,' followed by

three other ships of the line, arrived in Boston harbor. They

were well manned and equipped for the reduction of the Dutch

settlements on the Hudson, and brought commissioners hostile

to colonial freedom, and who were charged by the king to

determine 'all complaints and appeals in all causes and

matters, as well military as criminal and civil,' and to

'proceed in all things for the providing for and settling the

peace and security of the country, according to their good and

sound discretions.' Colonel Richard Nichols and Colonel George

Cartwright were the chief members of the commission.

{2110}

At the earliest possible moment they produced their legal

warrant, the king's letter of April 23, and requested the

assistance of the colonies in the reduction of the Dutch.

Shortly afterwards the fleet set out for New Netherlands. On

the 3d of August the General Court convened, and the state of

affairs was discussed." As the result of the discussion it was

agreed that a force of 200 men should be raised to serve

against the Dutch, and that the old law of citizenship should

be so far modified as to provide "'that all English subjects,

being freeholders, and of a competent estate, and certified by

the ministers of the place to be orthodox in faith, and not

vicious in their lives, should be made freemen, although not

members of the church.' Before the session closed,

Massachusetts published an order forbidding the making of

complaints to the commissioners," and adopted a spirited

address to the king. When, in February, 1665, three of the

commissioners returned to Boston, they soon found that they

were not to be permitted to take any proceedings which could

call in question "the privilege of government within

themselves" which the colony claimed. Attempting in May to

hold a court for the hearing of charges against a Boston

merchant, they were interrupted by a herald from the governor

who sounded his trumpet and forbade, in the name of the king,

any abetting of their proceedings. On this they wrathfully

departed for the north, after sending reports of the contumacy

of Massachusetts to the king. The latter now summoned governor

Bellingham to England, but the summons was not obeyed. "'We

have already furnished our views in writing [said the General

Court], so that the ablest persons among us could not declare

our case more fully.' … The defiance of Massachusetts was

followed by no immediate danger. For a season the contest with

the crown ceased. The king himself was too much engaged with

his women to bestow his attention upon matters of state; and

thus, while England was lamenting the want of a good

government, the colonies, true to themselves, their country,

and their God, flourished in purity and peace."

G. L. Austin,

History of Massachusetts,

chapter 4.

Records of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay,

volume 4, part 2.

See, also,

NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686.

The struggle for the charter and its overthrow.

"Although the colonists were alarmed at their own success,

there was nothing to fear. At no time before or since could

England have been so safely defied. … The discord between

the crown and Parliament paralyzed the nation, and the

wastefulness of Charles kept him always poor. By the treaty of

Dover in 1670 he became a pensioner of Louis XIV. The Cabal

followed, probably the worst ministry England ever saw; and in

1672, at Clifford's suggestion, the exchequer was closed and the

debt repudiated to provide funds for the second Dutch war. In

March fighting began, and the tremendous battles with De

Ruyter kept the navy in the Channel. At length, in 1673, the

Cabal fell, and Danby became prime minister. Although during

these years of disaster and disgrace Massachusetts was not

molested by Great Britain, they were not all years during

which the theocracy could tranquilly enjoy its victory. …

With the rise of Danby a more regular administration opened,

and, as usual, the attention of the government was fixed upon

Massachusetts by the clamors of those who demanded redress for

injuries alleged to have been received at her hands. In 1674 the

heirs of Mason and Gorges, in despair at the reoccupation of

Maine, proposed to surrender their claim to the king,

reserving one third of the product of the customs for

themselves. The London merchants also had become restive under

the systematic violation of the Navigation Acts. The breach in

the revenue laws had, indeed, been long a subject of

complaint, and the commissioners had received instructions

relating thereto; but it was not till this year that these

questions became serious. … New England was fast getting its

share of the carrying trade. London merchants already began to

feel the competition of its cheap and untaxed ships, and

manufacturers to complain that they were undersold in the

American market, by goods brought direct from the Continental

ports. A petition, therefore, was presented to the king, to

carry the law into effect. … The famous Edward Randolph now

appears. The government was still too deeply embarrassed to

act with energy. A temporizing policy was therefore adopted;

and as the experiment of a commission had failed, Randolph was

chosen as a messenger to carry the petitions and opinions to

Massachusetts; together with a letter from the king, directing

that agents should be sent in answer thereto. After delivering

them, he was ordered to devote himself to preparing a report

upon the country. He reached Boston June 10, 1676. Although it

was a time of terrible suffering from the ravages of the Indian

war, the temper of the magistrates was harsher than ever. The

repulse of the commissioners had convinced them that Charles

was not only lazy and ignorant, but too poor to use force; and

they also believed him to be so embroiled with Parliament as

to make his overthrow probable. Filled with such feelings,

their reception of Randolph was almost brutal. John Leverett

was governor, who seems to have taken pains to mark his

contempt in every way in his power. Randolph was an able, but

an unscrupulous man, and probably it would not have been

difficult to have secured his good-will. Far however from

bribing, or even flattering him, they so treated him as to

make him the bitterest enemy the Puritan Commonwealth ever

knew. … The legislature met in August, 1676, and a decision

had to be made concerning agents. On the whole, the clergy

concluded it would be wiser to obey the crown, 'provided they

be, with utmost care & caution, qualified as to their

instructions.' Accordingly, after a short adjournment, the

General Court chose William Stoughton and Peter Bulkely; and

having strictly limited their power to a settlement of the

territorial controversy, they sent them on their mission. …

The controversy concerning the boundary was referred to the

two chief justices, who promptly decided against the Company;

and the easy acquiescence of the General Court must raise a

doubt as to their faith in the soundness of their claims. And

now again the fatality which seemed to pursue the theocracy in

all its dealings with England led it to give fresh provocation to

the king by secretly buying the title of Gorges for 1,250

pounds. Charles had intended to settle Maine on the Duke of

Monmouth. It was a worthless possession, whose revenue never

paid for its defence; yet so stubborn was the colony that it

made haste to anticipate the crown and thus became 'Lord

Proprietary' of a burdensome province at the cost of a slight

which was never forgiven.

{2111}

Almost immediately the Privy Council had begun to open other

matters, such as coining and illicit trade; and the

attorney-general drew up a list of statutes which, in his

opinion, were contrary to the laws of England. … In the

spring the law officers gave an opinion that the misdemeanors

alleged against Massachusetts were sufficient to avoid her

patent; and the Privy Council, in view of the encroachments

and injuries which she had continually practised on her

neighbors, and her contempt of his majesty's commands, advised

that a 'quo warranto' should be brought against the charter.

Randolph was appointed collector at Boston. Even Leverett now

saw that some concessions must be made, and the General Court

ordered the oath of allegiance to be taken; nothing but

perversity seems to have caused the long delay. The royal arms

were also carved in the courthouse; and this was all, for the

clergy were determined upon those matters touching their

authority. … Nearly half a century had elapsed since the

emigration, and with the growth of wealth and population

changes had come. In March, John Leverett, who had long been

the head of the high-church party, died, and the election of

Simon Bradstreet as his successor was a triumph for the

opposition. Great as the clerical influence still was, it had

lost much of its old despotic power, and the congregations

were no longer united in support of the policy of their

pastors. … Boston and the larger towns favored concession,

while the country was the ministers' stronghold. The result of

this divergence of opinion was that the moderate party, to

which Bradstreet and Dudley belonged, predominated in the

Board of Assistants, while the deputies remained immovable.

The branches of the legislature thus became opposed; no course

of action could be agreed on, and the theocracy drifted to its

destruction. … Meanwhile Randolph had renewed his attack. He

declared that in spite of promises and excuses the revenue

laws were not enforced; that his men were beaten, and that he

hourly expected to be thrown into prison; whereas in other

colonies, he asserted, he was treated with great respect.

There can be no doubt ingenuity was used to devise means of

annoyance; and certainly the life he was made to lead was

hard. In March he sailed for home, and while in London he made

a series of reports to the government which seem to have

produced the conviction that the moment for action had come.

In December he returned, commissioned as deputy-surveyor and

auditor-general for all New England, except New Hampshire. …

Hitherto the clerical party had procrastinated, buoyed up by

the hope that in the fierce struggle with the commons Charles

might be overthrown; but this dream ended with the dissolution

of the Oxford Parliament, and further inaction became

impossible. Joseph Dudley and John Richards were chosen

agents, and provided with instructions bearing the peculiar

tinge of ecclesiastical statesmanship. … The agents were

urged to do what was possible to avert, or at least delay, the

stroke; but they were forbidden to consent to appeals, or to

alterations in the qualifications required for the admission

of freemen. They had previously been directed to pacify the

king by a present of 2,000 pounds; and this ill-judged attempt

at bribery had covered them with ridicule. Further negotiation

would have been futile. Proceedings were begun at once, and

Randolph was sent to Boston to serve the writ of 'quo

warranto'; he was also charged with a royal declaration

promising that, even then, were submission made, the charter

should be restored with only such changes as the public

welfare demanded. Dudley, who was a man of much political

sagacity, had returned and strongly urged moderation. The

magistrates were not without the instincts of statesmanship:

they saw that a breach with England must destroy all

safeguards of the common freedom, and they voted an address to

the crown accepting the proffered terms. But the clergy strove

against them: the privileges of their order were at stake;

they felt that the loss of their importance would be

'destructive to the interest of religion and of Christ's

kingdom in the colony,' and they roused their congregations to

resist. The deputies did not represent the people, but the

church. … The influence which had moulded their minds and

guided their actions controlled them still, and they rejected

the address. … All that could be resolved on was to retain

Robert Humphrys of the Middle Temple to interpose such delays

as the law permitted; but no attempt was made at defence upon

the merits of their cause, probably because all knew well that

no such defence was possible. Meanwhile, for technical

reasons, the 'quo warranto' had been abandoned, and a writ of

'scire facias' had been issued out of chancery. On June 18,

1684, the lord keeper ordered the defendant to appear and

plead on the first day of the next Michaelmas Term. The time

allowed was too short for an answer from America, and judgment

was entered by default. … So perished the Puritan

Commonwealth. The child of the Reformation, its life sprang

from the assertion of the freedom of the mind; but this great

and noble principle is fatal to the temporal power of a

priesthood, and during the supremacy of the clergy the

government was doomed to be both persecuting and repressive.

Under no circumstance could the theocracy have endured: it

must have fallen by revolt from within if not by attack from

without."

Brooks Adams,

The Emancipation of Massachusetts,

chapter 6.

"December 19, 1686, Sir Edmund Andros arrived at Nantasket, in

the Kingfisher, a 50 gun ship, with commissions from King

James for the government of New England."

T. Hutchinson,

History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,

volume 1, chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

G. E. Ellis,

Puritan Age and Rule in Massachusetts,

chapter 13.

C. Deane,

The Struggle to Maintain the Charter of Charles I.

(Memorial History of Boston,

volume 1, pages 329-382).

Records of the Governor and Company Massachusetts Bay,

volume 5.

See, also,

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1674-1678.

King Philip's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1679.

The severance of New Hampshire.

See NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1641-1679.

{2112}

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1686-1689.

The tyranny of Andros and its downfall.

"With the charter were swept away representative government,

and every right and every political institution reared during

half a century of conflict. The rule of Andros was on the

model dear to the heart of his royal master—a harsh

despotism, but neither strong nor wise; it was wretched

misgovernment, and stupid, blundering oppression. And this

arbitrary and miserable system Andros undertook to force upon

a people of English race, who had been independent and

self-governing for fifty years. He laid taxes at his own

pleasure, and not even according to previous rates, as he had

promised; he denied the Habeas Corpus to John Wise, the

intrepid minister of Ipswich, arrested for preaching against

taxation without representation, and he awakened a like

resistance in all directions. He instituted fees, was believed

to pack juries, and made Randolph licenser of the press. Worst

of all, he struck at property, demanded the examination of the

old titles, declared them worthless, extorted quit-rents for

renewal, and issued writs of intrusion against those who

resisted; while, not content with attacking political liberty

and the rights of property, he excited religious animosity by

forbidding civil marriages, seizing the old South church for

the Episcopal service, and introducing swearing by the Book in

courts of justice. He left nothing undone to enrage the people

and prepare for revolution; and when he returned from

unsuccessful Indian warfare in the east, the storm was ready

to burst. News came of the landing of the Prince of Orange.

Andros arrested the bearer of the tidings, and issued a

proclamation against the Prince; but the act was vain. Without

apparent concert or preparation Boston rose in arms, the

signal-fire blazed on Beacon Hill, and the country people

poured in, hot for revenge. Some of the old magistrates met at

the town-house, and read a 'declaration of the gentlemen,

merchants, and inhabitants,' setting forth the misdeeds of

Andros, the illegality of the Dudley government by commission,

and the wrongful suppression of the charter. Andros and Dudley

were arrested and thrown into prison, together with the

captain of the Rose frigate, which lay helpless beneath the

guns of the fort, and a provisional government was

established, with Bradstreet at its head. William and Mary

were proclaimed, the revolution was complete, and Andros soon

went back a prisoner to England."

H. C. Lodge,

Short History of the English Colonies,

chapter 18.

ALSO IN:

J. G. Palfrey,

History of New England,

book 3, chapters 13-14 (volume 3).

The Andros Tracts;

edited by w. H. Whitmore

(Prince Society, 1868).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1692.

The procuring of the new Charter.

The Colonial Republic transformed into a Royal Province.

The absorption of Plymouth.

A little more than a month from the overthrow of Andros a ship

from England arrived at Boston, with news of the proclamation

of William and Mary. This was joyful intelligence to the body

of the people. The magistrates were at once relieved from

their fears, for the revolution in the old world justified

that in the new. Three days later the proclamation was

published with unusual ceremony. … A week later the

representatives of the several towns, upon a new choice, met

at Boston, and proposals were made that charges should be

forthwith drawn up against Andros, or that all the prisoners

but Andros should be liberated on bail; but both propositions

were rejected. The representatives likewise urged the

unconditional resumption of the charter, declaring that they

could not act in any thing until this was conceded. Many

opposed the motion; but it was finally adopted; and it was

resolved that all the laws in force May 12, 1686, should be

continued until further orders. Yet the magistrates, conscious

of the insecurity of the position they occupied, used

prudently the powers intrusted to them." Meantime, Increase

Mather, who had gone to England before the Revolution took

place as agent for the colony, had procured an audience with

the new king, William III., and received from him an assurance

that he would remove Andros from the government of New England

and call him to an account for his administration. "Anxious

for the restoration of the old charter and its privileges,

under which the colony had prospered so well, the agent

applied himself diligently to that object, advising with the

wisest statesmen for its accomplishment. It was the concurrent

judgment of all that the best course would be to obtain first

a reversion of the judgment against the charter by an act of

Parliament, and then apply to the king for such additional

privileges as were necessary. Accordingly, in the House of

Commons, where the whole subject of seizing charters in the

reign of Charles II. was up for discussion, the charters of

New England were inserted with the rest; and, though enemies

opposed the measure, it was voted that their abrogation was a

grievance, and that they should be forthwith restored." But

before the bill having this most satisfactory effect had been

acted on in the House of Lords, the Convention Parliament was

prorogued, then dissolved, and the next parliament proved to

be less friendly. An order was obtained, however, from the

king, continuing the government of the colony under the old

charter until a new one was settled, and requiring Andros and

his fellow prisoners to be sent to England for trial. On the

trial, much court influence seemed to go in favor of Sir

Edmund; the proceedings against him were summarily quashed,

and he was discharged. Soon afterwards he was made governor of

Virginia, while Dudley received appointment to the office of

chief justice at New York. Contending against the intrigues of

the Andros party, and many other adverse influences, the

agents of Massachusetts were reluctantly forced at last to

relinquish all hopes of the restoration of the old charter,

and "application was made for a new grant, which should

confirm the privileges of the old instrument, and such in

addition as the experience of the people had taught them would

be of benefit. … The king was prevailed upon to refer the

affairs of New England to the two lords chief justices and the

attorney and solicitor-general, all of whom were supposed to

be friendly to the applicants. Mr. Mather was permitted to

attend their meetings." Difficulties arose in connection with

Plymouth Colony. It was the determination in England that

Plymouth should no longer be separately chartered, but should

be joined to Massachusetts or New York. In opposing the former

more natural union, the Plymouth people very nearly brought

about their annexation to New York; but Mather's influence

averted that result. "The first draught of a charter was

objected to by the agents, because of its limitation of the

powers of the governor, who was to be appointed by the king.

The second draught was also objected to; whereupon the agents

were informed that they 'must not consider themselves as

plenipotentiaries from a foreign state, and that if they were

unwilling to submit to the pleasure of the king, his majesty

would settle the country without them, and they might take

what would follow.'

{2113}

Nothing remained, therefore, but to decide whether they would

submit, or continue without a charter, and at the mercy of the

king." The two colleagues who had been associated with Mather

opposed submission, but the latter yielded, and the charter

was signed. "By the terms of this new charter the territories

of Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Maine, with a tract farther

east, were united into one jurisdiction, whose officers were

to consist of a governor, a deputy governor, and a secretary,

appointed by the king, and 28 councillors, chosen by the

people. A General Court was to be holden annually, on the last

Wednesday in May, and at such other times as the governor saw

fit; and each town was authorized to choose two deputies to

represent them in this court. The choice of these deputies was

conceded to all freeholders having an estate of the value of

forty pounds sterling, or land yielding an income of at least

forty shillings per annum; and every deputy was to take the

oath of allegiance prescribed by the crown. All residents of

the province and their children were entitled to the liberties

of natural born subjects; and liberty of conscience was

secured to all but Papists. … To the governor was given a

negative upon all laws enacted by the General Court; without

his consent in writing none were valid; and all receiving his

sanction were to be transmitted to the king for approval, and

if rejected at any time within three years were to be of no

effect. The governor was empowered to establish courts, levy

taxes, convene the militia, carry on war, exercise martial

law, with the consent of the council, and erect and furnish an

requisite forts. … Such was the province charter of 1692—a

far different instrument from the colonial charter of 1629. It

effected a thorough revolution in the country. The form of

government, the powers of the people, and the entire

foundation and objects of the body politic, were placed upon a

new basis; and the dependence of the colonies upon the crown

was secured. … It was on Saturday, the 14th of May, 1692,

that Sir William Phips arrived at Boston as the first governor

of the new province."

J. S. Barry,

History of Massachusetts,

volume 1, chapter 18.

ALSO IN:

W. H. Whitmore,

The Inter-Charter Period

(Memorial History of Boston, volume 2).

G. P. Fisher,

The Colonial Era,

chapter 13.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1697.

King William's War.

Temporary conquest of Acadia.

Disastrous expedition against Quebec.

Threatened attack by the French.

See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1690.

The first Colonial Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.

The Salem Witchcraft madness: in its beginning.

"The people of Massachusetts in the 17th century, like all

other Christian people at that time,—at least, with extremely

rare individual exceptions,—believed in the reality of a

hideous crime called 'witchcraft.' … In a few instances

witches were believed to have appeared in the earlier years of

New England. But the cases had been sporadic. … With three

or four exceptions … no person appears to have been punished

for witchcraft in Massachusetts, nor convicted of it, for more

than sixty years after the settlement, though there had been

three or four trials of other persons suspected of the crime.

At the time when the question respecting the colonial charter

was rapidly approaching an issue, and the public mind was in

feverish agitation, the ministers sent out a paper of

proposals for collecting facts concerning witchcrafts and

other 'strange apparitions.' This brought out a work from

President [Increase] Mather entitled 'Illustrious

Providences,' in which that influential person related

numerous stories of the performances of persons leagued with

the Devil. The imagination of his restless young son [Cotton

Mather] was stimulated, and circumstances fed the flame." A

poor Irish washerwoman, in Boston, accused by some malicious

children named Goodwin, who played antics which were supposed

to signify that they had been bewitched, was tried, convicted

and sent to the gallows (1688) as a witch. "Cotton Mather took

the oldest 'afflicted' girl to his house, where she

dexterously played upon his self-conceit to stimulate his

credulity. She satisfied him that Satan regarded him as his

most terrible enemy, and avoided him with especial awe. …

Mather's account of these transactions ['Late Memorable

Providences relating to Witchcrafts and Possessions'], with a

collection of other appropriate matter, was circulated not

only in Massachusetts, but widely also in England, where it

obtained the warm commendation of Richard Baxter; and it may

be supposed to have had an important effect in producing the

more disastrous delusion which followed three years after. …

Mr. Samuel Parris was minister of a church in a part of Salem

which was then called 'Salem Village,' and which now as a

separate town bears the name of Danvers. He was a man of

talents, and of repute for professional endowments, but

avaricious, wrong-headed, and ill-tempered. Among his

parishioners, at the time of his installation and afterwards,

there had been angry disputes about the election of a

minister, which had never been composed. Neighbors and

relations were embittered against each other. Elizabeth

Parris, the minister's daughter, was now nine years old. A

niece of his, eleven years old, lived in his family. His

neighbor, Thomas Putnam, the parish clerk, had a daughter

named Ann, twelve years of age. These children, with a few

other young women, of whom two were as old as twenty years or

thereabouts, had become possessed with a wild curiosity about

the sorceries of which they had been hearing and reading, and

used to hold meetings for study, if it may be so called, and

practice. They learned to go through motions similar to those

which had lately made the Goodwin children so famous. They

forced their limbs into grotesque postures, uttered unnatural

outcries, were seized with cramps and spasms, became incapable

of speech and of motion. By and by [March, 1692], they

interrupted public worship. … The families were distressed.

The neighbors were alarmed. The physicians were perplexed and

baffled, and at length declared that nothing short of witchery

was the trouble. The kinsfolk of the 'afflicted children'

assembled for fasting and prayer. Then the neighboring

ministers were sent for, and held at Mr. Parris's house a

prayer-meeting which lasted through the day. The children

performed in their presence, and the result was a confirmation

by the ministers of the opinion of the doctors. Of course, the

next inquiry was by whom the manifest witchcraft was

exercised.

{2114}

It was presumed that the unhappy girls could give the answer.

For a time they refused to do so. But at length, yielding to

an importunity which it had become difficult to escape unless

by an avowal of their fraud, they pronounced the names of

Good, Osborn, and Tituba. Tituba—half Indian, half

negro—was a servant of Mr. Parris, brought by him from

Barbadoes, where he had formerly been a merchant. Sarah Good

was an old woman, miserably poor. Sarah Osborn had been

prosperous in early life. She had been married twice, and her

second husband was still living, but separated from her. Her

reputation was not good, and for some time she had been

bedridden, and in a disturbed nervous state. … Tituba,

whether in collusion with her young mistress, or, as was

afterwards said, in consequence of having been scourged by Mr.

Parris, confessed herself to be a witch, and charged Good and

Osborn with being her accomplices. The evidence was then

thought sufficient, and the three were committed to gaol for

trial. Martha Corey and Rebecca Nourse were next cried out

against. Both were church-members of excellent character, the

latter, seventy years of age. They were examined by the same

Magistrates, and sent to prison, and with them a child of

Sarah Good, only four or five years old, also charged with

diabolical practices."

J. G. Palfrey,

History of New England,

book 4, chapter 4 (volume 4).

ALSO IN:

C. W. Upham,

Salem Witchcraft,

part 3 (volume 2).

S. G. Drake,

Annals of Witchcraft in New England.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.

The Salem Witchcraft madness: in its culmination.

"Now a new feature of this thing showed itself. The wife of

Thomas Putnam joined the children, and 'makes most terrible

shrieks' against Goody Nurse—that she was bewitching her,

too. On the 3d of April, Minister Parris preached long and

strong from the Text, 'Have I not chosen you twelve, and one

of you is a devil?' in which he bore down so hard upon the

Witches accused that Sarah Cloyse, the sister of Nurse, would

not sit still, but 'went out of meeting'; always a wicked

thing to do, as they thought, but now a heinous one. At once

the children cried out against her, and she was clapt into

prison with the rest. Through the months of April and May,

Justices Hawthorne and Curwin (or Corwin), with Marshal George

Herrick, were busy getting the Witches into jail, and the good

people were startled, astounded, and terror-struck, at the

numbers who were seized. … Bridget Bishop, only, was then

brought to trial, for the new Charter and new Governor

(Phips), were expected daily. She was old, and had been

accused of witchcraft twenty years before. … So, as there

was no doubt about her, she was quickly condemned, and hung on

the 10th day of this pleasant June, in the presence of a crowd

of sad and frightened people. … The new Governor, Phips, one

of Mather's Church, fell in with the prevailing fear, and a

new bench of special Judges, composed of Lieutenant-Governor

Stoughton, Major Saltonstall, Major Richards, Major Gidney,

Mr. Wait Winthrop, Captain Sewall, and Mr. Sargent, were sworn

in, and went to work. On the 30th of June, Sarah Good, Rebeka

Nurse, Susannah Martin, Elizabeth How, and Sarah Wilder, were

brought to trial; all were found guilty, and sentenced to

death, except Nurse, who, being a Church member, was acquitted

by the jury. At this, the 'afflicted' children fell into fits,

and others made great outcries; and the popular

dissatisfaction was so great, that the Court sent them back to

the jury room, and they returned shortly, with a verdict of

Guilty! The Rev. Mr. Noyes, of Salem, then excommunicated

Nurse, delivered her to Satan, and they all were led out to

die. Minister Noyes told Susannah Martin that she was a witch,

and knew it, and she had better confess it; but she refused,

and told him that 'he lied,' and that he knew it; and, 'that

if he took away her life, God would give him blood to drink;'

which curse is now traditionally believed, and that he was

choked with blood. They were hanged, protesting their

innocence; and there was none to pity them. On the 5th of

August, a new batch was haled before the Court. Reverend

George Burroughs, John Proctor and his wife, John Willard,

George Jacobs, and Martha Carrier. Burroughs was disliked by

some of the Clergy, for he was tinctured with Roger Williams's

Heresies of Religious Freedom; and he was particularly

obnoxious to Mather, for he had spoken slightingly of

witchcraft, and had even said there was no such thing as a

witch. Willard had been a constable employed in seizing

witches, but, becoming sick of the business, had refused to do

it any more. The children at once cried out, that he, too, was

a witch; he fled for his life, but was caught at Nashua, and

brought back. Old Jacobs was accused by his own

grand-daughter; and Carrier was convicted upon the testimony

of her own children. They were all quickly convicted and

sentenced. … All but Mrs. Proctor saw the last of earth on

the 19th of August. They were hanged on Gallows Hill. Minister

Burroughs made so moving a prayer, closing with the Lord's

Prayer, which it was thought no witch could say, that there

was fear lest the crowd should hinder the hanging. As soon as

he was turned off, Mr. Mather, sitting on his horse, addressed

the people, to prove to them that Burroughs was really no

Minister, and to show how he must be guilty, notwithstanding

his prayer, for the devil could change himself into an angel

of light. … Giles Cory, an old man of 80, saw that the

accused were prejudged, and refused to plead to the charge

against him. What could be done with him? It was found that

for this, by some sort of old law, he might be pressed to

death. So on the 16th of September, just as the autumn tints

were beginning to glorify the earth, he was laid on the

ground, bound hand and foot, and stones were piled upon him,

till the tongue was pressed out of his mouth; 'the Sheriff

with his cane forced it in again when he was dying.' Such

cruel things did fear—fear of the Devil—lead these people

to do. He was the first and last who died in New England in

this way. On the 22d of September, eight of the sentenced were

carted up Gallows Hill and done to death. Amid a great

concourse of men, women, and children, from the neighboring

villages, and from Boston, the victims went crying and

singing, dragged through the lines of terror-stricken or

pitying people. Some would have rescued them, but they had no

leaders, and knew not how to act; so that tragedy was

consummated; and the Reverend Mr. Noyes, pointing at them,

said, 'What a sad thing it is to see eight fire-brands of hell

hanging there!' Sad indeed!

{2115}

Nineteen had now been hung. One pressed to death. Eight were

condemned. A hundred and fifty were in prison; and two hundred

more were accused by the 'afflicted.' Some fifty had

acknowledged themselves witches, of whom not one was executed.

… It was now October, and this mischief seemed to be

spreading like fire among the dry grass of the Prairies; and a

better quality of persons was beginning to be accused by the

bewitched. … But these accusations made people consider, and

many began to think that they had been going on too fast. 'The

juries changed sooner than the judges, and they sooner than

the Clergy.' 'At last,' says one of them, 'it was evidently

seen that there must be a stop put, or the generation of the

church of God would fall under that condemnation.' In other

words, the better class of church members were in danger! At

the January session, only three were convicted, and they were

reprieved; whereat Chief Justice Stoughton rose in anger, and

said, 'The Lord be merciful to this country!' In the spring,

Governor Phips, being about to leave the country, pardoned all

who were condemned, and the jails were delivered. The

excitement subsided as rapidly as it had arisen, but the evil

work was done."

C. W. Elliott,

The New England History,

volume 2, chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

S. P. Fowler, editor,

Salem Witchcraft (including Calef's

"More Wonders of the Invisible World," etc.).

C. S. Osgood and H. M. Batchelder,

Historical Sketch of Salem,

chapter 2.

J. S. Barry,

History of Massachusetts,

volume 2, chapter 2.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692-1693.

The Salem Witchcraft madness: its ending, and the reaction.

"On the second Wednesday in October, 1692, about a fortnight

after the last hanging of eight at Salem, the representatives

of the colony assembled; and the people of Andover, their

minister joining with them, appeared with their remonstrance

against the doings of the witch tribunals. Of the discussions

that ensued no record is preserved; we know only the issue.

The general court ordered by bill a convocation of ministers,

that the people might be led in the right way as to the

witchcraft. … They abrogated the special court, established

a tribunal by statute, and delayed its opening till January of

the following year. This interval gave the public mind

security and freedom; and though Phips still conferred the

place of chief judge on Stoughton, yet jurors acted

independently. When, in January, 1693, the court met at Salem,

six women of Andover, renouncing their confessions, treated

the witchcraft but as something so called, the bewildered but

as 'seemingly afflicted.' A memorial of like tenor came from

the inhabitants of Andover. Of the presentments, the grand

jury dismissed more than half; and of the twenty-six against

whom bills were found through the testimony on which others

had been condemned, verdicts of acquittal followed. … The

people of Salem village drove Parris from the place; Noyes

regained favor only by a full confession and consecrating the

remainder of his life to deeds of mercy. Sewall, one of the

judges, by rising in his pew in the Old South meeting-house on

a fast-day and reading to the whole congregation a paper in

which he bewailed his great offence, recovered public esteem.

Stoughton never repented. The diary of Cotton Mather proves

that he, who had sought the foundation of faith in tales of

wonders, himself 'had temptations to atheism, and to the

abandonment of all religion as a mere delusion.'"

G. Bancroft,

History of the United States

(Author's last revision),

part 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).

"It was long before the public mind recovered from its

paralysis. No one knew what ought to be said or done, the

tragedy had been so awful. The parties who had acted in it

were so numerous, and of such standing, including almost all

the most eminent and honored leaders of the community from the

bench, the bar, the magistracy, the pulpit, the medical

faculty, and in fact all classes and descriptions of persons;

the mysteries connected with the accusers and confessors; the

universal prevalence of the legal, theological, and

philosophical theories that had led to the proceedings; the

utter impossibility of realizing or measuring the extent of

the calamity; and the general shame and horror associated with

the subject in all minds; prevented any open movement. … Dr.

Bentley describes the condition of the community in some brief

and pregnant sentences … : 'As soon as the judges ceased to

condemn, the people ceased to accuse. … Terror at the

violence and guilt of the proceedings succeeded instantly to

the conviction of blind zeal; and what every man had

encouraged all professed to abhor. Few dared to blame other

men, because few were innocent. The guilt and the shame became

the portion of the country, while Salem had the infamy of

being the place of the transactions.'"

C. W. Upham,

Salem Witchcraft,

volume 2, supplement.

"The probability seems to be that those who began in harmless

deceit found themselves at length involved so deeply, that

dread of shame and punishment drove them to an extremity where

their only choice was between sacrificing themselves, or

others to save themselves. It is not unlikely that some of the

younger girls were so far carried along by imitation or

imaginative sympathy as in some degree to 'credit their own

lie.' … Parish and boundary feuds had set enmity between

neighbors, and the girls, called on to say who troubled them,

cried out upon those whom they had been wont to hear called by

hard names at home. They probably had no notion what a

frightful ending their comedy was to have; but at any rate

they were powerless, for the reins had passed out of their

hands into the sterner grasp of minister and magistrate. …

In one respect, to which Mr. Upham first gives the importance

it deserves, the Salem trials were distinguished from all

others. Though some of the accused had been terrified into

confession, yet not one persevered in it, but all died

protesting their innocence, and with unshaken constancy,

though an acknowledgment of guilt would have saved the lives

of all. This martyr proof of the efficacy of Puritanism in the

character and conscience may be allowed to outweigh a great

many sneers at Puritan fanaticism."

J. R. Lowell,

Witchcraft

(Among My Books, series 1).

ALSO IN:

G. M. Beard,

Psychology of the Salem Witchcraft Excitement.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1703-1711.

Queen Anne's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;

and CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1704.

The first Newspaper.

See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1704-1729.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1722-1725.

Renewed War with the northeastern Indians.

See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.

{2116}

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1744-1748.

King George's War.

The taking of Louisbourg and its restoration to France.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1754.

The Colonial Congress at Albany and Franklin's plan of Union.

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

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1755.

Expedition against Fort Beau Séjour in Nova Scotia.

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

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1755-1760.

The French and Indian War, and conquest of Canada.

See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;

OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761.

Harsh enforcement of revenue laws.

The Writs of Assistance and Otis's speech.

"It was in 1761, immediately after the overthrow of the French

in Canada, that attempts were made to enforce the revenue laws

more strictly than heretofore; and trouble was at once

threatened. Charles Paxton, the principal officer of the

custom-house in Boston, applied to the Superior Court to grant

him the authority to use 'writs of assistance' in searching

for smuggled goods. A writ of assistance was a general

search-warrant, empowering the officer armed with it to enter,

by force if necessary, any dwelling-house or warehouse where

contraband goods were supposed to be stored or hidden. A

special search-warrant was one in which the name of the

suspected person, and the house which it was proposed to

search, were accurately specified, and the goods which it was

intended to seize were as far as possible described. In the

use of such special warrants there was not much danger of

gross injustice or oppression. … But the general

search-warrant, or 'writ of assistance,' as it was called

because men try to cover up the ugliness of hateful things by

giving them innocent names, was quite a different affair. It

was a blank form upon which the custom-house officer might

fill in the names of persons and descriptions of houses and

goods to suit himself. … The writ of assistance was

therefore an abominable instrument of tyranny. Such writs had

been allowed by a statute of the evil reign of Charles II.; a

statute of William III. had clothed custom-house officers in

the colonies with like powers to those which they possessed in

England; and neither of these statutes had been repealed.

There can therefore be little doubt that the issue of such

search-warrants was strictly legal, unless the authority of

Parliament to make laws for the colonies was to be denied.

James Otis then held the crown office of advocate-general,

with an ample salary and prospects of high favour from

government. When the revenue officers called upon him, in view

of his position, to defend their cause, he resigned his office

and at once undertook to act as counsel for the merchants of

Boston in their protest against the issue of the writs. A

large fee was offered him, but he refused it. 'In such a

cause,' said he, 'I despise all fees.' The case was tried in

the council-chamber at the east end of the old town-hall, or

what is now known as the 'Old State-House,' in Boston.

Chief-justice Hutchinson presided, and Jeremiah Gridley, one

of the greatest lawyers of that day, argued the case for the

writs in a very powerful speech. The reply of Otis, which took

five hours in the delivery, was one of the greatest speeches

of modern times. It went beyond the particular legal question

at issue, and took up the whole question of the constitutional

relations between the colonies and the mother-country. At the

bottom of this, as of all the disputes that led to the

Revolution, lay the ultimate question whether Americans were

bound to yield obedience to laws which they had no share in

making. This question, and the spirit that answered it flatly

and doggedly in the negative, were heard like an undertone

pervading all the arguments in Otis's wonderful speech, and it

was because of this that the young lawyer John Adams, who was

present, afterward declared that on that day 'the child

Independence was born.' Chief-justice Hutchinson … reserved

his decision until advice could be had from the law-officers

of the crown in London; and when next term he was instructed

by them to grant the writs, this result added fresh impetus to

the spirit that Otis's eloquence had aroused. The custom-house

officers, armed with their writs, began breaking into

warehouses and seizing goods which were said to have been

smuggled. In this rough way they confiscated private property

to the value of many thousands of pounds; but sometimes the

owners of warehouses armed themselves and barricaded their

doors and windows, and thus the officers were often

successfully defied, for the sheriff was far from prompt in

coming to aid them."

J. Fiske,

The War of Independence,

chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

W. Tudor,

Life of James Otis,

chapters 5-7.

F. Bowen,

Life of James Otis

(Library of American Biographies,

series 2, volume 2), chapter 2-3.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761-1766.

The question of taxation by Parliament.

The Sugar Act.

The Stamp Act and its repeal.

The Declaratory Act.

The Stamp Act Congress.

Non-importation agreements.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775, to 1766.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1768.

The Circular Letter to other colonies.

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

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1768-1770.

The quartering of troops in Boston.

The "Massacre."

Removal of the troops.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1769.

The Boston patriots threatened.

Virginia roused to their support.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1769.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1770-1773.

Repeal of the Townshend duties except on Tea.

Committees of Correspondence instituted.

The coming of the Tea Ships.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770; and 1772-1773.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1773.

Destruction of Tea at Boston.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1774.

The Boston Port Bill and the Massachusetts Act.

Free government destroyed and commerce interdicted.

The First Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (MARCH-APRIL);

and BOSTON: A. D. 1774.

{2117}

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1774.

Organization of an independent Provisional Government.

The Committee of Safety.

Minute-men.

"Governor Gage issued writs, dated September 1, convening the

General Court at Salem on the 5th of October, but dissolved it

by a proclamation dated September 28, 1774. The members elected

to it, pursuant to the course agreed upon, resolved themselves

into a Provincial Congress. This body, on the 26th of October,

adopted a plan for organizing the militia, maintaining it, and

calling it out when circumstances should render it necessary.

It provided that one quarter of the number enrolled should be

held in readiness to muster at the shortest notice, who were

called by the popular name of minute-men. An executive

authority—the Committee of Safety—was created, clothed with

large discretionary powers; and another called the Committee

of Supplies."

R. Frothingham,

History of the Siege of Boston,

page 41.

Under the Provincial Congress and the energetic Committee of

Safety (which consisted at the beginning of Hancock, Warren

and Church, of Boston, Richard Devens of Charlestown, Benj.

White of Brookline, Joseph Palmer of Braintree, Abraham Watson

of Cambridge, Azor Orne of Marblehead, and Norton Quincy, who

declined) a complete and effective administration of

government, entirely independent of royal authority, was

brought into operation. Subsequently, John Pigeon of Newton,

William Heath of Roxbury, and Jabez Fisher of Wrentham, were

added to the committee.

R. Frothingham,

Life and Times of Joseph Warren,

page 389.

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

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1775.

The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.

Lexington.

Concord.

The country in arms and Boston under siege.

Ticonderoga.

Bunker Hill

The Second Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1775-1776.

Washington in command at Cambridge.

British evacuation of Boston.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1776 (April-May).

Independence assumed and urged upon the General Congress.

"Massachusetts had for nearly a year acted independently of

the officers of the crown. … The General Court, at their

session in April [1776], passed a resolve to alter the style

of writs and other legal processes—substituting 'the people

and government of Massachusetts' for George III.; and, in

dating official papers, the particular year of the king was

omitted, and only the year of our Lord was mentioned. Early in

May, likewise, an order was passed and published, by which the

people of the several towns in the province were advised to

give instructions to their respective representatives, to be

chosen for the following political year, on the subject of

independence. It is not contended that this was the first

instance in which such a proposition was publicly made; for

North Carolina had, two weeks before, authorized her delegates

to join with the other colonies in declaring independence; and

Rhode Island and Connecticut had indicated their inclination

by dispensing with the oath of allegiance to the king, though

a month elapsed before the Connecticut Assembly instructed

their delegates to vote for independence. The returns from the

towns of Massachusetts were highly encouraging, and in nearly

every instance the instructions to their representatives were

favorable to an explicit declaration of independence."

J. S. Barry,

History of Massachusetts,

volume 3, chapter 3.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1776 (July).

The Declaration of Independence by the Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1776-1777.

The struggle for New York and the Hudson.

The campaigns in New Jersey and on the Delaware.

Burgoyne's invasion and surrender.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST),

to 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1777-1783.

The Articles of Confederation.

Alliance with France.

Treason of Arnold.

The war in the south.

Surrender of Cornwallis.

Peace.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781, to 1783.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1779.

Framing and adoption of a State Constitution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1781.

Emancipation of Slaves.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1638-1781.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1785.

Western territorial claims

and their cession to the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1786.

Settlement of land claims with New York.

The cession of western New York.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1786-1787.

The Shays Rebellion.

"The Shays Rebellion, which takes its name from the leader of

the insurgents, Daniel Shays, lately a captain in the

Continental army, had its taproot in the growing spirit of

lawlessness. But special causes of discontent were traceable

to an unequal distribution of wealth and excessive land

taxation in Massachusetts, the sole seat of the outbreak.

Governor Bowdoin and his party strove vigorously to reduce the

State debt and keep up the public credit at a period of great

public depression. But this strained severely the farmers and

citizens of moderate means in the inland towns. Private

creditors pressed their debtors, while the State pressed all.

Attachments were put upon the poor man's cattle and teams, and

his little homestead was sacrificed under the sheriff's

hammer. It was no sign of prosperity that the dockets of the

county courts were crowded, and that lawyers and court

officers put in the sickle. There was common complaint of the

high salaries of public officials and the wasteful cost

attending litigation. One might suppose that a legislature

annually chosen would soon remedy this state of things. But

the inhabitants of the western counties took the short cut of

resisting civil process and openly defying the laws. And

herein their error lay. Shays rallied so large a force of

malcontents about Worcester in the fall of 1786 that the

sheriff and his deputies were powerless against them, and no

court could be held. … This first success of the

Massachusetts insurgents alarmed the friends of order

throughout the Union. … Congress, by this time an adept in

stealthy and diplomatic methods, offered secret aid to the

authorities of Massachusetts upon the pretext of dispatching

troops against the Indians. But the tender was not accepted;

for in James Bowdoin the State had an executive equal to the

emergency. Availing himself of a temporary loan from patriotic

citizens, he raised and equipped a militia force, large enough

to overawe the rebels, which, under General Lincoln's command,

was promptly marched against them. Shays appears to have had

more of the demagogue than warrior about him, and his

followers fled as the troops advanced [being finally surprised

and routed at Petersham, February 4, 1787]. By midwinter civil

order was restored; but the legislature made some concessions

not less just than prudent. The vanquished rebels were treated

with marked clemency. But Governor Bowdoin's energy lost him a

re-election the following spring, and one of the manliest

pioneers of Continental reform was remitted to private life

for the rest of his days. To him succeeded the veteran

Hancock, whose light shone through a horn-lantern of vanity

and love of popular applause."

J. Schouler,

History of the United States,

volume 1, chapter 1, section 1.

ALSO IN:

J. B. McMaster,

History of the People of the United States,

volume 1, chapter 3.

J. G. Holland,

History of West Massachusetts,

volume 1, chapters 16-18.

M. A. Green,

Springfield, 1636-1886,

chapter 14.

J. E. A. Smith,

History of Pittsfield, 1734-1800,

chapters 21-22.

{2118}

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1788.

Ratification of the Federal Constitution.

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

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1812-1814.

Opposition of Federalists to the war with England.

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

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1814.

The Hartford Convention.

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

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1818-1821.

The founding of Amherst College.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1820.

The district of Maine erected into a distinct State.

See MAINE: A. D. 1820.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1861 (April).

Prompt response to President Lincoln's call for troops.

Attack on the Sixth Regiment in Baltimore.

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

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1861 (April-May).

The Eighth Regiment making its way to Washington.

Butler and Baltimore.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1889.

The founding of Clark University.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1887-1889.

----------MASSACHUSETTS: End----------

MASSACRES.

Of Glenco.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1692.

MASSACRES:

Of the Mamelukes (1811).

See EGYPT: A. D. 1803-1811.

MASSACRES:

Of the Mountain Meadows (1857).

See UTAH: A. D. 1857-1859.

MASSACRES:

Of St. Bartholomew's Day.

MASSACRES:

See FRANCE: A. D. 1572.

MASSACRES:

Of St. Brice's Day (1002).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.

MASSACRES:

Of September, 1792, in the Paris prisons.

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

MASSACRES:

Of the Shiites.

See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

MASSACRES:

The Sicilian Vespers (1282).

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.

MASSAGETÆ, The.

See SCYTHIANS.

MASSALIANS, The.

See MYSTICISM.

MASSALIOTS.

The people of Massilia—ancient Marseilles.

MASSENA, Marshal, Campaigns of.

See FRANCE:

A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);

1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL);

1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER) and (AUGUST-DECEMBER);

1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY);

1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER);

1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER);

and SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.

MASSILIA.

The ancient name of Marseilles.

See PHOCÆANS.

MASSIMILIANO, Duke of Milan, A. D. 1512-1515.

MASSORETES.

See MASORETES.

MASULIPATAM, English capture of (1759).

See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

MATAGUAYAS, The.

See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

MATELOTAGE.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

MATHER, Cotton, and the Witchcraft excitement.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.

MATHER, Increase, and the new Massachusetts Charter.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1692.

MATILDA, Donation of the Countess.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

MATRONA, The.

The ancient name of the river Marne.

MATRONALIA, The.

An ancient Roman festival, celebrated on the Calends of March,

in memory of the intervention of the Sabine matrons, to make

peace between their Sabine kinsmen and their Roman husbands.

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

book 1, chapter 1 (volume 1).

See ROME: THE RAPE OF THE SABINE WOMEN.

MATTHIAS,

Germanic Emperor, A. D. 1612-1619.

Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary, 1457-1490.

MATTIACI, The.

The Mattiaci were an ancient German tribe friendly to Rome.

They inhabited a region in Nassau, about Wiesbaden.

Church and Brodribb,

Geographical Notes to The Germany of Tacitus.

See, also, MOGONTIACUM.

MAUREGATO, King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 783-788.

----------MAURETANIA: Start--------

MAURETANIA.

MAURETANIANS.

MOORS.

See NUMIDIANS.

MAURETANIA:

Under the Romans.

See AFRICA: THE ROMAN PROVINCE.

MAURETANIA: A. D. 374-398.-Revolts of Firmus and Gildo.

See ROME: A. D. 396-398.

MAURETANIA:

Conquest by the Vandals. See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.

MAURETANIA:

Mahometan Conquest.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709.

MAURETANIA:

Mediæval and Modern History.

See MAROCCO;

also, BARBARY STATES.

----------MAURETANIA: End--------

MAURICE,

Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 582-602.

Maurice, Prince of Orange and Count of Nassau,

Stadtholder of the United Provinces (Netherlands), 1587-1625.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585, to 1621-1633.

Maurice of Saxony, The dishonorable exploits of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.

MAURIENNE, Counts of.

The earliest title of the princes of the House of Savoy.

See SAVOY: 11-15TH CENTURIES.

MAURITANIANS.

See MAURETANIA.

MAURITIUS, or the Isle of France, English acquisition of the (1810).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);

also, INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

MAURITIUS RIVER.

The name given by the Dutch to the Hudson River.

MAUSOLEUM AT HALICARNASSUS.

See CARIANS.

MAUSOLEUM OF HADRIAN.

See CASTLE ST. ANGELO.

MAVROVALLACHIA.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 12TH CENTURY.

MAXEN, Capitulation of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

MAXIMA CÆSARIENSIS.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.

MAXIMIAN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 286-305.

{2119}

MAXIMILIAN, Emperor of Mexico.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.

Maximilian I., Archduke of Austria, King of the Romans,

A. D. 1486-1493;

Germanic Emperor, 1493-1519.

Maximilian II., Archduke of Austria, King of Hungary

and Bohemia, and Germanic Emperor, 1564-1576.

MAXIMIN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 235-238.

MAXIMUS, Revolt of.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 383-388.

MAXYANS, The.

See LIBYANS.

MAY, Cape

MEY, Cape:

The Name.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

MAY LAWS, The German.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.

MAY LAWS, The Russian, of 1882.

See JEWS: 19TH CENTURY.

MAYAS, The, and their early civilization.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS.

MAYENCE.

See MENTZ.

MAYFLOWER, The Voyage of the.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

MAYNOOTH, Siege of.

The castle of Maynooth, held by the Irish in the rebellion of

1535, was besieged by the English, stormed and taken, March 23

of that year, and twenty-six of its defenders hanged. The

rebellion soon collapsed.

J. A. Fronde,

History of England,

chapter 8.

MAYNOOTH GRANT, The.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1844.

MAYO, Lord, The Indian administration and the assassination of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1862-1876.

MAYOR OF THE PALACE.

"The Mayor of the Palace is met with in all the Frankish

kingdoms. … The mayors were at first merely the first

superintendents, the first administrators of the interior of

the palace of the king; the chiefs whom he put at the head of

his companions, of his leudes, still united around him. It was

their duty to maintain order among the king's men, to

administer justice, to look to all the affairs, to all the

wants, of that great domestic society. They were the men of

the king with the leudes; this was their first character,

their first state. Now for the second. After having exercised

the power of the king over his leudes, his mayors of the

palace usurped it to their own profit. The leudes, by grants

of public charges and fiefs, were not long before they became

great proprietors. This new situation was superior to that of

companions of the king; they detached themselves from him, and

united in order to defend their common interests. According as

their fortune dictated, the mayors of the palace sometimes

resisted them, more often united with them, and, at first

servants of the king, they at last became the chiefs of an

aristocracy, against whom royalty could do nothing. These are

the two principal phases of this institution: it gained more

extension and fixedness in Austrasia, in the family of the

Pepins, who possessed it almost a century and a half, than

anywhere else."

F. Guizot,

History of Civilization,

volume 2 (France, volume 1), lecture 19.

ALSO IN:

W. C. Perry,

The Franks,

chapter 5.

See, also,

FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

MAYORUNA,

BARBUDO, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

MAYPO, Battle of (1818).

See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.

MAZACA.

"Mazaca [the capital city of ancient Cappadocia] was situated

at the base of the great volcanic mountain Argaeus (Argish),

about 13,000 feet high. … The Roman emperor Tiberius changed

the name of Mazaca to Caesareia, and it is now Kaisariyeh on

the Kara Su, a small stream which flows into the Halys (Kizil

Ermak)."

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 5, chapter 22.

MAZARIN, Ministry of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643, to 1659-1661.

MAZARINE BIBLE, The.

See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.

MAZARQUIVER, Siege of (1563).

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1563-1565.

MAZES.

See LABYRINTHS.

MAZOR.

See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

MAZZINI, Joseph, and the revolutionary movements in Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1831-1848.

MEADE, General George G.:

Command of the Army of the Potomac.

Battle of Gettysburg, and after.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA);

and (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

MEAL-TUB PLOT, The.

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

MEANEE, Battle of (1843).

See SCINDE.

MEAUX, Siege of.

The city of Meaux, on the Marne, in France, was vigorously

besieged for seven months by Henry V. of England, but

surrendered on the 10th of May, 1422.

Monstrelet,

Chronicles,

book 1, chapters 249-259.

----------MECCA: Start--------

MECCA:

Rise of Mahometanism.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: 609-632.

MECCA: A. D. 692.

Siege by the Omeyyads.

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

MECCA: A. D. 929.

Stormed and Pillaged by the Carmathians.

See CARMATHIANS.

----------MECCA: End--------

MECHANICSVILLE, Engagements at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (MAY: VIRGINIA) THE PENINSULAR CAMPAIGN;

and (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

----------MECHLIN: Start--------

MECHLIN: A. D. 1572.

Pillage and massacre by Alva's troops.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.

MECHLIN: A. D. 1585.

Surrender to the Spaniards.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

----------MECHLIN: End--------

MECKLENBURG: The Duchy bestowed on Wallenstein (1628).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

MECKLENBURG DECLARATION, The.

See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775 (MAY).

MEDAIN.

Medain, "the twin city," combined in one, under this Arabic

name, the two contiguous Persian capitals, Seleucia and

Ctesiphon. The name Medain signifies "cities," and "it is said

to have comprised a cluster of seven towns, but it is

ordinarily taken to designate the twin cities of Seleucia and

Ctesiphon."

Sir W. Muir,

Annals of the Early Caliphate,

chapters 10 and 17.

{2120}

----------MEDIA: Start--------

MEDIA AND THE MEDES.

The country of the Medes, in its original extent, coincided

very nearly with the northwestern part of modern Persia,

between Farsistan and the Elburz mountains. "The boundaries of

Media are given somewhat differently by different writers, and

no doubt they actually varied at different periods; but the

variations were not great, and the natural limits, on three

sides at any rate, may be laid down with tolerable precision.

Towards the north the boundary was at first the mountain chain

closing in on that side the Urumiyeh basin, after which it seems

to have been held that the true limit was the Araxes, to its

entrance on the low country, and then the mountain chain west

and south of the Caspian. Westward, the line of demarcation

may be best regarded as, towards the south, running along the

centre of the Zagros region; and, above this, as formed by

that continuation of the Zagros chain which separates the

Urumiyeh from the Van basin. Eastward, the boundary was marked

by the spur from the Elburz, across which lay the pass known

as the Pylæ Caspiæ, and below this by the great salt desert,

whose western limit is nearly in the same longitude. Towards

the south there was no marked line or natural boundary. … We

may place the southern limit with much probability about the

line of the thirty-second parallel, which is nearly the

present boundary between Irak and Fars."

G. Rawlinson,

Five great Monarchies: Media,

chapter 1.

"The nation of the Medes belongs to the group of the Arian

tribes, which occupied the table-land of Iran. This has been

already proved by the statement of Herodotus that in ancient

times the Medians were called Areans by all men, by the

religion of the Medes, and by all the Median words and names

that have come down to us. According to Herodotus the nation

consisted of six tribes: the Arizanti, Busae, Struchates,

Budii, Paraetaceni, and Magi. … The Magians we have already

found to be a hereditary order of Priests."

M. Duncker,

History of Antiquity,

book 8, chapter 1.

The Medes, who seem to have been long without any centralizing

authority among them, became, at last, united under a monarchy

which grew in power, until, in the later part of the seventh

century B. C., it combined with Babylonia against the decaying

Assyrian kingdom. Nineveh was destroyed by the confederates,

and the dominions of Assyria were divided between them. The

Median empire which then rose, by the side of the Babylonian,

endured little more than half a century. It was the first of

the conquests of Cyrus (see PERSIA: B. C. 549-521), or Kyros,

the founder of the Persian empire (B. C. 549).

A. H. Sayce,

Ancient Empires of the East,

appendix 5.

ALSO IN:

F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier,

Manual of the Ancient History of the East,

book 5, chapters 1-4.

MEDIA:

The ancient religion.

See ZOROASTRIANS.

----------MEDIA: End----------

MEDIA ATROPATENE.

See ATROPATENE.

MEDIÆVAL, Belonging to the.

See MIDDLE AGES.

----------MEDICAL SCIENCE: Start--------

MEDICAL SCIENCE:

Chronology of Development.

Renouard, in his "History of Medicine," arranges the

chronology of the development of medical knowledge in three

grand divisions or Ages, subdivided into eight periods. "The

First Age commences with the infancy of society, as far back

as historic tradition carries us, and terminates toward the

end of the second century of the Christian era, at the death

of Galen, during the reign of Septimus Severus. This lapse of

time constitutes, in Medicine, the Foundation Age. The germ of

the Healing Art, concealed, at first, in the instincts of men,

is gradually developed; the basis of the science is laid, and

great principles are discussed. … The Second Age, which may

be called the Age of Transition, offers very little material

to the history of Medicine. We see no longer the conflicts and

discussions between partisans of different doctrines; the

medical sects are confounded. The art remains stationary, or

imperceptibly retrogrades. I can not better depict this epoch

than by comparing it to the life of an insect in the nympha

state; though no exterior change appears, an admirable

metamorphosis is going on, imperceptibly, within. The eye of

man only perceives the wonder after it has been finished. Thus

from the 15th century, which is the beginning of the third and

last Age of Medicine, or the Age of Renovation, Europe offers

us a spectacle of which the most glorious eras of the

republics of Greece and Rome only can give us an idea. It

would seem as if a new life was infused into the veins of the

inhabitants of this part of the world; the sciences, fine

arts, industry, religion, social institutions, all are

changed. A multitude of schools are open for teaching

Medicine. Establishments which had no models among the

ancients, are created for the purpose of extending to the

poorer classes the benefits of the Healing Art. The ingenious

activity of modern Christians explores and is sufficient for

everything. These three grand chronological divisions do not

suffice to classify, in our minds, the principal phases of the

history of Medicine; consequently, I have subdivided each age

into a smaller number of sections, easy to be retained, and

which I have named Periods. The first Age embraces four

periods, the second and third ages, each, two. … The first

period, which we name Primitive Period, or that of instinct,

ends with the ruin of Troy, about twelve centuries before the

Christian era. The second, called the Mystic or Sacred Period,

extends from the dissolution of the 'Pythagorean Society' to

about the year 500 A. C. The third period, which ends at the

foundation of the Alexandrian Library, A. C., 320, we name the

Philosophic Period. The fourth, which we designate the

Anatomic, extends to the end of the first age, i. e., to the

year 200 of the Christian era. The fifth is called the Greek

Period; it ends at the destruction of the Alexandrian Library,

A. D. 640. The sixth receives the surname of Arabic, and

closes with the 14th century. The seventh period, which begins

the third age, comprises the 15th and 16th centuries; it is

distinguished as the Erudite. Finally, the eighth, or last

period, embraces the 17th and 18th centuries [beyond which the

writer did not carry his history]. I call it the Reform

Period."

P. V. Renouard,

History of Medicine,

introduction.

MEDICAL SCIENCE:

Egyptian.

"Medicine is practised among them [the Egyptians] on a plan of

separation; each physician treats a single disorder, and no

more: thus the country swarms with medical practitioners, some

undertaking to cure diseases of the eye, others of the head,

others again of the teeth, others of the intestines, and some

those which are not local."

Herodotus,

History,

translated by Rawlinson,

book 2, chapter 84.

{2121}

"Not only was the study of medicine of very early date in

Egypt, but medical men there were in such repute that they

were sent for at various times from other countries. Their

knowledge of medicine is celebrated by Homer (Od. iv. 229),

who describes Polydamna, the wife of Thonis, as giving

medicinal plants 'to Helen, in Egypt, a country producing an

infinite number of drugs … where each physician possesses

knowledge above all other men.' 'O virgin daughter of Egypt,'

says Jeremiah (lxvi. 11), 'in vain shalt thou use many

medicines.' Cyrus and Darius both sent to Egypt for medical

men (Her. iii. 1, 132): and Pliny (xix. 5) says post mortem

examinations were made in order to discover the nature of

maladies. Doctors received their salaries from the treasury;

but they were obliged to conform in the treatment of a patient

to the rules laid down in their books, his death being a

capital crime, if he was found to have been treated in any

other way. But deviations from, and approved additions to, the

sacred prescriptions were occasionally made; and the

prohibition was only to prevent the experiments of young

practitioners, whom Pliny considers the only persons

privileged to kill a man with impunity. Aristotle indeed says

'the Egyptian physicians were allowed after the third day to

alter the treatment prescribed by authority, and even before,

taking upon themselves the responsibility' (Polit. iii. 11).

Experience gradually taught them many new remedies; and that

they had adopted a method (of no very old standing in modern

practice) of stopping teeth with gold is proved by some

mummies found at Thebes. Besides the protection of society

from the pretensions of quacks, the Egyptians provided that

doctors should not demand fees on a foreign journey or on

military service, when patients were treated free of expense

(Diod. i. 82); and we may conclude that they were obliged to

treat the poor gratis, on consideration of the allowance paid

them as a body by government. … Poor and superstitious

people sometimes had recourse to dreams, to wizards, to

donations to sacred animals, and to exvotos to the gods. …

Charms were also written for the credulous, some of which have

been found on small pieces of papyrus, which were rolled up

and worn as by the modern Egyptians. Accoucheurs were women;

which we learn from Exodus i. 15, and from the sculptures, as

in modern Egypt. … The Egyptian doctors were of the

sacerdotal order, like the embalmers, who are called (in

Genesis l. 2) 'Physicians,' and were' commanded by Joseph to

embalm his father.' They were of the class called Pastophori,

who, according to Clemens (Strom. lib. 6), being physicians,

were expected to know about all things relating to the body,

and diseases, and remedies, contained in the six last sacred

books of Hermes. Manetho tells us that Athothes, the second

king of Egypt, who was a physician, wrote the anatomical

books; and his name, translated Hermogenes, may have been the

origin of the tradition that ascribed them to Hermes, the

Egyptian Thoth. Or the fable may mean that they were the

result of intellect personified by Thoth, or Hermes."

Herodotus,

History,

translated by Rawlinson,

Note.

"The ancient Egyptians, though medical science was zealously

studied by them, also thought that the efficacy of the

treatment was enhanced by magic formulæ. In the Ebers Papyrus,

an important and very ancient manual of Egyptian medicine, the

prescriptions for various medicaments are accompanied by the

forms of exorcism to be used at the same time, and yet many

portions of this work give evidence of the advanced knowledge

of its authors."

G. Ebers,

Egypt,

volume 2, pages 61-62.

"Works on medicine abounded in Egypt from the remotest times,

and the great medical library of Memphis, which was of

immemorial antiquity, was yet in existence in the second

century before our era, when Galen visited the Valley of the

Nile. … Ateta, third king of the First Dynasty, is the

reputed author of a treatise on anatomy. He also covered

himself with glory by the invention of an infallible

hair-wash, which, like a dutiful son, he is said to have

prepared especially for the benefit of his mother. No less

than five medical papyri have come down to our time, the

finest being the celebrated Ebers papyrus, bought at Thebes by

Dr. Ebers in 1874. This papyrus contains one hundred and ten

pages, each page consisting of about twenty-two lines of bold

hieratic writing. It may be described as an Encyclopædia of

Medicine as known and practised by the Egyptians of the

Eighteenth Dynasty; and it contains prescriptions for all

kinds of diseases—some borrowed from Syrian medical lore, and

some of such great antiquity that they are ascribed to the

mythologic ages, when the gods yet reigned personally upon

earth. Among others, we are given the recipe for an

application whereby Osiris cured Ra of the headache. The

Egyptians attached great importance to these ancient medical

works, which were regarded as final. The physician who

faithfully followed their rules of treatment might kill or

cure with impunity; but if he ventured to treat the patient

according to his own notions, and if that patient died, he

paid for the experiment with his life. Seeing, however, what

the canonical remedies were, the marvel is that anybody ever

recovered from anything. Raw meat; horrible mixtures of nitre,

beer, milk, and blood, boiled up and swallowed hot; the bile

of certain fishes; and the bones, fat, and skins of all kinds

of unsavory creatures, such as vultures, bats, lizards and

crocodiles, were among their choicest remedies."

A. B. Edwards,

Pharaohs, Fellahs and Explorers,

chapter 6.

"In Egypt … man does not die, but some one or something

assassinates him. The murderer often belongs to our world, and

can be easily pointed out. … Often, though, it belongs to

the invisible world, and only reveals itself by the malignity

of its attacks: it is a god, a spirit, the soul of a dead man,

that has cunningly entered a living person, or that throws

itself upon him with irresistible violence. … Whoever treats

a sick person has therefore two equally important duties to

perform. He must first discover the nature of the spirit in

possession, and, if necessary, its name, and then attack it,

drive it out, or even destroy it. He can only succeed by

powerful magic, so he must be an expert in reciting

incantations, and skilful in making amulets. He must then use

medicine to contend with the disorders which the presence of

the strange being has produced in the body; this is done by a

finely graduated régime and various remedies. The cure-workers

are therefore divided into several categories.

{2122}

Some incline towards sorcery, and have faith in formulas and

talismen only; they think they have done enough if they have

driven out the spirit. Others extol the use of drugs; they

study the qualities of plants and minerals, describe the

diseases to which each of the substances provided by nature is

suitable, and settle the exact time when they must be procured

and applied: certain herbs have no power unless they are

gathered during the night at the full moon, others are

efficacious in summer only, another acts equally well in

winter or summer. The best doctors carefully avoid binding

themselves exclusively to either method."

G. Maspéro,

Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria,

chapter 7.

"The employment of numerous drugs in Egypt has been mentioned

by sacred and profane writers; and the medicinal properties of

many herbs which grow in the deserts, particularly between the

Nile and Red Sea, are still known to the Arabs, though their

application has been but imperfectly recorded and preserved.

… Homer, in the Odyssey, describes the many valuable

medicines given by Polydamna, the wife of Thonis, to Helen,

while in Egypt, 'a country whose fertile soil produces an

infinity of drugs, some salutary and some pernicious, where

each physician possesses knowledge above all other men'; and

Pliny makes frequent mention of the productions of that

country, and their use in medicine. He also notices the

physicians of Egypt; and as if their number was indicative of

the many maladies to which the inhabitants were subject, he

observes that it was a country productive of numerous

diseases. In this, however, he does not agree with Herodotus,

who affirms that, 'after the Libyans, there are no people so

healthy as the Egyptians, which may be attributed to the

invariable nature of the seasons in their country.' In Pliny's

time the introduction of luxurious habits and excess had

probably wrought a change in the people; and to the same cause

may be attributed the numerous complaints among the Romans,

'unknown to their fathers and ancestors.' The same author

tells us that the Egyptians examined the bodies after death,

to ascertain the nature of the diseases of which they had

died; and we can readily believe that a people so far advanced

in civilization and the principles of medicine as to assign

each physician his peculiar branch, would have resorted to

this effectual method of acquiring knowledge and experience

for the benefit of the community. It is evident that the

medical skill of the Egyptians was well known even in foreign

and distant countries; and we learn from Herodotus, that Cyrus

and Darius both sent to Egypt for medical men. … The

Egyptians, according to Pliny, claimed the honour of having

invented the art of curing diseases."

Sir J. G. Wilkinson,

Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians,

chapter 10 (volume 2).

"The Ptolemies, down to the very termination of their dominion

over Egypt, appear to have encouraged the curative art, and

for the purpose of restoring declining health, surrounded

themselves with the most illustrious physicians of the age.

… The science of medicine of the period was fully

represented at the Museum by distinguished professors, who,

according to Athenæus, restored the knowledge of this art to

the towns and islands of the Grecian Archipelago. … About

the period of the absorption of the Egyptian kingdom into the

expanding dominion of the Romans, the schools of Alexandria

still continued to be the centre of medical studies; and

notwithstanding the apparent dissidence between the demands of

a strict science and public affairs, its professors exhibited,

equally with their brother philosophers, a taste for

diplomacy. Dioscorides and Serapion, two physicians of

Alexandria, were the envoys of the elder Ptolemy to Rome, and

at a later date were bearers of dispatches from Cæsar to one

of his officers in Egypt."

G. F. Fort,

Medical Economy During the Middle Ages,

chapter 3.

MEDICAL SCIENCE:

Babylonian.

The Babylonians "have no physicians, but when a man is ill,

they lay him in the public square, and the passers-by come up

to him, and if they have ever had his disease themselves or

have known anyone who has suffered from it, they give him

advice, recommending him to do whatever they found good in

their own case, or in the case known to them. And no one is

allowed to pass the sick man in silence without asking him

what his ailment is."

Herodotus,

History,

translated by G. Rawlinson,

book 1, chapter 197 (volume 1).

"The incantations against diseases describe a great variety of

cases. … But the most numerous are those which aim at the

cure of the plague, fever, and 'disease of the head;' this

latter, judging from the indications which are given of its

symptoms and its effects, appears to have been a sort of

erysipelas, or cutaneous disease. … These are the principal

passages of a long incantation against 'the disease of the

head:' the tablet on which we find it bears six other long

formulæ against the same evil. 'The disease of the head exists

on man. The disease of the head, the ulceration of the

forehead exists on man. The disease of the head marks like a

tiara, the disease of the head from sunrise to sunset. In the

sea and the vast earth a very small tiara is become the tiara,

the very large tiara, his tiara. The diseases of the head

pierce like a bull, the diseases of the head shoot like the

palpitation of the heart. … The diseases of the head, like

doves to their dove-cotes, like grasshoppers into the sky,

like birds into space may they fly away. May the invalid be

replaced in the protecting hands of his god!' This specimen

will give the reader an idea of the uniform composition of

these incantations against diseases, which filled the second

book of the work under consideration. They all follow the same

plan throughout, beginning with the definition of the disease

and its symptoms, which occupies the greater part of the

formula; and ending with a desire for deliverance from it, and

the order for it to depart. Sometimes, however, the

incantation of the magician assumes a dramatic form at the

end. … We must add … the use of certain enchanted drinks,

which, doubtless, really contained medicinal drugs, as a cure

for diseases, and also of magic knots, the efficacy of which

was so firmly believed in, even up to the middle ages. Here is

a remedy which one of the formulæ supposes to have been

prescribed by Hea against a disease of the head: 'Knot on the

right and arrange flat in regular bands, on the left a woman's

diadem; divide it twice in seven little bands; … gird the

head of the invalid with it; gird the forehead of the invalid

with it; gird the seat of life with it; gird his hands and his

feet: seat him on his bed; pour on him enchanted waters. Let

the disease of his head be carried away into the heavens like

a violent wind; … may the earth swallow it up like passing

waters!' Still more powerful than the incantations were

conjurations wrought by the power of numbers."

F. Lenormant,

Chaldean Magic,

chapters 1 and 3.

{2123}

MEDICAL SCIENCE:

Finnish.

"The Finnish incantations for exorcising the demons of

diseases were composed in exactly the same spirit, and founded

upon the same data, as the Accadian incantations destined for

the like purpose. They were formulæ belonging to the same

family, and they often showed a remarkable similarity of

language; the Egyptian incantations, on the contrary, having

been composed by people with very different ideas about the

supernatural world, assumed quite another form. This is an

incantation from one of the songs of the Kalevala: 'O malady,

disappear into the heavens; pain, rise up to the clouds;

inflamed vapour, fly into the air, in order that the wind may

take thee away, that the tempest may chase thee to distant

regions, where neither sun nor moon give their light, where

the warm wind does not inflame the flesh. O pain, mount upon

the winged steed of stone, and fly to the mountains covered

with iron. For he is too robust to be devoured by disease, to

be consumed by pains. Go, O diseases, to where the virgin of

pains has her hearth, where the daughter of Wäinämöinen cooks

pains, go to the hill of pains. There are the white dogs, who

formerly howled in torments, who groaned in their

sufferings.'"

F. Lenormant,

Chaldean Magic,

chapter 17.

MEDICAL SCIENCE:

Hindu.

"There is reason to … conclude, from the imperfect

opportunities of investigation we possess, that in medicine,

as in astronomy and metaphysics, the Hindus once kept pace

with the most enlightened nations of the world; and that they

attained as thorough a proficiency in medicine and surgery as

any people whose acquisitions are recorded, and as indeed was

practicable, before anatomy was made known to us by the

discoveries of modern enquirers. It might easily be supposed

that their patient attention and natural shrewdness would

render the Hindus excellent observers; whilst the extent and

fertility of their native country would furnish them with many

valuable drugs and medicaments. Their Nidana or Diagnosis,

accordingly, appears to define and distinguish symptoms with

great accuracy, and their Dravyabhidhana, or Materia Medica,

is sufficiently voluminous. They have also paid great

attention to regimen and diet, and have a number of works on

the food and general treatment, suited to the complaint, or

favourable to the operation of the medicine administered. This

branch they entitle Pathyapathya. To these subjects are to be

added the Chikitsa, or medical treatment of diseases—on which

subject they have a variety of compositions, containing much

absurdity, with much that is of value; and the Rasavidya, or

Pharmacy, in which they are most deficient. All these works,

however, are of little avail to the present generation, as

they are very rarely studied, and still more rarely

understood, by any of the practising empirics. The divisions

of the science thus noticed, as existing in books, exclude two

important branches, without which the whole system must be

defective—Anatomy and Surgery. We can easily imagine, that

these were not likely to have been much cultivated in

Hindustan. … The Ayur Veda, as the medical writings of

highest antiquity and authority are collectively called, is

considered to be a portion of the fourth or Atharva Veda, and

is consequently the work of Brahma—by him it was communicated

to Daksha, the Prajapati, and by him the two Aswins, or sons

of Surya, the Sun, were instructed in it, and they then became

the medical attendants of the gods—a genealogy that cannot

fail recalling to us the two sons of Esculapius, and their

descent from Apollo. Now what were the duties of the Aswins,

according to Hindu authorities?—the gods, enjoying eternal

youth and health, stood in no need of physicians, and

consequently they held no such sinecure station. The wars

between the gods and demons, however, and the conflicts

amongst the gods themselves, in which wounds might be

suffered, although death might not be inflicted, required

chirurgical aid—and it was this, accordingly, which the two

Aswins rendered. … The meaning of these legendary

absurdities is clear enough, and is conformable to the tenor

of all history. Man, in the semi-barbarous state, if not more

subject to external injuries than internal disease, was at

least more likely to seek remedies for the former, which were

obvious to his senses, than to imagine the means of relieving

the latter, whose nature he could so little comprehend.

Surgical, therefore, preceded medicinal skill; as Celsus has

asserted, when commenting on Homer's account of Podalirius and

Machaon, who were not consulted, he says, during the plague in

the Grecian camp, although regularly employed to extract darts

and heal wounds. … We may be satisfied that Surgery was once

extensively cultivated, and highly esteemed by the Hindus. Its

rational principles and scientific practice are, however, now,

it may be admitted, wholly unknown to them. … It would be an

enquiry of some interest to trace the period and causes of the

disappearance of Surgery from amongst the Hindus: it is

evidently of comparatively modern occurrence, as operative and

instrumental practice forms so principal a part of those

writings, which are undeniably most ancient; and which, being

regarded as the composition of inspired writers, are held of

the highest authority."

H. H. Wilson,

Essays on Sanskrit Literature,

pages 269-276, and 391.

"The number of medical works and authors is extraordinarily

large. The former are either systems embracing the whole

domain of the science, or highly special investigations of

single topics, or, lastly, vast compilations prepared in modern

times under the patronage of kings and princes. The sum of

knowledge embodied in their contents appears really to be most

respectable. Many of the statements on dietetics and on the

origin and diagnosis of diseases bespeak a very keen

observation. In surgery, too, the Indians seem to have

attained a special proficiency, and in this department

European surgeons might perhaps even at the present day still

learn something from them, as indeed they have already

borrowed from them the operation of rhinoplasty. The

information, again, regarding the medicinal properties of

minerals (especially precious stones and metals), of plants,

and animal substances, and the chemical analysis and

decomposition of these, covers certainly much that is

valuable. Indeed, the branch of Materia Medica generally

appears to be handled with great predilection, and this makes

up to us in some measure at least for the absence of

investigations in the field of natural science. On the

diseases, &c., of horses and elephants also there exist very

special monographs.

{2124}

For the rest, during the last few centuries medical science

has suffered great detriment from the increasing prevalence of

the notion, in itself a very ancient one, that diseases are

but the result of transgressions and sins committed, and from

the consequent very general substitution of fastings, alms,

and gifts to the Brahmans, for real remedies. … The

influence … of Hindu medicine upon the Arabs in the first

centuries of the Hijra was one of the very highest

significance; and the Khalifs of Bagdad caused a considerable

number of works upon the subject to be translated. Now, as

Arabian medicine constituted the chief authority and guiding

principle of European physicians down to the seventeenth

century, it directly follows—just as in the case of

astronomy—that the Indians must have been held in high esteem

by these latter; and indeed Charaka is repeatedly mentioned in

the Latin translations of Avicenna (Ibn Sina), Rhazes (Al

Rasi), and Serapion (Ibn Serabi)."

A. Weber,

History of Indian Literature,

pages 269-271.

MEDICAL SCIENCE:

Jewish.

"If we are to judge from the frequent mention of physicians

(Exodus xv. 26; Isaiah iii. 7; Jeremiah viii. 22; Sirach x.

11, xxxviii. 1 ff.; Matthew ix. 12; Mark v. 26; Luke iv. 23,

etc.), the Israelites must have given much attention to

medicine from ancient times. The physicians must have

understood how to heal wounds and external injuries with

bandaging, mollifying with oil (Isaiah i. 6; Luke x. 34),

balsam (Jeremiah xlvi. 11, li. 8), plasters (2 Kings xx. 7),

and salves prepared from herbs (Sirach xxxviii. 8; Exodus xxi.

19; 2 Kings viii. 29; Ezekiel xxx. 21). The ordinances

respecting leprosy also show that the lawgiver was well

acquainted with the various kinds of skin eruptions (comp.

section 114). And not only Moses, but other Israelites also

may have acquired much practical knowledge of medicine in

Egypt, where the healing art was cultivated from high

antiquity. But as to how far the Israelitish physicians

advanced in this art, we have not more exact information. From

the few scattered hints in the Old and New Testaments, so much

only is clear, that internal diseases were also treated (2

Chronicles xvi. 12; Luke viii. 43), and that the medicinal

springs which Palestine possesses were much used by invalids.

It by no means follows from the fact that the superintendence

of lepers and the pronouncing of them clean are assigned by

the law to the priests, that these occupied themselves chiefly

with medicine. The task which the law laid on them has nothing

to do with the healing of leprosy. Of the application of

charms, there is not a single instance in Scripture."

C. F. Keil,

Manual of Biblical Archæology,

volume 2, pages 276-277.

The surgery of the Talmud includes a knowledge of dislocations

of the thigh, contusions of the head, perforation of the lungs

and other organs, injuries of the spinal cord and trachea, and

fractures of the ribs. Polypus of the nose was considered to

be a punishment for past sins. In sciatica the patient is

advised to rub the hip sixty times with meat-broth. Bleeding

was performed by mechanics or barbers. The pathology of the

Talmud ascribes diseases to a constitutional vice, to evil

influences acting on the body from without, or to the effect

of magic. Jaundice is recognized as arising from retention of

the bile, dropsy from suppression of the urine. The Talmudists

divided dropsy into anasarca, ascites, and tympanites. Rupture

and atrophy of the kidneys were held to be always fatal.

Hydatids of the liver were more favourably considered.

Suppuration of the spinal cord, induration of the lungs, etc.,

are incurable. Dr. Baas says that these are 'views which may

have been based on the dissection of (dead) animals, and may

be considered the germs of pathological anatomy.' Some

critical symptoms are sweating, sneezing, defecation, and

dreams, which promise a favourable termination of the disease.

Natural remedies, both external and internal, were employed.

Magic was also Talmudic. Dispensations were given by the

Rabbis to permit sick persons to eat prohibited food. Onions

were prescribed for worms; wine and pepper for stomach

disorders; goat's milk for difficulty of breathing; emetics in

nausea; a mixture of gum and alum for menorrhagia (not a bad

prescription); a dog's liver was ordered for the bite of a mad

dog. Many drugs, such a assafœtida, are evidently adopted from

Greek medicine. The dissection of the bodies of animals

provided the Talmudists with their anatomy. It is, however,

recorded that Rabbi Ishmael, at the close of the first

century, made a skeleton by boiling the body of a prostitute.

We find that dissection in the interests of science was

permitted by the Talmud. The Rabbis counted 252 bones in the

human skeleton."

E. Berdoe,

The Origin and Growth of the Healing Art,

book 2, chapter 2.

MEDICAL SCIENCE:

Greek.

"It is well known that the oldest documents which we possess

relative to the practice of Medicine, are the various

treatises contained in the Collection which bears the name of

Hippocrates. Their great excellence has been acknowledged in

all ages, and it has always been a question which has

naturally excited literary curiosity, by what steps the art

had attained to such perfection at so early a period. … It

is clearly established that, long before the birth of

philosophy, medicine had been zealously and successfully

cultivated by the Asclepiadæ, an order of priest-physicians

that traced its origin to a mythical personage bearing the

distinguished name of Æsculapius. Two of his sons, Podalirius

and Machaon, figure in the Homeric poems, not however as

priests, but as warriors possessed of surgical skill in the

treatment of wounds, for which they are highly complimented by

the poet. It was probably some generations after this time (if

one may venture a conjecture on a matter partaking very much

of the legendary character) that Æsculapius was deified, and

that Temples of Health, called 'Asclepia,' presided over by

the Asclepiadæ, were erected in various parts of Greece, as

receptacles for the sick, to which invalids resorted in those

days for the cure of diseases, under the same circumstances as

they go to hospitals and spas at the present time. What

remedial measures were adopted in these temples we have no

means of ascertaining so fully as could be wished, but the

following facts, collected from a variety of sources, may be

pretty confidently relied upon for their accuracy. In the

first place, then, it is well ascertained that a large

proportion of these temples were built in the vicinity of

thermæ, or medicinal springs, the virtues of which would no

doubt contribute greatly to the cure of the sick. At his

entrance into the temple, the devotee was subjected to

purifications, and made to go through a regular course of

bathing, accompanied with methodical frictions, resembling the

oriental system now well known by the name of shampooing.

{2125}

Fomentations with decoctions of odoriferous herbs were also

not forgotten. A total abstinence from food was at first

prescribed, but afterwards the patient would no doubt be

permitted to partake of the flesh of the animals which were

brought to the temples as sacrifices. Every means that could

be thought of was used for working upon the imagination of the

sick, such as religious ceremonies of an imposing nature,

accompanied by music, and whatever else could arouse their

senses, conciliate their confidence, and, in certain cases,

contribute to their amusement. … It is also well known that

the Asclepiadæ noted down with great care the symptoms and

issue of every case, and that, from such observations, they

became in time great adepts in the art of prognosis. … The

office of priesthood was hereditary in certain families, so

that information thus acquired would be transmitted from

father to son, and go on accumulating from one generation to

another. Whether the Asclepiadæ availed themselves of the

great opportunities which they must undoubtedly have had of

cultivating human and comparative anatomy, has been much

disputed in modern times. … It is worthy of remark, that

Galen holds Hippocrates to have been a very successful

cultivator of anatomy. … Of the 'Asclepia' we have mentioned

above, it will naturally be supposed that some were in much

higher repute than others, either from being possessed of

peculiar advantages, or from the prevalence of fashion. In the

beginning of the fifth century before the Christian era the

temples of Rhodes, Cnidos, and Cos were held in especial

favour, and on the extinction of the first of these, another

rose up in Italy in its stead. But the temple of Cos was

destined to throw the reputation of all the others into the

background, by producing among the priests of Æsculapius the

individual who, in all after ages, has been distinguished by

the name of the Great Hippocrates. … That Hippocrates was

lineally descended from Æsculapius was generally admitted by

his countrymen, and a genealogical table, professing to give a

list of the names of his forefathers, up to Æsculapius, has

been transmitted to us from remote antiquity. … Of the

circumstances connected with the life of Hippocrates little is

known for certain. … Aulus Gellius, … in an elaborate

disquisition on Greek and Roman chronology, states decidedly

that Socrates was contemporary with Hippocrates, but younger

than he. Now it is well ascertained that the death of Socrates

took place about the year 400 A. C., and as he was then nearly

seventy years old, his birth must be dated as happening about

the year 470 A. C. … It will readily occur to the reader,

then, that our author flourished at one of the most memorable

epochs in the intellectual development of the human race. …

From his forefathers he inherited a distinguished situation in

one of the most eminent hospitals, or Temples of Health, then

in existence, where he must have enjoyed free access to all

the treasures of observations collected during many

generations, and at the same time would have an opportunity of

assisting his own father in the management of the sick. Thus

from his youth he must have been familiar with the principles

of medicine, both in the abstract and in the concrete. …

Initiated in the theory and first principles of medicine, as

now described, Hippocrates no doubt commenced the practice of

his art in the Asclepion of Cos, as his forefathers had done

before him. Why he afterwards left the place of his nativity,

and visited distant regions of the earth, whither the duties

of his profession and the calls of humanity invited him,

cannot now be satisfactorily determined. … According to all

the accounts which have come down to us of his life, he spent

the latter part of it in Thessaly, and died at Larissa, when

far advanced in years. … As a medical author the name of

Hippocrates stands pre-eminently illustrious. … Looking upon

the animal system as one whole, every part of which conspires

and sympathises with all the other parts, he would appear to

have regarded disease also as one, and to have referred all

its modifications to peculiarities of situation. Whatever may

now be thought of his general views on Pathology, all must

admit that his mode of prosecuting the cultivation of medicine

is in the true spirit of the Inductive Philosophy; all his

descriptions of disease are evidently derived from patient

observation of its phenomena, and all his rules of practice

are clearly based on experience. Of the fallaciousness of

experience by itself he was well aware, however. … Above all

others Hippocrates was strictly the physician of experience

and common sense. In short, the basis of his system was a

rational experience, and not a blind empiricism, so that the

Empirics in after ages had no good grounds for claiming him as

belonging to their sect. What he appears to have studied with

particular attention is the natural history of diseases, that

is to say, their tendencies to a favorable or fatal issue. …

One of the most distinguishing characteristics, then, of the

Hippocratic system of medicine, is the importance attached in

it to prognosis, under which was comprehended a complete

acquaintance with the previous and present condition of the

patient and the tendency of the disease. … In the practice

of surgery he was a bold operator. He fearlessly, and as we

would now think, in some cases unnecessarily, perforated the

skull with the trepan and the trephine in injuries of the

head. He opened the chest also in empyema and hydrothorax. His

extensive practice, and no doubt his great familiarity with

the accidents occurring at the public games of his country,

must have furnished him with ample opportunities of becoming

acquainted with dislocations and fractures of all kinds; and

how well he had profited by the opportunities which he thus

enjoyed, every page of his treatises 'On Fractures,' and 'On

the Articulations,' abundantly testifies."

F. Adams,

Preliminary Discourse (Genuine Works of Hippocrates),

section 1.

"The school of the Asclepiadæ has been responsible for certain

theories which have been more or less prominent during the

earlier historical days. One of these which prevailed

throughout the Hippocratic works is that of Coction and

Crisis. By the former term is meant thickening or elaboration

of humors in the body, which was supposed to be necessary for

their elimination in some tangible form. Disease was regarded

as an association of phenomena resulting from efforts made by

the conservative principles of life to effect a coction, i.

e., a combination, of the morbific matter in the economy, it

being held that the latter could not be properly expelled until

thus united and prepared so as to form excrementious material.

{2126}

This elaboration was supposed to be brought about by the vital

principles which some called nature (Phusis), some spirit

(Psyche), some breath (Pneuma), and some heat (Thermon). The

gradual climax of morbid phenomena has, since the days of

Hippocrates, been commonly known as Crisis. All this was

regarded as the announcement of the completion of this union

by coction. The day on which it was accomplished was termed

'critical,' as were also the signs which preceded or

accompanied it, and for the crisis the physician anxiously

watched. Coction having been effected and crisis occurring, it

only remained to evacuate the morbific material, which nature

sometimes spontaneously accomplished by the critical sweat,

urination, or stools; or sometimes the physician had to come

to her relief by the administration of diuretics, purgatives,

et cetera. The term 'critical period' was given to the number

of days necessary for coction, which in its perfection was

supposed to be four, the so-called quaternary, while the

septenary was also held in high consideration. … This

doctrine of crisis in disease left an impress upon the medical

mind not yet fully eliminated."

Roswell Park,

Lectures on the History of Medicine (in MS.).

"Making no pretension … to describe the regular medical

practice among the Greeks, I shall here, nevertheless,

introduce some few particulars more or less connected with it,

which may be regarded as characteristic of the age and people.

Great were the virtues which they ascribed to the herb

alysson, (biscutella didyma,) which, being pounded and eaten

with meat cured hydrophobia. Nay, more, being suspended in the

house, it promoted the health of its inhabitants; it protected

likewise both man and cattle from enchantment; and, bound in a

piece of scarlet flannel round the necks of the latter, it

preserved them from all diseases. Coriander-seed, eaten in too

great quantity, produced, they thought, a derangement of the

intellect. Ointment of saffron had an opposite effect, for the

nostrils and heads of lunatics being rubbed therewith they

were supposed to receive considerable relief. Melampos the

goatherd was reported to have cured the daughters of Prætos of

their madness by large doses of black hellebore, which

thereafter received from him the name of Melampodion.

Sea-onions suspended over the doors preserved from

enchantment, as did likewise a branch of rhamnus over doors or

windows. A decoction of rosemary and of the leaves and stems

of the anemone was administered to nurses to promote the

secretion of milk, and a like potion prepared from the leaves

of the Cretan dittany was given to women in labour. This herb,

in order to preserve its virtues unimpaired, and that it might

be the more easily transported to all parts of the country,

was preserved in a joint of a ferula or reed. A plaster of

incense, Cimolian earth, and oil of roses, was applied to

reduce the swelling of the breasts. A medicine prepared from

mule's fern, was believed to produce sterility, as were

likewise the waters of a certain fountain near Pyrrha, while

to those about Thespiæ a contrary effect was attributed, as

well as to the wine of Heraclea in Arcadia. The inhabitants of

this primitive region drank milk as an aperient in the Spring,

because of the medicinal herbs on which the cattle were then

supposed to feed. Medicines of laxative properties were

prepared from the juice of the wild cucumber, which were said

to retain their virtues for two hundred years, though simples

in general were thought to lose their medicinal qualities in

less than four. The oriental gum called kankamon was

administered in water or honeyed vinegar to fat persons to

diminish their obesity, and also as a remedy for the

toothache. For this latter purpose the gum of the Ethiopian

olive was put into the hollow tooth, though more efficacy

perhaps was attributed to the root of dittander which they

suspended as a charm about the neck. A plaster of the root of

the white thorn or iris roots prepared with flour of copper,

honey, and great centaury, drew out thorns and arrow heads

without pain. An unguent procured from fern was sold to

rustics for curing the necks of their cattle galled by the

yoke. A decoction of marsh-mallow leaves and wine or honeyed

vinegar was administered to persons who had been stung by bees

or wasps or other insects; bites and burns were healed by an

external application of the leaf smeared with oil, and the

powdered roots cast into water caused it to freeze if placed

out during the night in the open air; an unguent was prepared

with oil from reeds, green or dry, which protected those who

anointed themselves with it from the stings of venomous

reptiles. Cinnamon unguent, or terebinth and myrtle-berries,

boiled in wine, were supposed to be a preservative against the

bite of the tarantula or scorpion, as was the pistachio nut

against that of serpents. Some persons ate a roasted scorpion

to cure its own bite; a powder, moreover, was prepared from

sea-crabs supposed to be fatal to this reptile. Vipers were

made to contribute their part to the materia medica; for,

being caught alive, they were enclosed with salt and dried

figs in a vase which was then put into a furnace till its

contents were reduced to charcoal, which they esteemed a

valuable medicine. A. considerable quantity of viper's flesh

was in the last century imported from Egypt into Venice, to be

used in the composition of medicinal treacle. From the flowers

of the sneezewort, a sort of snuff appears to have been

manufactured, though probably used only in medicines. The

ashes of old leather cured burns, galls, and blistered feet.

The common remedy when persons had eaten poisonous mushrooms

was a dose of nitre exhibited in vinegar and water; with water

it was esteemed a cure for the sting of a burncow, and with

benzoin it operated as an antidote against the poison of

bulls' blood."

J. A. St. John,

The Hellenes,

book 6, chapter 6 (volume 3).

{2127}

MEDICAL SCIENCE:

The Hippocratic Oath.

"Medical societies or schools seem to have been as ancient as

Hippocrates. The Hippocratic oath, as it is called, has been

preserved, and is one of the greatest curiosities we have

received from antiquity:

'I swear by Apollo the physician, by Æsculapius, by Hygeia, by

Panacea, and by all gods and goddesses, that I will fulfil

religiously, according to the best of my power and judgment,

the solemn vow which I now make.

I will honour as my father the master who taught me the art of

medicine; his children I will consider as my brothers, and

teach them my profession without fee or reward.

I will admit to my lectures and discourses my own sons, my

master's sons, and those pupils who have taken the medical

oath; but no one else.

I will prescribe such medicines as may be best suited to the

cases of my patients, according to the best of my judgment;

and no temptation shall ever induce me to administer poison.

I will religiously maintain the purity of my character and the

honour of my art.

I will not perform the operation of lithotomy, but leave it to

those to whose calling it belongs.

Into whatever house I enter, I will enter it with the sole

view of relieving the sick, and conduct myself with propriety

towards the women of the family.

If during my attendance I happen to hear of anything that

should not be revealed, I will keep it a profound secret.

If I observe this oath, may I have success in this life, and

may I obtain general esteem after it; if I break it, may the

contrary be my lot.'"

Ancient Physic and Physicians

(Dublin University Magazine, April, 1856).

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 1st Century.

Greek physicians in Rome.

Pliny's Picture.

Pliny's account of the Greek physicians in Rome in his time

(first century) is not flattering to the profession. He says:

"For the cure of King Antiochus—to give our first

illustration of the profits realized by the medical

art—Erasistratus received from his son, King Ptolemæus, the

sum of one hundred talents. … I pass over in silence many

physicians of the very highest celebrity, the Cassii, for

instance, the Calpetani, the Arruntii, and the Rubrii, men who

received fees yearly from the great, amounting to no less than

250,000 sesterces. As for Q. Stertinius, he thought that he

conferred an obligation upon the emperors in being content

with 500,000 sesterces per annum; and indeed he proved, by an

enumeration of the several houses, that a city practice would

bring him in a yearly income of not less than 600,000

sesterces. Fully equal to this was the sum lavished upon his

brother by Claudius Cæsar; and the two brothers, although they

had drawn largely upon their fortunes in beautifying the

public buildings at Neapolis, left to their heirs no less than

30,000,000 of sesterces! such an estate as no physician but

Arruntius had till then possessed. Next in succession arose

Vettius Valens, rendered so notorious by his adulterous

connection with Messalina, the wife of Claudius Cæsar, and

equally celebrated as a professor of eloquence. When

established in public favour, he became the founder of a new

sect. It was in the same age, too, during the reign of the

Emperor Nero, that the destinies of the medical art passed

into the hands of Thessalus, a man who swept away all the

precepts of his predecessors, and declaimed with a sort of

frenzy against the physicians of every age; but with what

discretion and in what spirit, we may abundantly conclude from

a single trait presented by his character—upon his tomb,

which is still to be seen on the Appian Way, he had his name

inscribed as the 'Iatronices'—the 'Conqueror of the

Physicians.' No stage-player, no driver of a three-horse

chariot, had a greater throng attending him when he appeared

in public: but he was at last eclipsed in credit by Crinas, a

native of Massilia, who, to wear an appearance of greater

discreetness and more devoutness, united in himself the

pursuit of two sciences, and prescribed diets to his patients

in accordance with the movements of the heavenly bodies, as

indicated by the almanacks of the mathematicians, taking

observations himself of the various times and seasons. It was

but recently that he died, leaving 10,000,000 of sesterces,

after having expended hardly a less sum upon building the

walls of his native place and of other towns. It was while

these men were ruling our destinies, that all at once,

Charmis, a native also of Massilia, took the City by surprise.

Not content with condemning the practice of preceding

physicians, he proscribed the use of warm baths as well, and

persuaded people, in the very depth of winter even, to immerse

themselves in cold water. His patients he used to plunge into

large vessels filled with cold water, and it was a common

thing to see aged men of consular rank make it a matter of

parade to freeze themselves; a method of treatment, in favour

of which Annæus Seneca gives his personal testimony, in

writings still extant. There can be no doubt whatever, that

all these men, in the pursuit of celebrity by the introduction

of some novelty or other, made purchase of it at the downright

expense of human life. Hence those woeful discussions, those

consultations at the bedside of the patient, where no one

thinks fit to be of the same opinion as another, lest he may

have the appearance of being subordinate to another; hence,

too, that ominous inscription to be read upon a tomb, 'It was

the multitude of physicians that killed me.' The medical art,

so often modified and renewed as it has been, is still on the

change from day to day, and still are we impelled onwards by

the puffs which emanate from the ingenuity of the Greeks. …

Cassius Hemina, one of our most ancient writers, says that the

first physician that visited Rome was Archagathus, the son of

Lysanias, who came over from Peloponnesus, in the year of the

City 535, L. Æmilius and M. Livius being consuls. He states

also, that the right of free citizenship was granted him, and

that he had a shop provided for his practice at the public

expense in the Acilian Cross-way; that from his practice he

received the name of 'Vulnerarius'; that on his arrival he was

greatly welcomed at first, but that soon afterwards, from the

cruelty displayed by him in cutting and searing his patients,

he acquired the new name of 'Carnifex,' and brought his art

and physicians in general into considerable disrepute. That

such was the fact, we may readily understand from the words of

M. Cato, a man whose authority stands so high of itself, that

but little weight is added to it by the triumph which he

gained, and the Censorship which he held. I shall, therefore,

give his own words in reference to this subject. 'Concerning

those Greeks, son Marcus, I will speak to you more at length

on the befitting occasion. I will show you the results of my

own experience at Athens, and that, while it is a good plan to

dip into their literature, it is not worth while to make a

thorough acquaintance with it. They are a most iniquitous and

intractable race, and you may take my word as the word of a

prophet, when I tell you, that whenever that nation shall

bestow its literature upon Rome it will mar everything; and

that all the sooner, if it sends its physicians among us. They

have conspired among themselves to murder all barbarians with

their medicine; a profession which they exercise for lucre, in

order that they may win our confidence, and dispatch us all

the more easily. They are in the common habit, too, of calling

us barbarians, and stigmatize us beyond all other nations, by

giving us the abominable appellation of Opici.

{2128}

I forbid you to have anything to do with physicians.' Cato,

who wrote to this effect, died in his eighty-fifth year, in

the year of the City 605; so that no one is to suppose that he

had not sufficient time to form his experience, either with

reference to the duration of the republic, or the length of

his own life. Well then—are we to conclude that he has

stamped with condemnation a thing that in itself is most

useful? Far from it, by Hercules! … Medicine is the only one

of the arts of Greece, that, lucrative as it is, the Roman

gravity has hitherto refused to cultivate. It is but very few

of our fellow-citizens that have even attempted it."

Pliny,

Natural History

(Bohn's translation),

book 29, chapters 3-8 (volume 5).

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 2d Century.

Galen and the development of Anatomy and Pathology.

"In the earliest conceptions which men entertained of their

power of moving their own members, they probably had no

thought of any mechanism or organization by which this was

effected. The foot and the hand, no less than the head, were

seen to be endowed with life; and this pervading life seemed

sufficiently to explain the power of motion in each part of

the frame, without its being held necessary to seek out a

special seat of the will, or instruments by which its impulses

were made effective. But the slightest inspection of dissected

animals showed that their limbs were formed of a curious and

complex collection of cordage, and communications of various

kinds, running along and connecting the bones of the skeleton.

These cords and communications we now distinguish as muscles,

nerves, veins, arteries, &c.; and among these, we assign to

the muscles the office of moving the parts to which they are

attached, as cords move the parts of a machine. Though this

action of the muscles on the bones may now appear very

obvious, it was, probably, not at first discerned. It is

observed that Homer, who describes the wounds which are

inflicted in his battles with so much apparent anatomical

precision, nowhere employs the word muscle. And even

Hippocrates of Cos, the most celebrated physician of

antiquity, is held to have had no distinct conception of such

an organ. … Nor do we find much more distinctness on this

subject even in Aristotle, a generation or two later. … He

is held to have really had the merit of discovering the nerves

of sensation, which he calls the 'canals of the brain' … ,

but the analysis of the mechanism of motion is left by him

almost untouched. … His immediate predecessors were far from

remedying the deficiencies of his doctrines. Those who

professed to study physiology and medicine were, for the most

part, studious only to frame some general system of abstract

principles, which might give an appearance of connexion and

profundity to their tenets. In this manner the successors of

Hippocrates became a medical school, of great note in its day,

designated as the Dogmatic school; in opposition to which

arose an Empiric sect, who professed to deduce their modes of

cure, not from theoretical dogmas, but from experience. These

rival parties prevailed principally in Asia Minor and Egypt,

during the time of Alexander's successors,—a period rich in

names, but poor in discoveries; and we find no clear evidence

of any decided advance in anatomy. … The victories of

Lucullus and Pompeius, in Greece and Asia, made the Romans

acquainted with the Greek philosophy; and the consequence soon

was, that shoals of philosophers, rhetoricians, poets, and

physicians streamed from Greece, Asia Minor, and Egypt, to

Rome and Italy, to traffic their knowledge and their arts for

Roman wealth. Among these was one person whose name makes a

great figure in the history of medicine, Asclepiades of Prusa

in Bithynia. This man appears to have been a quack, with the

usual endowments of his class. … He would not, on such

accounts, deserve a place in the history of science, but that

he became the founder of a new school, the Methodic, which

professed to hold itself separate both from the Dogmatics and

the Empirics. I have noticed these schools of medicine,

because, though I am not able to state distinctly their

respective merits in the cultivation of anatomy, a great

progress in that science was undoubtedly made during their

domination, of which the praise must, I conceive, be in some

way divided among them. The amount of this progress we are

able to estimate, when we come to the works of Galen, who

flourished under the Antonines, and died about A. D. 203. The

following passage from his works will show that this progress

in knowledge was not made without the usual condition of

laborious and careful experiment, while it implies the curious

fact of such experiment being conducted by means of family

tradition and instruction, so as to give rise to a caste of

dissectors. In the opening of his Second Book on Anatomical

Manipulations, he speaks thus of his predecessors: 'I do not

blame the ancients, who did not write books on anatomical

manipulation; though I praise Marinus, who did. For it was

superfluous for them to compose such records for themselves or

others, while they were, from their childhood, exercised by

their parents in dissecting, just as familiarly as in writing

and reading; so that there was no more fear of their

forgetting their anatomy, than of forgetting their alphabet.

But when grown men, as well as children, were taught, this

thorough discipline fell off; and, the art being carried out

of the family of the Asclepiads, and declining by repeated

transmission, books became necessary for the student.' That

the general structure of the animal frame, as composed of

bones and muscles, was known with great accuracy before the

time of Galen, is manifest from the nature of the mistakes and

deficiencies of his predecessors which he finds it necessary

to notice. … Galen was from the first highly esteemed as an

anatomist. He was originally of Pergamus; and after receiving

the instructions of many medical and philosophical professors,

and especially of those of Alexandria, which was then the

metropolis of the learned and scientific world, he came to

Rome, where his reputation was soon so great as to excite the

envy and hatred of the Roman physicians. The emperors Marcus

Aurelius and Lucius Verus would have retained him near them;

but he preferred pursuing his travels, directed principally by

curiosity. When he died, he left behind him numerous works, an

of them of great value for the light they throw on the history

of anatomy and medicine; and these were for a long period the

storehouse of all the most important anatomical knowledge

which the world possessed. In the time of intellectual

barrenness and servility, among the Arabians and the Europeans

of the dark ages, the writings of Galen had almost unquestioned

authority; and it was only by an uncommon effort of

independent thinking that Abdollatif ventured to assert, that

even Galen's assertions must give way to the evidence of the

senses. In more modern times, when Vesalius, in the sixteenth

century, accused Galen of mistakes, he drew upon himself the

hostility of the whole body of physicians."

W. Whewell,

History of the Inductive Sciences,

book 17, chapter 1, section 1 (volume 2).

{2129}

"Galen strongly denied being attached to any of the sects of

his day, and regarded as slaves those who took the title of

Hippocratists, Praxagoreaus, or Herophilists, and so on.

Nevertheless his predilection in favor of the Hippocratic

writings is well marked, for he explains, comments upon them,

and amplifies them at length, refutes the objections of their

adversaries and gives them the highest place. He says, 'No one

before me has given the true method of treating disease;

Hippocrates, I confess, has heretofore shown the path, but as

he was the first to enter it he was not able to go as far as

he wished. … He has not made all the necessary distinction,

and is often obscure, as is usually the case with ancients

when they attempt to be concise. He says very little of

complicated diseases; in a word, he has only sketched what

another was to complete; he has opened the path, but has left

it for a successor to enlarge and make it plain.' This implies

how he regarded himself as the successor of Hippocrates, and

how little weight he attached to the labors of others. He held

that there were three sorts of principles in man—spirits,

humors, and solids. Throughout his metaphysical speculations

Galen reproduces and amplifies the Hippocratic dogmatism.

Between perfect health and disease there were, he thought,

eight kinds of temperaments or imperfect mixtures compatible

with the exercise of the functions of life. With Plato and

Aristotle he thought the human soul to be composed of three

faculties or parts, the vegetive, residing in the liver; the

irascible, having its seat in the heart, and the rational,

which resided in the brain. He divided diseases of the solids

of the body into what he called distempers; he distinguished

between the continued and intermittent fevers, regarding the

quotidian as being caused by phlegm, the tertian as due to

yellow bile, and the quartan due to atrabile. In the doctrine

of coction, crises, and critical days, he agreed with

Hippocrates; with him he also agreed in the positive statement

that diseases are cured by their contraries."

Roswell Park,

Lectures on the History of Medicine (in MS.).

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 7-11th Centuries.

Medical Art of the Arabs.

"It probably sounds paradoxical (though it is not) to affirm

that, throughout the first half of the Middle Ages, science

made its home chiefly with the Semites and Græco-Romans (its

founders), while, in opposition to the original relations,

faith and its outgrowths alone were fostered by the Germans.

In the sterile wastes of the desert the Arabians constructed a

verdant oasis of science, in lands to-day the home once more

of absolute or partial barbarism. A genuine meteor of

civilization were these Arabians. … The Arabians built their

medicine upon the principles and theories of the Greeks (whose

medical writings were studied and copied mostly in

translations only), and especially upon those of Galen, in

such a way, that, on the whole, they added to it very little

matter of their own, save numerous subtle definitions and

amplifications. But Indian medical views and works, as well as

those of other earlier Asiatic peoples (e. g., the Chaldeans),

exercised demonstrably, but in a subordinate degree, an

influence upon Arabian medicine. The Arabians interwove too

into their medical views various philosophical theorems,

especially those of Aristotle, already corrupted by the

Alexandrians and still further falsified by themselves with

portions of the Neo-Platonic philosophy; and finally they

added thereto a goodly share of the absurdities of astrology

and alchemy. Indeed it is nowadays considered proven that they

even made use of ancient Egyptian medical works, e. g., the

papyrus Ebers. Thus the medicine of the Arabians, like Grecian

medicine its parent, did not greatly surpass the grade of

development of mere medical philosophy, and, so far as regards

its intrinsic worth, it stands entirely upon Grecian

foundations. … Yet they constantly advanced novelties in the

sciences subsidiary to medicine, materia medica and pharmacy,

from the latter of which chemistry, pharmacies and the

profession of the apothecary were developed. … The mode of

transfer of Greek medicine to the Arabians was probably as

follows: The inhabitants of the neighboring parts of Asia,

including both the Persians and Arabians, as the result of

multifarious business connexions with Alexandria, came, even

at an early date, in contact with Grecian science, and by

degrees a permanent alliance was formed with it. In a more

evident way the same result was accomplished by the Jewish

schools in Asia, the great majority of which owed their

foundation to Alexandria. Such schools were established at

Nisibis, at Nahardea in Mesopotamia, at Mathæ-Mechasja on the

Euphrates, at Sura, &c., and their period of prime falls in

the 5th century. The influence of the Nestorian universities

was especially favorable and permanent, particularly the

school under Greek management founded at Edessa, in

Mesopotamia, where Stephen of Edessa, the reputed father of

Alexander of Tralles, taught (A. D. 530). …. Still more

influential in the transfer of Grecian science to the Arabians

was the banishment of the 'heathen' philosophers of the last

so-called Platonic school of Athens, by the 'Christian' despot

Justinian I. (529). These philosophers were well received at

the court of the infidel Chosroës, and in return manifested

their gratitude by the propagation of Grecian science. …

From all these causes it resulted that, even as early as the

time of Mohammed (571-632), physicians educated in the Grecian

doctrines lived among the Arabians. … Arabian culture (and

of course Arabian medicine) reached its zenith at the period

of the greatest power and greatest wealth of the Caliphate in

the 9th and 10th centuries. At that time intellectual life was

rooted in the schools of the mosques, i. e., the Arabian

universities, which the great caliphs were zealous in

founding. Such Arabian universities arose and existed in the

progress of time (even as late as the 14th century) at Bagdad,

Bassora, Cufa, Samarcand, Ispahan, Damascus, Bokhara,

Firuzabad and Khurdistan, and under the scholastic Fatimides

(909-1171) in Alexandria. Under the Ommyiades (755-1031),

after the settlement of the Arabians in Spain in the beginning

of the 8th century, were founded the famous universities of

Cordova (possessing in the 10th century a library of 250,000

volumes), Seville, Toledo, Almeria and Murcia under the three

caliphs named Abderrahman and Al Hakem.

{2130}

Less important were the universities of Granada and Valencia,

and least important of all, those founded by the Edrisi

dynasty (800-986) in the provinces of Tunis, Fez and Morocco.

In spite of all these institutions the Arabians possessed no

talent for productive research; still less, like the ancient

Semites, did they create any arts, save poesy and

architecture. Their whole civilization bore the stamp of its

foreign origin. … 'The Prince of Physicians' (el Sheik el

Reis—he was also a poet) was the title given by the Arabians

to Abu Ali el Hossein ebn Abdallah ebn Sina (Ebn Sina,

Avicenna), 980-1037, in recognition of his great erudition, of

which the chief evidences are stored in his 'Canon.' This

work, though it contains substantially merely the conclusions

of the Greeks, was the text-book and law of the healing art,

even as late as the first century of modern times."

J. H. Baas,

Outlines of the History of Medicine,

pages 216-229.

"The Saracens commenced the application of chemistry, both to

the theory and practice of medicine, in the explanation of the

functions of the human body and in the cure of its diseases.

Nor was their surgery behind their medicine. Albucasis, of

Cordova, shrinks not from the performance of the most

formidable operations in his own and in the obstetrical art;

the actual cautery and the knife are used without hesitation.

He has left us ample descriptions of the surgical instruments

then employed; and from him we learn that, in operations on

females in which considerations of delicacy intervened, the

services of properly instructed women were secured. How

different was all this from the state of things in Europe: the

Christian peasant, fever-stricken or overtaken by accident,

hied to the nearest saint-shrine and expected a miracle; the

Spanish Moor relied on the prescription or lancet of his

physician, or the bandage and knife of his surgeon."

J. W. Draper,

History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,

volume 2, chapter 2.

"The accession of Gehwer to the throne of Mussulman Spain,

early in the eleventh century, was marked by the promulgation

of regulations so judiciously planned, touching medical

science and its practice, that he deserves the highest

commendation for the unwavering zeal with which he supervised

this important branch of learning taught in the metropolis.

Those evils which the provinces had suffered previous to his

rule, through the practice of medicine by debased empirics,

were quickly removed by this sagacious Caliph. Upon the

publication of his rescripts, such medical charlatans or

ambulatory physicians as boldly announced themselves to be

medici, without a knowledge of the science, were ignominiously

expelled from the provincial towns. He decreed that a college

of skilled surgeons should be forthwith organized, for the

single specified function of rigidly examining into the

assumed qualifications of applicants for licenses to exercise

the curative art in municipal or rural departments, or sought

professional employment as physicians in the numerous

hospitals upon the Mahometan domains."

G. F. Fort,

Medical Economy during the Middle Ages,

chapter 17.

"Anatomy and physiology, far from making any conquests under

Arabian rule, followed on the contrary a retrograde movement.

As those physicians never devoted themselves to dissections,

they were under the necessity of conforming entirely to the

accounts of Galen. … Pathology was enriched in the Arabian

writings by some new observations. … The physicians of this

nation were the first … who began to distinguish eruptive

fevers by the exterior characters of the eruption, while the

Greeks paid but little attention to these signs. Therapeutics

made also some interesting acquisitions under the Arab

physicians. It owes to them, among other things, the

introduction of mild purgatives, such as cassia, senna, and

manna, which replaced advantageously, in many cases, the

drastics employed by the ancients; it is indebted to them,

also, for several chemical and pharmaceutical improvements, as

the confection of syrups, tinctures, and distilled waters,

which are very frequently and usefully employed. Finally,

external therapeutics, or surgery, received some minor

additions, such as pomades, plasters, and new ointments; but

these additions were very far from compensating for the

considerable losses which it suffered by their abandoning a

multitude of operations in use among the Greeks."

P. V. Renouard,

History of Medicine,

page 267.

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 12-17th Centuries.

Mediæval Medicine.

"The difficulties under which medical science laboured may be

estimated from the fact that dissection was forbidden by the

clergy of the Middle Ages, on the ground that it was impious

to mutilate a form made in the image of God. We do not find

this pious objection interfering with such mutilation when

effected by means of the rack and the wheel and such other

clerical rather than medical instruments. But in the reign of

Philip the Second of Spain a famous Spanish doctor was

actually condemned by the Inquisition to be burnt for having

performed a surgical operation, and it was only by royal

favour that he was permitted instead to expiate his crime by a

pilgrimage to the Holy Land, where he died in poverty and

exile. This being the attitude of the all-powerful Church

towards medical progress, it is not surprising that medical

science should have stagnated, and that Galen and Dioscorides

were permitted to lay down the law in the sixteenth century as

they had done since the beginning of the Christian era. Some

light is thrown upon the state of things here from resulting

by a work translated from the German in the year 1561, and

entitled 'A most excellent and perfecte homish apothecarye or

physicke booke, for all the grefes and diseases of the bodye.'

The first chapter is 'Concerning the Head and his partes.'

'Galen sayth, the head is divided into foure partes: in the

fore part hath blood the dominion; Colera in the ryght syde,

Melancholy in the left syde, and Flegma beareth rule in the

hindermost part. If the head doth ake so sore by reason of a

runninge that he cannot snoffe hys nose, bath hys fete in a

depe tub untill the knees and give him this medicine … which

riseth into hys head and dryeth hys moyst braynes. Galen sayth

He that hath payne in the hindermost part of hys head, the

same must be let blood under the chynne, specially on the

right side; also were it good ofte to burn the heyre of a man

before hys nose. The braynes are greved many wayes; many there

are whom the head whyrleth so sore that he thinketh the earth

turneth upsydedoune: Cummin refraineth the whyrling,

comforteth the braynes and maketh them to growe agayne: or he

may take the braynes of a hogge, rost the same upon a grede

yron and cut slices thereof and lay to the greved parts.'

{2131}

This doctrine of like helping like was of universal

application, and in medical works of the Middle Ages we meet

constantly with such prescriptions as these:—'Take the right

eye of a Frogg, lap it in a peece of russet cloth and hang it

about the neck: it cureth the light eye if it bee en flamed or

bleared. And if the left eye be greved, do the like by the

left eye of the said Frogg." Again—'The skin of a Raven's

heel is good against the gout, but the right heel skin must be

laid upon the right foot if that be gouty, and the left upon

the left. … If you would have a man become bold or impudent

let him carry about him the skin or eyes of a Lion or a Cock,

and he will be fearless of his enemies, nay, he will be very

terrible unto them. If you would have him talkative, give him

tongues, and seek out those of water frogs and ducks and such

creatures notorious for their continuall noise making.' On the

same principle we find it prescribed as a cure for the

quartane ague to lay the fourth book of Homer's Iliad under

the patient's head; a remedy which had at least the negative

merit of not being nauseous. … For weak eyes the patient is

to 'take the tounge of a foxe, and hange the same about his

necke, and so long it hangeth there his sight shall not wax

feeble, as sayth Pliny.' The hanging of such amulets round the

neck was very frequently prescribed, and the efficacy of them

is a thing curiously well attested. Elias Ashmole in his diary

for 1681 has entered the following—'I tooke this morning a

good dose of elixir, and hung three spiders about my neck, and

they drove my ague away. Deo gratias!' A baked toad hung in a

silk bag about the neck was also held in high esteem, as was a

toad, either alive or dried, laid upon the back of the neck as

a means of stopping a bleeding at the nose: and again, 'either

frogg or toade, the nails whereof have been clipped, hanged

about one that is sick of quartane ague, riddeth away the

disease forever, as sayth Pliny.' We have even a striking

instance of the benefit derived from an amulet by a horse, who

could not be suspected of having helped forward the cure by

the strength of his faith in it. 'The root of cut Malowe

hanged about the neck driveth away blemishes of the eyen,

whether it be in a man or a horse, as I Jerome of Brunsweig,

have seene myselfe. I have myselfe done it to a blind horse

that I bought for X crounes, and was sold again of XL

crounes'—a trick distinctly worth knowing."

E. A. King,

Mediæval Medicine

(Nineteenth Century, July 1893).

"If we survey the social and political state of Europe from

the twelfth to the sixteenth century, in its relation to the

development of medical art, our attention is at once arrested

by Italy, which at this period was far ahead of the rest of

the world. Taking the number of universities as an index of

civilization, we find that, before the year 1500, there were

sixteen in Italy,—while in France there were but six: in

Germany, including Hungary, Bohemia, Bavaria, &c., there were

eight: and in Britain, two; making sixteen in all,—the exact

number which existed in Italy alone. The Italian Universities

were, likewise, no less superior in number than in fame to

those of the north. … In many of the Italian republics,

during the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries, the

power was chiefly in the hands of the middle classes; and it

is probable that the physicians occupied a high and

influential position among them. Galvanis Flamma describes

Milan in 1288, as having a population of 200,000, among whom

were 600 notaries, 200 physicians, 80 schoolmasters, and fifty

transcribers of manuscripts or books. Milan was about this

period at a pitch of glory which has not been equalled since

the Greek republics."

J. R. Russell,

History and Heroes of the Art of Medicine,

chapter 5.

"Three schools, as early as 1158, had a reputation which

extended throughout the whole of Europe: Paris for theological

studies, Bologna for Roman or civil law, and Salerno as the

chief medical school of the west."

G. F. Fort,

Medical Economy during the Middle Ages,

chapter 24.

"In 1215 Pope Innocent III. fulminated an anathema specially

directed against surgery, by ordaining, that as the church

abhorred all cruel or sanguinary practices, no priest should

be permitted to follow surgery, or to perform any operations

in which either instruments of steel or fire were employed:

and that they should refuse their benediction to all those who

professed and pursued it. … The saints have proved sad

enemies to the doctors. Miraculous cures are attested by

monks, abbots, bishops, popes, and consecrated saints. …

Pilgrimages and visits to holy shrines have usurped the place

of medicine, and, as in many cases at our own watering places,

by air and exercise, have unquestionably effected what the

employment of regular professional aid had been unable to

accomplish. St. Dominic, St. Bellinus, and St. Vitus have been

greatly renowned in the cure of diseases in general; the

latter particularly, who takes both poisons and madness of all

kinds under his special protection. Melton says 'the saints of

the Romanists have usurped the place of the zodiacal

constellations in their governance of the parts of man's body,

and that "for every limbe they have a saint." Thus St. Otilia

keepes the head instead of Aries; St. Blasius is appointed to

governe the necke instead of Taurus; St. Lawrence keepes the

backe and shoulders instead of Gemini, Cancer, and Leo: St.

Erasmus rules the belly with the entrayles, in the place of

Libra and Scorpius; in the stead of Sagittarius, Capricornus,

Aquarius, and Pisces, the holy church of Rome hath elected St.

Burgarde, St. Rochus. St. Quirinus, St. John, and many others,

which governe the thighes, feet, shinnes, and knees.' This

supposed influence of the Romish saints is more minutely

exhibited, according to Hone, in two very old prints, from

engravings on wood, in the collection of the British Museum.

Right hand: the top joint of the thumb is dedicated to God,

the second joint to the Virgin; the top joint of the

fore-finger to St. Barnabas, the second joint to St. John, the

third to St. Paul: the top joint of the second finger to Simon

Cleophas, the second joint to Tathideo, the third to Joseph;

the top joint of the third finger to Zaccheus, the second to

Stephen, the third to the evangelist Luke; the top joint of

the little finger to Leatus, the second to Mark, the third to

Nicodemus. Left hand: the top joint of the thumb is dedicated

to Christ, the second joint to the Virgin: the top joint of

the fore-finger to St. James, the second to St. John the

Evangelist, the third to St. Peter; the first joint of the

second finger to St. Simon, the second joint to St. Matthew,

the third to St. James the Great; the top joint of the third

finger to St. Jude, the second joint to St. Bartholomew, the

third to St. Andrew; the top joint of the little finger to St.

Matthias, the second to St. Thomas, the third joint to St.

Philip. …

{2132}

"The credulity of mankind has never been more strongly

displayed than in the general belief afforded to the

authenticity of remarkable cures of diseases said to have been

effected by the imposition of royal hands. The practice seems

to have originated in an opinion that there is something

sacred or divine attaching either to the sovereign or his

functions. … The practice appears to be one of English

growth, commencing with Edward the Confessor, and descending

only to foreign potentates who could show an alliance with the

royal family of England. The kings of France, however, claimed

the right to dispense the Gift of Healing, and it was

certainly exercised by Philip the First; but the French

historians say that he was deprived of the power on account of

the irregularity of his life. Laurentius, first physician to

Henry IV, of France, who is indignant at the attempt made to

derive its origin from Edward the Confessor, asserts the power

to have commenced with Clovis I, A. D. 481, and says that

Louis I, A. D. 814, added to the ceremonial of touching, the

sign of the cross. Mezeray also says, that St. Louis, through

humility, first added the sign of the cross in touching for

the king's evil. … If credit is to be given to a statement

… by William of Malmesbury, with respect to Edward the

Confessor, we must admit that in England, for a period of

nearly 700 years, the practice of the royal touch was

exercised in a greater or lesser degree, as it extended to the

reign of Queen Anne. It must not however be supposed that

historical documents are extant to prove a regular continuance

of the practice during this time. No accounts whatever of the

first four Norman kings attempting to cure the complaint are

to be found. In the reign of William III, it was not on any

occasion exercised. He manifested more sense than his

predecessors, for he withheld from employing the royal touch

for the cure of scrofula; and Rapin says, that he was so

persuaded he should do no injury to persons afflicted with

this distemper by not touching them, that he refrained from it

all his reign. Queen Elizabeth was also averse to the

practice, yet she extensively performed it. It flourished most

in the time of Charles II, particularly after his restoration,

and a public register of cases was kept at Whitehall, the

principal scene of its operation."

T. J. Pettigrew,

Superstitions connected with the History and Practice

of Medicine and Surgery,

pages 34-37, and 117-121.

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 16th Century.

Paracelsus.

Paracelsus, of whose many names this one stands alone in

history to represent him, was an extraordinary person, born in

Switzerland, in 1493. He died in 1541. "His character has been

very variously estimated. The obstructives of his own age and

many hasty judges since have pronounced him a quack. This is

simply ridiculous. As a chemist, he is considered to have been

the discoverer of zinc, and perhaps of bismuth. He was

acquainted with hydrogen, muriatic, and sulphurous gases. He

distinguished alum from the vitriols; remarking that the

former contained an earth, and the latter metals. He perceived

the part played by the atmosphere in combustion, and

recognized the analogy between combustion and respiration. He

saw that in the organic system chemical processes are

constantly going on. Thus, to him is due the fundamental idea

from which have sprung the chemico-physiological researches of

Liebig, Mulder, Boussingault, and others. By using in

medicine, not crude vegetables, but their active principles,

he opened the way to the discovery of the proximate principles

of vegetables, organic alkalis, and the like. But perhaps the

greatest service he rendered to chemistry, was by declaring it

an essential part of medical education, and by showing that

its true practical application lay not in gold-making, but in

pharmacy and the industrial arts. In medicine he scouted the

fearfully complex electuaries and mixtures of the Galenists

and the Arabian polypharmacists, recommending simpler and more

active preparations. He showed that the idea of poison is

merely relative, and knew that poisons in suitable doses may

be employed in medicine. He prescribed tin as a remedy for

intestinal worms, mercury as an anti-syphilitic, and lead in

the diseases of the skin. He also used preparations of

antimony, arsenic, and iron. He employed sulphuric acid in the

treatment of saturnine affections. The astonishing cures which

he undoubtedly performed were, however, due not so much to his

peculiar medicines, as to his eminent sagacity and insight. He

showed the importance of a chemical examination of urine for

the diagnosis of disease."

J. W. Slater,

Paracelsus

(Imperial Dict. of Univ. Biog.).

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 16th Century.

The first English College of Physicians.

"The modern doctor dates only from the reign of Henry VIII.,

when the College of Physicians in England was founded as a

body corporate by letters patent in the tenth year of the

reign. This grant was in response to a petition from a few of

the most notable members of the profession resident in London,

who were perhaps moved by both a laudable zeal in the

interests of science, and a compassion for the sufferings of

the subjects of astrological and toxicological experiments.

The charter thus obtained, though probably drafted by the

promoters themselves, was found to be so inadequately worded

and expressed, that it became necessary to obtain powers to

amend it by Act of Parliament. Among these early members were

Linacre, Wotton, and others, famous scholars beyond doubt,

though possibly but indifferent practitioners. In fact, we are

constantly struck throughout the early history of the

profession by the frequent occurrence of names associated with

almost every other branch of study than that strictly

appertaining to the art of medicine. We have naturalists,

magneticians, astronomers, mathematicians, logicians, and

classical scholars, but scarce one who accomplished anything

worthy to be recorded in the annals of medical science. Indeed

it is difficult to conceive any useful object that could have

been attained by the existence of the College as a

professional licensing body, other than the pecuniary

interests of the orthodox. … It is most significant as to

the social degradation of the science of medicine, that most

of the notorious empirics of the latter half of the sixteenth

century were both highly recommended and strenuously supported

in their resistance to the proctors of orthodoxy by some of

the greatest names of the age. These self-deluded victims of

quackery were not indeed adverse in theory to the pretensions

of more regular members of the profession.

{2133}

They would patronize the Court physicians, or, if favorites of

the Crown, they might even submit to the Sovereign's

recommendation in that behalf; but none the less their family

doctor was in far too many cases some outlandish professor of

occult arts, retained in learned state on the premises, who

undertook the speedy, not to say miraculous, cure of his

patron's particular disease by all the charms of the Cabala."

H. Hall,

The Early Medicus

(Merry England; also in Eclectic Magazine, June, 1884).

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 16th Century.

The System of Van Helmont.

John Baptist van Helmont "was born at Brussels in the year

1577. … His parents were noble, and he was heir to great

possessions. He pursued in Louvain the usual course of

scholastic philosophy. … Becoming accidentally acquainted

with the writings of Thomas à Kempis and John Tauler, he from

that day adopted what goes by the vague term of mysticism.

That is, thoroughly convinced that there was a spiritual world

in intimate and eternal union with the spirit of man; that

this spiritual world was revealed to that human soul which

submitted to receive it in humility; and that the doctrines of

Christianity were not to be looked upon as a system of

philosophy; but as a rule of life, he resolved to follow them

to the letter. The consequence of this resolution was, that he

devoted himself to the art of medicine, in imitation of the

Great Healer of the body as well as of the soul; and as the

prejudices of his time and country made his rank and wealth an

obstacle to his entrance into the medical profession, he made

over all his property, with its honours, to his sister; that,

'laying aside every weight, he might run the race that was set

before him.' He entered on his new studies with all the zeal

of his character, and very soon had so completely mastered the

writings of Hippocrates and Galen, as to excite the surprise

of his contemporaries. But although styled a dreamer, and

having a mind easily moved to belief in spiritual

manifestation, he was not of a credulous nature in regard to

matters belonging to the senses. And as he believed that

Christianity was to be practised, and to be found true by the

test of experiment, so he believed that the doctrines of

Hippocrates and of Galen were to be subjected to a similar

trial. An opportunity soon occurred to himself. He caught the

itch and turned to Galen for its cure. Galen attributes this

disease to overheated bile and sour phlegm, and says that it

is to be cured by purgatives. Van Helmont, with the implicit

faith of his simple nature, procured the prescribed medicines,

and took them as ordered by Galen. Alas, no cure of the itch

followed, but great exhaustion of his whole body: so Galen was

not to be trusted. This was a serious discovery; for if he

could not trust Galen, by whom the whole medical world swore,

to whom was he to turn? … Van Helmont resolved to work out

for himself a solution of the great problem to which he had

devoted his life. Van Helmont's system may be called spiritual

vitalism. The primary cause of all organization was Archæus.

By Archæus, a man is much more nearly allied, he says, to the

world of spirits and the Father of spirits than to the

external world. Archæus is the creative spirit which, working

upon the raw material of water or fluidity, by means of 'a

ferment' excites all the endless actions which result in the

growth and nourishment of the body. Thus, digestion is neither

a chemical nor a mechanical operation; nor is it, as was then

supposed, the effects of heat, for it is arrested instead of

aided by fever, and goes on in perfection in fishes and

cold-blooded animals; but, on the command of Archæus, an acid

is generated in the stomach, which dissolves the food. This is

the first digestion. The second consists in the neutralization

of this acid by the bile out of the gall bladder. The third

takes place in the vessels of the mesentery. The fourth goes

on in the heart, by the action of the vital spirits. The fifth

consists in the conversion of the arterial blood into vital

spirits, chiefly in the brain. The sixth consists of the

preparation of nourishment in the laboratory of each organ,

during which operation Archæus, present everywhere, is itself

regenerated, and superintends the momentary regeneration of

the whole frame. If for digestion we substitute the word

nutrition, we cannot fail to be struck by the near approach to

accuracy in this description of the succession of processes by

which it is brought about. Van Helmont's pathology was quite

consistent with his physiology. As life and all vital action

depended upon Archæus, so the perturbation of Archæus gave

rise to fevers, and derangements of the blood and secretions.

Thus, gout was a disease not confined to the part in which it

showed itself, but was the result of Archæus. It will be seen

that by this theory the entire system of Galen was non-suited.

There is no place for the elements and the humours."

J. R. Russell,

History and Heroes of the Art of Medicine,

chapter 8.

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.

Harvey and the Discovery of the Circulation of the Blood.

William Harvey, "physician and discoverer of the circulation

of the blood, was born at Folkestone, Kent, 1 April 1578, in a

house which was in later times the posthouse of the town and

which still belongs to Caius College, Cambridge, to which

Harvey bequeathed it. His father was Thomas Harvey, a Kentish

yeoman. … In 1588 William was sent to the King's School,

Canterbury. Thence he went to Cambridge, where he was admitted

a pensioner in Gonville and Caius College, 31 May 1593. … He

graduated B. A. 1597, and, determining to study medicine,

travelled through France and Germany to Padua, the most famous

school of physic of that time. … He returned to England,

graduated M. D. at Cambridge 1602, and soon after took a house

in the parish of St. Martin-extra-Ludgate in London. … On 4

August 1615 he was elected Lumleian lecturer at the College of

Physicians, … and in the following April, on the 16th, 17th,

and 18th, he delivered at the college in Knightrider Street,

near St. Paul's Cathedral, the lectures in which he made the

first public statement of his thoughts on the circulation of

the blood. The notes from which he delivered these lectures

exist in their original manuscript and binding at the British

Museum. … In 1628, twelve years after his first statement of

it in his lectures, he published at Frankfurt, through William

Fitzer, his discovery of the circulation of the blood. The

book is a small quarto, entitled 'Exercitatio Anatomica de

Motu Cordis et Sanguinis in Animalibus,' and contains

seventy-two pages and two plates of diagrams. The printers

evidently had difficulty in reading the author's handwriting,

and there are many misprints. …

{2134}

He begins by modestly stating how the difficulties of the

subject had gradually become clear to him, and by expressing

with a quotation from the 'Andria' of Terence, the hope that

his discovery might help others to still further knowledge. He

then describes the motions of arteries, of the ventricles of

the heart, and of its auricles, as seen in living animals, and

the use of these movements. He shows that the blood coming

into the right auricle from the vena cava, and passing then to

the right ventricle, is pumped out to the lungs through the

pulmonary artery, passes through the parenchyma of the lungs,

and comes thence by the pulmonary veins to the left ventricle.

This same blood, he shows, is then pumped out to the body. It

is carried out by arteries and comes back by veins, performing

a complete circulation. He shows that, in a live snake, when

the great veins are tied some way from the heart, the piece of

vein between the ligature and the heart is empty, and further,

that blood coming from the heart is checked in an artery by a

ligature, so that there is blood between the heart and the

ligature and no blood beyond the ligature. He then shows how

the blood comes back to the heart by the veins, and

demonstrates their valves. These had before been described by

Hieronymus Fabricius of Aquapendente, but before Harvey no

exact explanation of their function had been given. He gives

diagrams showing the results of obstructing the veins, and

that these valves may thus be seen to prevent the flow of

blood in the veins in any direction except towards the heart.

After a summary of a few lines in the fourteenth chapter he

further illustrates the perpetual circuit of the blood, and

points out how morbid materials are carried from the heart all

over the body. The last chapter gives a masterly account of

the structure of the heart in men and animals, and points out

that the right ventricle is thinner than the left because it

has only to send the blood a short way into the lungs, while

the left ventricle has to pump it all over the body. This

great and original book at once attracted attention and

excited discussion. In the College of Physicians of London,

where Harvey had mentioned the discovery in his lectures every

year since 1616, the Exercitatio received all the honour it

deserved. On the continent of Europe it was received with less

favour, but neither in England nor abroad did anyone suggest

that the discovery was to be found in other writers. …

Before his death the great discovery of Harvey was accepted

throughout the medical world. The modern controversy … as to

whether the discovery was taken from some previous author is

sufficiently refuted by the opinion of the opponents of his

views in his own time, who agreed in denouncing the doctrine

as new; by the laborious method of gradual demonstration

obvious in his book and lectures; and, lastly, by the complete

absence of lucid demonstration of the action of the heart and

course of the blood in Cæsalpinus, Servetus, and all others

who have been suggested as possible originals of the

discovery. It remains to this day the greatest of the

discoveries of physiology, and its whole honour belongs to

Harvey."

N. Moore,

Harvey

(Dict. of National Biog., volume 25).

ALSO IN:

R. Willis,

William Harvey: A history of the Discovery of

the Circulation of the Blood.

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.

Discovery of the Lymphatic Circulation.

"The discovery of the lymphatic vessels and their purpose was

scarcely less remarkable than that of the circulation of the

blood. It has about it less of eclat, because it was not the

work of one man, but was a matter of slow development.

Herophilus and Erasistratus had seen white vessels connected

with the lymph nodes in the mesentery of certain animals, and

had supposed them to be arteries full of air. Galen disputed

this, and believed the intestinal chyle to be carried by the

veins of the mesentery into the liver. In 1563 Eustachius had

described the thoracic duct in the horse; in 1622 Aselli,

professor of anatomy at Milan, discovered the lacteal vessels

in a dog which had been killed immediately after eating.

Having pricked one of these by mistake, he saw a white fluid

issue from it. Repeating the same experiment at other times he

became certain that the white threads were vessels which drew

the chyle from the intestines. He observed the valves with

which they are supplied, and supposed these vessels to all

meet in the pancreas and to be continued into the liver. In

1647 Pecquet, who was still a student at Montpelier,

discovered the lymph reservoir, or receptaculum chyli, and the

canal which leads from it, i. e., the thoracic duct, which he

followed to its termination in the left subclavian vein.

Having ligated it he saw it swell below, and empty itself

above the ligature. He studied the courses of the lacteals,

and convinced himself that they all entered into the common

reservoir. His discovery gave the last blow to the ancient

theory, which attributed to the liver the function of blood

making, and it confirmed the doctrine of Harvey, while, like

it, it had been very strongly opposed. Strangely enough,

Harvey in this instance united with his great opponent,

Riolan, in making common cause against the discovery of

Pecquet and its significance. From that time the lymphatic

vessels and glands became objects of common interest and were

investigated by many anatomists, especially Bartholin, Ruysch,

the Hunters, Hewson, and above all by Mascagni. He was the

first to give a graphic description of the whole lymphatic

apparatus."

Roswell Park,

Lectures on the History of Medicine (in MS.).

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.

Descartes and the dawn of modern Physiological science.

"The essence of modern, as contrasted with ancient,

physiological science appears to me to lie in its antagonism

to animistic hypotheses and animistic phraseology. It offers

physical explanations of vital phenomena, or frankly confesses

that it has none to offer. And, so far as I know, the first

person who gave expression to this modern view of physiology,

who was bold enough to enunciate the proposition that vital

phenomena, like all the other phenomena of the physical world,

are, in ultimate analysis, resolvable into matter and motion

was René Descartes. The fifty-four years of life of this most

original and powerful thinker are widely overlapped, on both

sides, by the eighty of Harvey, who survived his younger

contemporary by seven years, and takes pleasure in

acknowledging the French philosopher's appreciation of his

great discovery.

{2135}

In fact, Descartes accepted the doctrine of the circulation as

propounded by 'Harvæus médecin d'Angleterre,' and gave a full

account of it in his first work, the famous 'Discours de la

Méthode,' which was published in 1637, only nine years after

the exercitation 'De motu cordis;' and, though differing from

Harvey on some important points (in which it may be noted, in

passing, Descartes was wrong and Harvey right), he always

speaks of him with great respect. And so important does the

subject seem to Descartes that he returns to it in the 'Traité

des Passions' and in the 'Traité de l'Homme.' It is easy to

see that Harvey's work must have had a peculiar significance

for the subtle thinker, to whom we owe both the spiritualistic

and the materialistic philosophies of modern times. It was in

the very year of its publication, 1628, that Descartes

withdrew into that life of solitary investigation and

meditation of which his philosophy was the fruit. …

Descartes uses 'thought' as the equivalent of our modern term

'consciousness.' Thought is the function of the soul, and its

only function. Our natural heat and all the movements of the

body, says he, do not depend on the soul. Death does not take

place from any fault of the soul, but only because some of the

principal parts of the body become corrupted. … Descartes'

'Treatise on Man' is a sketch of human physiology, in which a

bold attempt is made to explain all the phenomena of life,

except those of consciousness, by physical reasonings. To a

mind turned in this direction, Harvey's exposition of the

heart and vessels as a hydraulic mechanism must have been

supremely welcome. Descartes was not a mere philosophical

theorist, but a hardworking dissector and experimenter, and he

held the strongest opinion respecting the practical value of

the new conception which he was introducing. … 'It is true,'

says he, 'that as medicine is now practised, it contains

little that is very useful; but without any desire to

depreciate, I am sure that there is no one, even among

professional men, who will not declare that all we know is

very little as compared with that which remains to be known;

and that we might escape an infinity of diseases of the mind,

no less than of the body, and even perhaps from the weakness

of old age, if we had sufficient knowledge of their causes and

of all the remedies with which nature has provided us.' So

strongly impressed was Descartes with this, that he resolved

to spend the rest of his life in trying to acquire such a

knowledge of nature as would lead to the construction of a

better medical doctrine. The anti-Cartesians found material

for cheap ridicule in these aspirations of the philosopher;

and it is almost needless to say that, in the thirteen years

which elapsed between the publication of the 'Discours' and

the death of Descartes, he did not contribute much to their

realisation. But, for the next century, all progress in

physiology took place along the lines which Descartes laid

down. The greatest physiological and pathological work of the

seventeenth century, Borelli's treatise 'De Motu Animalium,'

is, to all intents and purposes, a development of Descartes'

fundamental conception; and the same may be said of the

physiology and pathology of Boerhaave, whose authority

dominated in the medical world of the first half of the

eighteenth century. With the origin of modern chemistry, and

of electrical science, in the latter half of the eighteenth

century, aids in the analysis of the phenomena of life, of

which Descartes could not have dreamed, were offered to the

physiologist. And the greater part of the gigantic progress

which has been made in the present century is a justification

of the prevision of Descartes. For it consists, essentially,

in a more and more complete resolution of the grosser organs

of the living body into physico-chemical mechanisms. 'I shall

try to explain our whole bodily machinery in such a way, that

it will be no more necessary for us to suppose that the soul

produces such movements as are not voluntary, than it is to

think that there is in a clock a soul which causes it to show

the hours.' These words of Descartes might be appropriately

taken as a motto by the author of any modern treatise on

physiology."

T. H. Huxley,

Connection of the Biological Sciences with Medicine

(Science and Culture, etc., lecture 13).

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.

Introduction of Peruvian Bark.

"The aborigines of South America appear, except perhaps in one

locality, to have been ignorant of the virtues of Peruvian

bark. This sovereign remedy is absent in the wallets of

itinerant doctors, whose materia medica has been handed down

from father to son, since the days of the Yncas. It is

mentioned neither by the Ynca Garcilasso de la Vega, nor by

Acosta, in their lists of Indian medicines. It seems probable,

nevertheless, that the Indians were aware of the virtues of

Peruvian bark in the neighborhood of Loxa, 230 miles south of

Quito, where its use was first made known to Europeans; and

the local name for the tree quina-quina, 'bark of bark,'

indicates that it was believed to possess some special

medicinal properties. … In 1638 the wife of Don Luis

Geronimo Fernandez de Cabrera Bobadilla y Mendoza, fourth

Count of Chinchon, and Viceroy of Peru, lay sick of an

intermittent fever in the palace of Lima. … The news of her

illness at Lima reached Don Francisco Lopez de Canizares, the

Corregidor of Loxa, who had become acquainted with the

febrifuge virtues of the bark. He sent a parcel of it to the

Vice-Queen, and the new remedy, administered by her physician,

Dr. Don Juan de Vega, effected a rapid and complete cure. …

The Countess of Chinchon returned to Spain in the spring of

1640, bringing with her a supply of that precious quina bark

which had worked so wonderful a cure upon herself, and the

healing virtues of which she intended to distribute amongst

the sick on her husband's estates. It thus gradually became

known in Europe, and was most appropriately called Countess's

powder (Pulvis Comitissæ). By this name it was long known to

druggists and in commerce. … In memory of the great service

to humanity performed by the Countess of Chinchon, Linnæus

named the genus which yields Peruvian bark, Chinchona.

Unfortunately the great botanist was misinformed as to the

name of her whom he desired to honour. This is to be accounted

for by his having received his knowledge of the Countess

through a foreign and not a Spanish source. Thus misled,

Linnæus spelt the word Cinchona … and Cinhona, … omitting

one or two letters. … After the cure of the Countess of

Chinchon the Jesuits were the great promoters of the

introduction of bark into Europe. In 1670 these fathers sent

parcels of the powdered bark to Rome, whence it was

distributed to members of the fraternity throughout Europe, by

Cardinal de Lugo, and used for the cure of agues with great

success. Hence the name of 'Jesuits' bark,' and 'Cardinal's

bark;' and it was a ludicrous result of its patronage by the

Jesuits that its use should have been for a long time opposed

by Protestants, and favoured by Roman Catholics. In 1679 Louis

XIV. bought the secret of preparing quinquina from Sir Robert

Talbor, an English doctor, for 2,000 louis-d'or, a large

pension, and a title. From that time Peruvian bark seems to

have been recognised as the most efficacious remedy for

intermittent fevers."

C. R. Markham,

Peruvian Bark,

chapters 2-4.

{2136}

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.

Sydenham, the Father of Rational Medicine.

"Sydenham [Thomas Sydenham, 1624-1689], the prince of

practical physicians, whose character is as beautiful and as

genuinely English as his name, did for his art what Locke did

for the philosophy of mind—he made it, in the main,

observational; he made knowledge a means, not an end. It would

not be easy to over-estimate our obligations as a nation to these

two men, in regard to all that is involved in the promotion of

health of body and soundness of mind. They were among the

first in their respective regions to show their faith in the

inductive method, by their works. They both professed to be

more of guides than critics, and were the interpreters and

servants of Nature, not her diviners and tormentors." Of

Sydenham, "we must remember in the midst of what a mass of

errors and prejudices, of theories actively mischievous, he

was placed, at a time when the mania of hypothesis was at its

height, and when the practical part of his art was overrun and

stultified by vile and silly nostrums. We must have all this

in our mind, or we shall fail in estimating the amount of

independent thought, of courage and uprightness, and of all

that deserves to be called magnanimity and virtue, which was

involved in his thinking and writing and acting as he did.

'The improvement of physic [he wrote] in my opinion, depends,

1st, Upon collecting as genuine and natural a description or

history of diseases as can be procured; and, 2d, Upon laying

down a fixed and complete method of cure. With regard to the

history of diseases, whoever considers the undertaking

deliberately will perceive that a few such particulars must be

attended to: 1st, All diseases should be described as objects

of natural history, with the same exactness as is done by

botanists, for there are many diseases that come under the

same genus, and bear the same name, that, being specifically

different, require a different treatment. The word carduus or

thistle, is applied to several herbs, and yet a botanist would

be inaccurate and imperfect who would content himself with a

generic description. Furthermore, when this distribution of

distempers into genera has been attempted, it has been to fit

into some hypothesis, and hence this distribution is made to

suit the bent of the author rather than the real nature of the

disorder. How much this has obstructed the improvement of

physic any man may know. In writing, therefore, such a natural

history of diseases, every merely philosophical hypothesis

should be set aside, and the manifest and natural phenomena,

however minute, should be noted with the utmost exactness. The

usefulness of this procedure cannot be easily overrated, as

compared with the subtle inquiries and trifling notions of

modern writers. … If only one person in every age had

accurately described, and consistently cured, but a single

disease, and made known his secret, physic would not be where

it now is; but we have long since forsook the ancient method

of cure, founded upon the knowledge of conjunct causes,

insomuch that the art, as at this day practised, is rather the

art of talking about diseases than of curing them.' … His

friend Locke could not have stated the case more clearly or

sensibly. It is this doctrine of 'conjunct causes,' this

necessity for watching the action of compound and often

opposing forces, and the having to do all this not in a

machine, of which if you have seen one, you have seen all, but

where each organism has often much that is different from, as

well as common with, all others. … It is this which takes

medicine out of the category of exact sciences, and puts it

into that which includes politics, ethics, navigation and

practical engineering, in all of which, though there are

principles, and those principles quite within the scope of

human reason, yet the application of these principles must, in

the main, be left to each man's skill, presence of mind, and

judgment, as to the case in hand. … It would not be easy to

over-estimate the permanent impression for good, which the

writings, the character, and the practice of Sydenham have

made on the art of healing in England, and on the Continent

generally. In the writings of Boerhaave, Stahl, Gaubius,

Pinel, Bordeu, Haller, and many others, he is spoken of as the

father of rational medicine; as the first man who applied to

his profession the Baconian principles of interpreting and

serving nature, and who never forgot the master's rule, 'Non

fingendum aut excogitandum, sed inveniendum, quid natura aut

faciat aut ferat.' … Like all men of a large practical

nature, he could not have been what he was, or done what he

did, without possessing and often exercising the true

philosophizing faculty. He was a man of the same quality of

mind in this respect with Watt, Franklin, and John Hunter, in

whom speculation was not the less genuine that it was with

them a means rather than an end."

Dr. John Brown,

Locke and Sydenham and other Papers,

pages 54-90.

ALSO IN:

T. Sydenham,

Works;

translated by R. G, Latham.

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17th Century.

Closing period of the Humoral Pathology.

The Doctrines of Hoffmann, Stahl and Boerhaave.

"If we take a general survey of medical opinions, we shall

find that they are all either subordinate to, or coincident

with, two grand theories. The one of these considers the solid

constituents of the animal economy as the elementary vehicle

of life, and consequently places in them the primary seat of

disease. The other, on the contrary, sees in the humors the

original realization of vitality; and these, as they determine

the existence and quality of the secondary parts, or solids,

contain, therefore, within themselves, the ultimate principle

of the morbid affection. By relation to these theories, the

history of medicine is divided into three great periods.

During the first, the two theories, still crude, are not yet

disentangled from each other; this period extends from the

origin of medicine to the time of Galen. The second

comprehends the reign of Humoral Pathology—the interval

between Galen and Frederic Hoffmann. In the last the doctrine

of the Living Solid is predominant; from Hoffmann it reaches

to the present day. … By Galen, Humorism was first formally

expounded, and reduced to a regular code of doctrine.

{2137}

Four elementary fluids, their relations and changes, sufficed

to explain the varieties of natural temperament, and the

causes of disease; while the genius, eloquence, and unbounded

learning with which he illustrated this theory, mainly

bestowed on it the ascendency, which, without essential

alteration, it retained from the conclusion of the second to

the beginning of the eighteenth century. Galenism and Humorism

are, in fact, convertible expressions. Not that this

hypothesis during that long interval encountered no

opposition. It met, certainly, with some partial contradiction

among the Greek and Arabian physicians. After the restoration

of learning Fernelius and Brissot, Argenterius and Joubert,

attacked it in different ways. … Until the epoch we have

stated, the prevalence of the Humoral Pathology was, however,

all but universal. Nor was this doctrine merely an erroneous

speculation; it exerted the most decisive, the most pernicious

influence on practice.—The various diseased affections were

denominated in accommodation to the theory. In place of saying

that a malady affected the liver, the peritonæum, or the

organs of circulation, its seat was assumed in the blood, the

bile, or the lymph. The morbific causes acted exclusively on

the fluids; the food digested in the stomach, and converted

into chyle, determined the qualities of the blood; and poisons

operated through the corruption they thus effected in the

vital humors. All symptoms were interpreted in blind

subservience to the hypothesis; and those only attracted

attention which the hypothesis seemed calculated to explain.

The color and consistence of the blood, mucus, feces, urine,

and pus, were carefully studied. On the other hand the

phenomena of the solids, if not wholly overlooked, as mere

accidents, were slumped together under some collective name,

and attached to the theory through a subsidiary hypothesis. By

supposed changes in the humors, they explained the association

and consecution of symptoms. Under the terms, crudity,

coction, and evacuation, were designated the three principal

periods of diseases, as dependent on an alteration of the

morbific matter. In the first, this matter, in all its

deleterious energy, had not yet undergone any change on the

part of the organs; it was still crude. In the second, nature

gradually resumed the ascendant; coction took place. In the

third, the peccant matter, now rendered mobile, was evacuated

by urine, perspiration, dejection, &c., and æquilibrium

restored. When no critical discharge was apparent, the

morbific matter, it was supposed, had, after a suitable

elaboration, been assimilated to the humors, and its

deleterious character neutralized. Coction might be perfect or

imperfect; and the transformation of one disease into another

was lightly solved by the transport or emigration of the

noxious humor. … Examinations of the dead body confirmed

them in their notions. In the redness and tumefaction of

inflamed parts, they beheld only a congestion of blood; and in

dropsies, merely the dissolution of that fluid; tubercles were

simply coagula of lymph; and other organic alterations, in

general, naught but obstructions from an increased viscosity

of the humors. The plan of cure was in unison with the rest of

the hypothesis. Venesection was copiously employed to renew

the blood, to attenuate its consistency, or to remove a part

of the morbific matter with which it was impregnated; and

cathartics, sudorifics, diuretics, were largely administered,

with a similar intent. In a word, as plethora or cacochymia

were the two great causes of disease, their whole therapeutic

was directed to change the quantity or quality of the fluids.

Nor was this murderous treatment limited to the actual period

of disease. Seven or eight annual bloodings, and as many

purgations—such was the common regimen the theory prescribed

to insure continuance of health; and the twofold depletion,

still customary, at spring and fall, among the peasantry of

many European countries, is a remnant of the once universal

practice. In Spain, every village has even now its Sangrador,

whose only cast of surgery is blood-letting; and he is rarely

idle. The medical treatment of Lewis XIII, may be quoted as a

specimen of the humoral therapeutic, Within a single year this

theory inflicted on that unfortunate monarch above a hundred

cathartics, and more than forty bloodings.—During the fifteen

centuries of Humorism, how many millions of lives did medicine

cost mankind? The establishment of a system founded on the

correcter doctrine of Solidism, and purified from the

crudities of the Iatro-mathematical and Iatro-chemical

hypotheses was reserved for three celebrated physicians toward

the commencement of the eighteenth century—Frederic

Hoffmann—George Ernest Stahl—and Hermann Boerhaave. The

first and second of this triumvirate were born in the same

year, were both pupils of Wedelius of Jena, and both

professors, and rival professors, in the University of Halle;

the third was eight years younger than his contemporaries, and

long an ornament of the University of Leyden."

Sir W. Hamilton,

Discussions on Philosophy and Literature,

pages 246-249.

"The great and permanent merits of Hoffmann [1660-1742] as a

medical philosopher, undoubtedly consisted in his having

perceived and pointed out more clearly than any of his

predecessors, the extensive and powerful influence of the

Nervous System, in modifying and regulating at least, if not

in producing, all the phenomena of the organic as well as of

the animal functions in the human economy, and more

particularly in his application of this doctrine to the

explanation of diseases. … It was reserved for Hoffmann …

to take a comprehensive view of the Nervous System, not only

as the organ of sense and motion, but also as the common

centre by which all the different parts of the animal economy

are connected together, and through which they mutually

influence each other. He was, accordingly, led to regard all

those alterations in the structure and functions of this

economy, which constitute the state of disease, as having

their primary origin in affections of the nervous system, and

as depending, therefore, upon a deranged state of the

imperceptible and contractile motions in the solids, rather

than upon changes induced in the chemical composition of the

fluid parts of the body."

J. Thomson,

Account of the Life, Lectures and Writings of William Cullen,

pages 195-196.

{2138}

"George Ernest Stahl (1660-1734), chemist, was professor of

medicine at Halle (1694) and physician to the King of Prussia

(1716). He opposed materialism, and substituted 'animism,'

explaining the symptoms of disease as efforts of the soul to

get rid of morbid influences. Stahl's 'anima' corresponds to

Sydenham's 'nature' in a measure, and has some relationship to

the Archeus of Paracelsus and Van Helmont. Stahl was the author

of the 'phlogiston' theory in chemistry, which in its time has

had important influence on medicine. Phlogiston was a

substance which he supposed to exist in all combustible

matters, and the escape of this principle from any compound

was held to account for the phenomenon of fire. According to

Stahl, diseases arise from the direct action of noxious powers

upon the body; and from the reaction of the system itself

endeavouring to oppose and counteract the effects of the

noxious powers, and so preserve and repair itself. He did not

consider diseases, therefore, pernicious in themselves, though

he admitted that they might become so from mistakes made by

the soul in the choice, or proportion of the motions excited

to remove them, or the time when these efforts are made.

Death, according to this theory, is due to the indolence of

the soul, leading it to desist from its vital motions, and

refusing to continue longer the struggle against the

derangements of the body. Here we have the 'expectant

treatment' so much in vogue with many medical men. 'Trusting

to the constant attention and wisdom of nature,' they

administered inert medicines as placebos, while they left to

nature the cure of the disease. But they neglected the use of

invaluable remedies such as opium and Peruvian bark, for which

error it must be admitted they atoned by discountenancing

bleeding, vomiting, etc. Stahl's remedies were chiefly of the

class known as 'Antiphlogistic,' or anti-febrile."

E. Berdoe,

The Origin and Growth of the Healing Art,

book 5, chapter 7.

"The influence of Boerhaave [1668-1738] was immense while it

lasted—it was world-wide; but it was like a ripple on the

ocean—it had no depth. He knew everything and did everything

better than any of his contemporaries, except those who made

one thing, not everything, their study. He was familiar with

the researches of the great anatomists, of the chemists, of

the botanists, of historians, of men of learning, but he was

not a great anatomist, chemist, or historian. As to his

practice, we cannot pronounce a very decided opinion, except

that he was a man of judgment and independence. Here his

reputation made his success: a prescription of his would no

doubt effect many a cure, although the patient had taken the

remedy he prescribed fifty times without any benefit. His

greatness depended upon his inexhaustible activity. He had the

energy of a dozen ordinary men, and so he was twelve times as

powerful as one. He mentions quite incidentally how he was in

the habit of frequently spending whole nights in botanical

excursions on foot; and we know he had no time to sleep in the

day. He took an interest in everything, was always on the

alert, had a prodigious memory, and indefatigable industry. On

these great homely qualities, added to a kind disposition and

an unaffected piety, his popularity was founded. It was all

fairly won and nobly worn. It is startling, however, to find

that a man whose name one hundred years ago was familiar to

the ear as household words, and of whom historians predicted

that he would always be regarded as one of the greatest as

well as best of men, an example to his race, should be already

almost forgotten. An example is of no use unless it is known;

Boerhaave is now unknown. The reason is plain;—he was not the

founder of any system, nor did he make any discovery. He

simply used with supreme success the thoughts and discoveries

of others; as soon as he ceased to live, his influence began

therefore to decline; and before his generation had passed

away, his star had waned before the genius of Cullen, who

succeeded in fixing the attention of Europe, and who, in his

turn, was soon to be displaced by others."

J. R. Russell,

History and Heroes of the Art of Medicine,

pages 297-298.

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18th Centuries.

Introduction of the Microscope in Medicine.

First glimmerings of the Germ Theory of Disease.

"Since Athanasius Kircher [1601-1680] mistook blood and pus

corpuscles for small worms, and built up on his mistake a new

theory of disease and putrefaction, and since Christian Lange,

the Professor of Pathological Anatomy in Leipzig, in the

preface to Kircher's book (1671) expressed his opinion that

the purpura of lying-in-women, measles, and other fevers were

the result of putrefaction caused by worms or animalculæ, a

'Pathologia Animata' has, from time to time, been put forward

to explain the causation of disease. … Remarkable as were

Kircher's observations, still more wonderful were those of

Anthony van Leeuwenhoek, a native of Delft in Holland, who in

his youth had learned the art of polishing lenses, and who was

able, ultimately, to produce the first really good microscope

that had yet been constructed. Not only did Leeuwenhoek make

his microscope, but he used it to such good purpose that he

was able to place before the Royal Society of London a series

of most interesting and valuable letters giving the result of

his researches on minute specks of living protoplasm. … The

world that Leeuwenhoek … opened up so thoroughly was rapidly

invaded by other observers and theorists. The thoughtful

physicians of the time believed that at last they had found

the 'fons et origo mali,' and Nicolas Andry, reviewing

Kircher's' Contagium Animatum,' replaced his worms by these

newly-described animalculæ or germs, and pushing the theory to

its legitimate and logical conclusion, he also evolved a germ

theory of putrefaction and fermentation. He maintained that

air, water, vinegar, fermenting wine, old beer, and sour milk

were all full of germs; that the blood and pustules of

smallpox also contained them, and that other diseases, very

rife about this period, were the result of the activity of

these organisms. Such headway did he make, and such conviction

did his arguments carry with them, that the mercurial

treatment much in vogue at that time was actually based on the

supposition that these organisms, the 'causæ causantes' of

disease, were killed by the action of mercury and mercurial

salts. With a kind of prophetic instinct, and certainly as the

result of keen observation, Varro and Lancisi ascribed the

dangerous character of marsh or swamp air to the action of

invisible animalculæ; in fact the theory was so freely and

forcibly propagated that even where no micro-organisms could

be found their presence was inferred with the inevitable

result, as Löffler points out, that these 'inconceivable'

worms became the legitimate butts for the shafts of ridicule;

and in 1726 there appeared in Paris a satirical work, in which

these small organisms received the name of 'fainter,'

'body-pincher,' 'ulcerator,' 'weeping fistula,' 'sensualist';

the whole system was thus laughingly held up to satire, and

the germ theory of disease completely discredited.

{2139}

Linnæus [1707-1778], however, with his wonderful powers of

observation and deduction, considered that it was possible

that there might be rescued from this 'chaos' small living

beings which were as yet insufficiently separated and

examined, but in which he firmly believed might lie not only

the actual contagium of certain eruptive diseases, and of

acute fevers, but also the exciting causes of both

fermentation and putrefaction. The man, however, who of all

workers earliest recognized the importance of Linnæus'

observations was a Viennese doctor, Marcus Antonius Plenciz.

… He it was who, at this time, insisted upon the specific

character of the infective agent in every case of disease; for

scarlet fever there was a scarlet fever seed or germ—a seed

which could never give rise to smallpox. He showed that it was

possible for this organism to become disseminated through the

air, and for it to multiply in the body; and he explained the

incubation stage of a febrile disease as dependent on the

growth of a germ within the body during the period after its

introduction, when its presence had not yet been made

manifest. … As regards putrefaction, having corroborated

Linnæus' observations and found countless animalculæ in

putrefying matter, he came to the conclusion that this process

was the result of the development, multiplication, and

carrying on of the functions of nutrition and excretion by

these germs; the products of fermentation being the volatile

salts set free by the organisms, which, multiplying rapidly by

forming seeds or eggs, rendered the fluid in which they

developed thick, turbid, and foul. This theory, admirable as

it was, and accurate as it has since been proved to be, could

not then be based on any very extensive or detailed

observation, and we find that some of the most prominent and

brilliant men of the period did not feel justified in

accepting the explanation that Plenciz had offered as to the

causes of disease and fermentation processes."

G. S. Woodhead,

Bacteria and their Products,

chapter 3.

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18th Centuries.

Hahnemann and the origin of the System of Homœopathy.

Samuel Hahnemann, originator of the system of medicine called

"Homœopathy," was born in 1755, at Meissen, in Saxony. He

studied medicine at Leipsic, and afterwards at Vienna. In 1784

he settled in Dresden, but returned to Leipsic in 1789. "In

the following year, while translating Cullen's Materia Medica

out of English into German, his attention was arrested by the

insufficient explanation's advanced in that work of the cure

of ague by cinchona bark. By way of experiment, he took a

large dose of that substance to ascertain its action on the

healthy body. In the course of a few days he experienced the

symptoms of ague; and it thus occurred to him that perhaps the

reason why cinchona cures ague is because it has the power to

produce symptoms in a healthy person similar to those of ague.

To ascertain the truth of this conjecture, he ransacked the

records of medicine for well-attested cures effected by single

remedies; and finding sufficient evidences of this fact, he

advanced a step further, and proposed, in an article published

in Hufeland's Journal, in the year 1797, to apply this new

principle to the discovery of proper medicines for every form

of disease. Soon afterwards he published a case to illustrate

his method. It was one of a severe kind of colic cured by a

strong dose of veratrum album. Before this substance gave

relief to the patient it excited a severe aggravation of his

symptoms. This induced Hahnemann, instead of drops or grains,

to give the fraction of a drop or grain, and he thus

introduced infinitesimal doses. Some years later he applied

his new principle in the treatment of scarlet fever; and

finding that belladonna cured the peculiar type of that

disease, which then prevailed in Germany, he proposed to give

this medicine as a prophylactic, or preventive against scarlet

fever; from that time it has been extensively employed for

this purpose. In the year 1810 he published his great work,

entitled Organon of Medicine, which has been translated into

all the European languages, as well as into Arabic. In this

book he fully expounded his new system, which he called

Homœopathy. His next publication was a Materia Medica,

consisting of a description of the effects of medicines upon

persons in health. These works were published between the

years 1810 and 1821, at Leipsic, where he founded a school,

and was surrounded by disciples. As his system involved the

administration of medicines, each separately by itself, and in

doses infinitely minute, there was no longer any need of the

apothecaries' intervention between their physician and the

patient. In consequence of this the Apothecaries Company

brought to bear upon Hahnemann an act forbidding physicians to

dispense their own medicines, and with such effect that he was

obliged to leave Leipsic. The Grand Duke of Anhalt Köthen,

appointed him his physician, and invited him to live at

Köthen. Thither, accordingly, he removed in the year 1821, and

there he prepared various new editions of his Organon, and new

volumes of his Materia Medica for publication. In 1835 he

married a second time; his wife was a French lady of

considerable position; and in the same year he left Köthen,

and settled in Paris, where he enjoyed a great reputation till

his death, which took place in the year 1843."

W. Bayes,

Origin and Present Status of Homœopathy

(Translation of the Homœopathic Medical Society

of the State of New York, 1869, article 21).

ALSO IN:

W. Aneke,

History of Homœopathy.

J. C. Burnett,

Ecce Medicus;

or Hahnemann as a man and as a physician.

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th Century.

The work of John Hunter in surgery and anatomy.

"John Hunter [born 1728, died 1793] was not only one of the

most profound anatomists of the age in which he lived, but he

is by the common consent of his successors allowed to be one

of the greatest men that ever practised surgery. One of the

most striking discoveries in this part of his profession—

indeed one of the most brilliant in surgery of his

century—was the operation for the cure of popliteal aneurism

by tying the femoral artery above the tumour in the ham, and

without interfering with it. He improved the treatment of the

rupture of the tendo achillis, in consequence of having

experienced the accident himself when dancing. He invented the

method of curing fistula lacrymalis by perforating the os

unguis, and curing hydrocele radically by injection. His

anatomical discoveries were numerous and important—amongst

others the distribution of the blood-vessels of the uterus,

which he traced till their disappearance in the placenta.

{2140}

He was the first who demonstrated the existence of lymphatic

vessels in birds; described the distribution of the branches

of the olfactory nerve, as well as those of the fifth pair;

and to him we owe the best and most faithful account of the

descent of the testicle in the human subject, from the abdomen

into the scrotum. Physiology is also indebted to him for many

new views and ingenious suggestions. … 'Before his time

surgery had been little more than a mechanical art, somewhat

dignified by the material on which it was employed. Hunter

first made it a science; and by pointing out its peculiar

excellence as affording visible examples of the effects and

progress of disease, induced men of far higher attainments

than those who had before practised it to make it their

study.' The best monument of his genius and talents, however,

is the splendid museum which he formed by his sole efforts,

and which he made, too, when labouring under every

disadvantage of deficient education and limited means. It

shows that as an anatomist and physiologist he had no

superior."

W. Baird,

Hunter (The Imperial dictionary of universal biography).

ALSO IN:

S. D. Gross,

John Hunter and his Pupils.

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th Century.

Preventive Inoculation against Smallpox.

"One of the most notable events of the 18th century, or for

that matter, in the history of medicine, was the introduction

of the systematic practice of preventive inoculation against

small-pox. We are so generally taught that this is entirely

due to the efforts of Jenner, or rather we are so often

allowed to think it without being necessarily taught

otherwise, that the measure deserves a historical sketch. The

communication of the natural disease to the healthy in order

to protect them from the same natural disease, in other words,

the communication of small-pox to prevent the same, reaches

back into antiquity. It is mentioned in the Sanskrit Vedas as

then performed, always by Brahmins, who employed pus procured

from small-pox vesicles a year before. They rubbed the place

selected for operation until the skin was red, then scratched

with a sharp instrument, and laid upon the place cotton soaked

in the variolous pus, moistened with water from the sacred

Ganges. Along with this measure they insisted upon most

hygienic regulations, to which in a large measure their good

results were due. Among the Chinese was practised what was

known as 'Pock-sowing,' and as long ago as 1000 years before

Christ they introduced into the nasal cavities of young

children pledgets of cotton saturated with variolous pus. The

Arabians inoculated the same disease with needles, and so did

the Circassians, while in the states of north Africa incisions

were made between the fingers, and among some of the negroes

inoculation was performed in or upon the nose. In

Constantinople, under the Greeks, the custom had long been

naturalized and was practised by old women instructed in the

art, who regarded it as a revelation of St. Mary. The first

accounts of this practice were given to the Royal Society by

Timoni, a physician of Constantinople, in 1714. The actual

introduction of the practice into the West, however, was due

to Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, who died in 1762, and who was

wife of the English ambassador to the Porte in 1717. She had

her son inoculated in Constantinople by her surgeon Maitland,

and after her return to London, in 1721, it was also performed

upon her daughter. During the same years experiments were

undertaken by Maitland upon criminals; and as these turned out

favorably, the Prince of Wales and his sisters were inoculated

by Mead. The practice was then more or less speedily adopted

on this side of the ocean as well as on that, but suffered

occasional severe blows because of unfortunate cases here and

there, such as never can be avoided. The clergy, especially,

using the Bible, as designing men always can use it, to back

up any view or practice, became warm opponents of vaccination,

and stigmatized it as a very atrocious invasion of the Divine

prerogative of punishment. But in 1746 the Bishop of Worcester

recommended it from the pulpit, and established houses for

inoculation, and thus made it again popular. In Germany the

operation was generally favored, and in France and Italy a

little later came into vogue."

Roswell Park,

Lectures on the History of Medicine (in MS.).

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th Century.

Jenner and the discovery of Vaccination.

Many before the English physician, Dr. Jenner, "had witnessed

the cow-pox, and had heard of the report current among the

milkmaids in Gloucestershire, that whoever had taken that

disease was secure against smallpox. It was a trifling, vulgar

rumor, supposed to have no significance whatever; and no one

had thought it worthy of investigation, until it was

accidentally brought under the notice of Jenner. He was a

youth, pursuing his studies at Sodbury, when his attention was

arrested by the casual observation made by a country girl who

came to his master's shop for advice. The smallpox was

mentioned, when the girl said, 'I can't take that disease, for

I have had cow-pox.' The observation immediately riveted

Jenner's attention, and he forthwith set about inquiring and

making observations on the subject. His professional friends,

to whom he mentioned his views as to the prophylactic virtues

of cow-pox, laughed at him, and even threatened to expel him

from their society, if he persisted in harassing them with the

subject. In London he was so fortunate as to study under John

Hunter [1770-1773] to whom he communicated his views. The

advice of the great anatomist was thoroughly characteristic:

'Don't think, but try; be patient, be accurate.' Jenner's

courage was greatly supported by the advice, which conveyed to

him the true art of philosophical investigation. He went back

to the country to practise his profession, and carefully to

make observations and experiments, which he continued to

pursue for a period of twenty years. His faith in his

discovery was so implicit that he vaccinated his own son on

three several occasions. At length he published his views in a

quarto of about seventy pages, in which he gave the details of

twenty-three cases of successful vaccination of individuals,

to whom it was found afterwards impossible to communicate the

smallpox either by contagion or inoculation. It was in 1798

that this treatise was published; though he had been working

out his ideas as long before as 1775, when they began to

assume a definite form. How was the discovery received? First

with indifference, then with active hostility. He proceeded to

London to exhibit to the profession the process of vaccination

and its successful results; but not a single doctor could be

got to make a trial of it, and after fruitlessly waiting for

nearly three months, Jenner returned to his native village.

{2141}

He was even caricatured and abused for his attempt to

'bestialize' his species by the introduction into their

systems of diseased matter from the cow's udder. Cobbett was

one of his most furious assailants. Vaccination was denounced

from the pulpit as 'diabolical.' It was averred that

vaccinated children became 'ox-faced,' that abscesses broke

out to 'indicate sprouting horns,' and that the countenance

was gradually 'transmuted into the visage of a cow, the voice

into the bellowing of bulls.' Vaccination, however, was a

truth, and notwithstanding the violence of the opposition

belief in it spread slowly. In one village where a gentleman

tried to introduce the practice, the first persons who

permitted themselves to be vaccinated were absolutely pelted,

and were driven into their houses if they appeared out of

doors. Two ladies of title,—Lady Ducie and the Countess of

Berkeley,—to their honor be it remembered,—had the courage

to vaccinate their own children; and the prejudices of the day

were at once broken through. The medical profession gradually

came round, and there were several who even sought to rob Dr.

Jenner of the merit of the discovery, when its vast importance

came to be recognized. Jenner's cause at last triumphed, and

he was publicly honored and rewarded. In his prosperity he was

as modest as he had been in his obscurity. He was invited to

settle in London, and told that he might command a practice of

£10,000 a year. But his answer was, 'No! In the morning of my

days I have sought the sequestered and lowly paths of

life,—the valley, and not the mountain,—and now, in the

evening of my days, it is not meet for me to hold myself up as

an object for fortune and for fame.' In Jenner's own lifetime

the practice of vaccination had been adopted all over the

civilized world; and when he died, his title as Benefactor of

his kind was recognized far and wide. Cuvier has said, 'If

vaccine were the only discovery of the epoch, it would serve

to render it illustrious forever."

S. Smiles,

Self-help,

chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

J. Barron,

Life of Edward Jenner.

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th Century.

The Brunonian System of Stimulation.

"John Brown, born of obscure parents in a village of Berwick,

in Scotland, was remarkable, from his early youth, for an

extraordinary aptitude for acquiring languages, a decided

inclination for scholastic dispute, a pedantic tone and

manner, and somewhat irregular conduct. Having abandoned

theology for medicine, he fixed his residence in Edinburgh.

… He was particularly entertained and countenanced by

Cullen, who even took him into his family in the character of

preceptor of his children. This agreeable relation subsisted

during twelve consecutive years between these two men, whose

characters and minds were so different. … But some trifling

matters of mutual discontent grew at length into coldness, and

changed the old friendship which had united them into an

irreconcilable hatred. Their rupture broke out about the year

1778, and in a short time after, Brown published his Elements

of Medicine. … Brown employed some of the ideas of his

master to develop a doctrine much more simple in appearance,

but founded entirely on abstract considerations; a doctrine in

which every provision seems to be made for discussion, but

none for practice. Cullen had said that the nervous system

receives the first impression of excitants, and transmits it

afterwards to the other organs endowed with motion and

vitality. Brown explains thus, the same thought: 'Life is only

sustained by incitation. It is only the result of the action

of incitants on the incitability of organs.' Cullen regarded

the atony of the small vessels as the proximate cause of

fever. Brown, improving on this hypothesis, admits, with

hardly any exceptions, only hyposthenic diseases. … The

Scotch physiologist distinguished only two pathological

states—one consisting in an excess of incitability, which he

names the sthenic diathesis; the other, constituted by a want,

more or less notable, of the same faculty, which he designates

as the asthenic diathesis. Besides, Brown considers these two

states as affecting the entire economy, rather than any organ

in particular. … After having reduced all diseases to two

genera, and withdrawn from pathology the study of local

lesions, Brown arrives, by a subtile argumentation, to

consider the affections of the sthenic order as prevailing in

a very small number of instances, so that the diseases of the

asthenic type comprehend nearly the totality of affections.

According to this theory, a physician is rarely ever mistaken

if he orders in all his cases, remedies of an exciting nature.

… Never since the days of Thessalus (of charlatan memory)

had anyone simplified to such a point the study and practice

of medicine. We may even say that in this respect the Scotch

pathologist left far in the rear the physician of Nero. To

this attraction, well calculated to tempt students and

practitioners, the doctrine of Brown joined the advantage of

being presented in an energetic and captivating style, full of

imagery, which suffices to explain its rapid progress. But

this doctrine, so seductive in its exposition, so easy in its

application, is one of the most disastrous that man has been

able to imagine, for it tends to propagate the abuse of

diffusible stimulants, of which spirituous liquors make a

part, an abuse excessively injurious to health in general, and

the intellectual faculties in particular—an abuse to which

man is too much inclined, naturally, and which the sophisms of

Brown may have contributed to spread in all classes of English

society. … Notwithstanding its defects, the system of Brown

made rapid progress, principally in Germany and Italy."

P. V. Renouard,

History of Medicine,

pages 555-560.

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th Century.

The System of Haller.

"About the time when we seniors commenced the study of

medicine, it was still under the influence of the important

discoveries which Albrecht von Haller [1708-1777] had made on

the excitability of nerves; and which he had placed in

connection with the vitalistic theory of the nature of life.

Haller had observed the excitability in the nerves and muscles

of amputated members. The most surprising thing to him was,

that the most varied external actions, mechanical, chemical,

thermal, to which electrical ones were subsequently added, had

always the same result; namely, that they produced muscular

contraction. They were only quantitatively distinguished as

regards their action on the organism, that is, only by the

strength of the excitation; he designated them by the common

name of stimulus; he called the altered condition of the nerve

the excitation, and its capacity of responding to a stimulus

the excitability, which was lost at death.

{2142}

This entire condition of things, which physically speaking

asserts no more than the nerves, as concerns the changes which

take place in them after excitation, are in an exceedingly

unstable state of equilibrium; this was looked upon as the

fundamental property of animal life, and was unhesitatingly

transferred to the other organs and tissues of the body, for

which there was no similar justification. It was believed that

none of them were active of themselves, but must receive an

impulse by a stimulus from without; air and nourishment were

considered to be the normal stimuli. The kind of activity

seemed, on the contrary, to be conditioned by the specific

energy of the organ, under the influence of the vital force.

Increase or diminution of the excitability was the category

under which the whole of the acute diseases were referred, and

from which indications were taken as to whether the treatment

should be lowering or stimulating. The rigid one-sidedness and

the unrelenting logic with which … [John] Brown had once

worked out the system was broken, but it always furnished the

leading points of view."

H. Helmholtz,

On Thought in Medicine

(Popular Lectures, series 2, lecture 5).

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18th. Century.

Physiological Views of Bichat.

Marie Francis Xavier Bichat, was born in 1771 and died in

1802, accomplishing his extraordinary work as an anatomist and

physician within a lifetime of thirty-one years. "The peculiar

physiological views of Bichat are to be found stated more or

less distinctly in all his works; and it is a merit of his

that he has always kept in sight the necessary connexion of

this part of the science of medicine with every other, and, so

far as he has developed his ideas upon the subjects of

pathology, materia medica, and therapeutics, they seem all to

have been founded upon and connected with the principles of

physiology, which he had adopted. … Everything around living

bodies, according to Bichat, tends constantly to their

destruction. And to this influence they would necessarily

yield, were they not gifted with some permanent principle of

reaction. This principle is their life, and a living system is

therefore necessarily always engaged in the performance of

functions, whose object is to resist death. Life, however,

does not consist in a single principle, as has been taught by

some celebrated writers, by Stahl, Van Helmont, and Barthez,

&c. We are to study the phenomena of life, as we do those of

other matter, and refer the operations performed in living

systems to such ultimate principles as we can trace them to,

in the same way that we do the operations taking place among

inorganic substances. … His essential doctrine … is that

there is no one single, individual, presiding principle of

vitality, which animates the body, but that it is a collection

of matter gifted for a time with certain powers of action,

combined into organs which are thus enabled to act, and that

the result is a series of functions, the connected performance

of which constitutes it a living thing. This is his view of

life, considered in the most general and simple way. But in

carrying the examination farther, he points out two remarkable

modifications of life, as considered in different relations,

one common both to vegetables and animals, the other peculiar

to animals. … Those which we have in common with the

vegetable, which are necessary merely to our individual,

bodily existence, are called the functions of organic life,

because they are common to all organized matter. Those, on the

other hand, which are peculiar to animals, which in them are

superadded to the possession of the organic functions, are

called the functions of animal life. Physiologically speaking,

then, we have two lives, the concurrence of which enables us

to live and move and have our being; both equally necessary to

the relations we maintain as human beings, but not equally

necessary to the simple existence of a living thing. … The

two lives differ, in some important respects, as to the organs

by which their functions are performed. Those of the animal

life present a symmetry of external form, strongly contrasted

with the irregularity, which is a prominent characteristic of

those of organic life. In the animal life, every function IS

either performed by a pair of organs, perfectly similar in

structure and size, situated one upon each side of the median

dividing line of the body, or else by a single organ divided

into two similar and perfectly symmetrical halves by that

line. … The organs of the organic life, on the contrary,

present a picture totally different; they are irregularly

formed, and irregularly arranged. … This symmetry of the

form is accompanied by a corresponding harmony in the

functions of the organs of the animal life. … The functions

of the organic life are constantly going on; they admit of no

interruption, no repose. … In those of the animal life, the

case is widely different. They have intervals of entire

repose. The organs of this life are incapable of constant

activity, they become fatigued by exercise and require rest.

This rest, with regard to any particular organ, is the sleep

of that organ. … Upon this principle, Bichat founds his

theory of sleep. General sleep is the combination of the sleep

of particular organs. Sleep then is not any definite state,

but is more or less complete rest of the whole system in

proportion to the number of organs which require repose. …

The two lives differ also in regard to habit; the animal being

much under its control, the organic but slightly. … But the

principal and most important feature in the physiological

system of Bichat, is the complete, and entire, and exclusive

explanation of all the phenomena of the living system upon the

principles of vitality alone. Former physiologists have not

always kept this distinctly in view. … The human body has

been regarded, too often, as a mass of matter, organized to be

sure, but yet under the direction of physical laws, and the

performance of its functions has been ascribed to the powers

of inorganic matter. Hence, physiology has generally been

somewhat tinctured by the favorite science of the age, with

some of its notions. … With Bichat the properties of life

were all in all. The phenomena of the system, whether in

health or disease, were all ascribed to their influence and

operation."

J. Ware,

Life and Writings of Bichat

(North American Review, July, 1822).

{2143}

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18-19th Centuries.

Pinel and the Reform in treatment of the Insane.

Philippe Pinel, "who had attained some distinction as an

alienist, was appointed, 1792, to fill the post of

superintendent of the Bicêtre, which then contained upwards of

200 male patients, believed not only to be incurable, but

entirely uncontrollable. The previous experience of the

physician, here stood him in good stead. He had been a

diligent student of the authorities of his own and foreign

countries on diseases of the mind, and in his earlier years

had been appointed by the French government to report on the

condition of the asylums at Paris and Charenton. On assuming

the oversight of the Bicêtre, he found 53 men languishing in

chains, some of whom had been bound for a great number of

years. These were regarded by the authorities as dangerous and

even desperate characters; but the sight of men grown gray and

decrepit as the result of prolonged torture, made a very

different impression on the mind of Pinel. He addressed appeal

after appeal to the Commune, craving power to release, without

delay, the unhappy beings under his charge. The authorities

tardily and unwillingly yielded to the importunity of the

physician. An official, who was deputed by the Commune to

accompany the superintendent and watch his experiment, no

sooner caught sight of the chained maniacs than he excitedly

exclaimed: 'Ah, ça! citoyen, es-tu fou toi-même de vouloir

déchaîner de pareils animaux?' The physician was not to be

deterred, however, from carrying out his benevolent project,

and did not rest satisfied until all of the 53 men had been

gradually liberated from their chains. Singular as it may

appear, the man who had been regarded as the most dangerous,

and who had survived forty years of this severe treatment, was

afterwards known as the faithful and devoted servant of Pinel.

The reforms of Pinel were not confined to the Bicêtre, an

establishment exclusively for men, but extended to the

Salpêtrière, an institution for women. There is, perhaps, no

more touching event in history than that of this kind-hearted

and wise physician removing the bands and chains from the

ill-fated inmates of this place of horrors. The monstrous

fallacy of cruel treatment once fully exposed, the insane came

to be looked upon as unfortunate human beings, stricken with a

terrible disease, and, like other sick persons, requiring

every aid which science and benevolent sympathy could provide

with a view to cure. Governmental inquiries were instituted

with a view to the attainment of better treatment, and in

different countries, almost simultaneously, the provision of

suitable and adequate accommodation for the insane was

declared to be a State necessity."

W. P. Letchworth,

The Insane in Foreign Countries,

chapter 1.

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.

The Discovery of Anæsthetics.

"In 1798, Mr. Humphry Davy, an apprentice to Mr. Borlase a

surgeon at Bodmin, had so distinguished himself by zeal and

power in the study of chemistry and natural philosophy, that

he was invited by Dr. Beddoes of Bristol, to become the

'superintendent of the Pneumatic Institution which had been

established at Clifton for the purpose of trying the medicinal

effects of different gases.' He obtained release from his

apprenticeship, accepted the appointment, and devoted himself

to the study of gases, not only in their medicinal effects,

but much more in all their chemical and physical relations.

After two years' work he published his 'Researches, Chemical

and Philosophical, chiefly concerning Nitrous Oxide.' … He

wrote, near the end of his essay: 'As nitrous oxide in its

extensive operation appears capable of destroying physical

pain, it may probably be used with advantage during surgical

operations in which no great effusion of blood takes place.'

It seems strange that no one caught at a suggestion such as

this. … The nitrous oxide might have been of as little

general interest as the carbonic or any other, had it not been

for the strange and various excitements produced by its

inhalation. These made it a favourite subject with chemical

lecturers, and year after year, in nearly every chemical

theatre, it was fun to inhale it after the lecture on the

gaseous compounds of nitrogen; and among those who inhaled it

there must have been many who, in their intoxication, received

sharp and heavy blows, but, at the time, felt no pain. And

this went on for more than forty years, exciting nothing

worthy to be called thought or observation, till, in December

1844, Mr. Colton, a popular itinerant lecturer on chemistry,

delivered a lecture on 'laughing gas' in Hartford,

Connecticut. Among his auditors was Mr. Horace Wells, an

enterprising dentist in that town, a man of some power in

mechanical invention. After the lecture came the usual

amusement of inhaling the gas, and Wells, in whom long wishing

had bred a kind of belief that something might be found to

make tooth-drawing painless, observed that one of the men

excited by the gas was not conscious of hurting himself when

he fell on the benches and bruised and cut his knees. Even

when he became calm and clear-headed the man was sure that he

did not feel pain at the time of his fall. Wells was at once

convinced—more easily convinced than a man of more scientific

mind would have been—that, during similar insensibility, in a

state of intense nervous excitement, teeth might be drawn

without pain, and he determined that himself and one of his

own largest teeth should be the first for trial. Next morning

Colton gave him the gas, and his friend Dr. Riggs extracted

his tooth. He remained unconscious for a few moments, and then

exclaimed, 'A new era in tooth-pulling! It did not hurt me

more than the prick of a pin. It is the greatest discovery

ever made.' In the next three weeks Wells extracted teeth from

some twelve or fifteen persons under the influence of the

nitrous oxide, and gave pain to only two or three. Dr. Riggs,

also, used it with the same success, and the practice was well

known and talked of in Hartford. Encouraged by his success

Wells went to Boston, wishing to enlarge the reputation of his

discovery and to have an opportunity of giving the gas to some

one undergoing a surgical operation. Dr. J. C. Warren, the

senior Surgeon of the Massachusetts General Hospital, to whom

he applied for this purpose, asked him to show first its

effects on some one from whom he would draw a tooth. He

undertook to do this in the theatre of the medical college

before a large class of students, to whom he had, on a

previous day, explained his plan. Unluckily, the bag of gas

from which the patient was inhaling was taken a way too soon;

he cried out when his tooth was drawn; the students hissed and

hooted; and the discovery was denounced as an imposture. Wells

left Boston disappointed and disheartened; he fell ill, and

was for many months unable to practise his profession. Soon

afterwards he gave up dentistry, and neglected the use and

study of the nitrous oxide, till he was recalled to it by a

discovery even more important than his own. The thread of the

history of nitrous oxide may be broken here.

{2144}

The inhalation of sulphuric ether was often, even in the last

century, used for the relief of spasmodic asthma, phthisis,

and some other diseases of the chest. … As the sulphuric

ether would 'produce effects very similar to those occasioned

by nitrous oxide,' and was much the more easy to procure, it

came to be often inhaled, for amusement, by chemist's lads and

by pupils in the dispensaries of surgeons. It was often thus

used by young people in many places in the United States. They

had what they called 'ether frolics.' … Among those who had

joined in these ether-frolics was Dr. Wilhite of Anderson,

South Carolina. In one of them, in 1839," a negro boy was

unconscious so long that he was supposed for some time to be

dead. "The fright at having, it was supposed, so nearly killed

the boy, put an end to the ether-frolics in that

neighbourhood; but in 1842, Wilhite had become a pupil of Dr.

Crauford Long, practising at that time at Jefferson (Jackson

County, Georgia). Here he and Dr. Long and three fellow-pupils

often amused themselves with the ether-inhalation, and Dr.

Long observed that when he became furiously excited, as he

often did, he was unconscious of the blows which he, by

chance, received as he rushed or tumbled about. He observed

the same in his pupils; and thinking over this, and emboldened

by what Mr. Wilhite told him of the negro-boy recovering after

an hour's insensibility, he determined to try whether the

ether-inhalation would make any one insensible of the pain of

an operation. So, in March, 1842, nearly three years before

Wells's observations with the nitrous oxide, he induced a Mr.

Venable, who had been very fond of inhaling ether, to inhale

it till he was quite insensible. Then he dissected a tumour

from his neck; no pain was felt, and no harm followed. Three

months later, he similarly removed another tumour from him;

and again, in 1842 and in 1845, he operated on other three

patients, and none felt pain. His operations were known and

talked of in his neighbourhood; but the neighbourhood was only

that of an obscure little town; and he did not publish any of

his observations. … He waited to test the ether more

thoroughly in some greater operation than those in which he

had yet tried it; and then he would have published his account

of it. While he was waiting, others began to stir more

actively in busier places, where his work was quite unknown,

not even heard of. Among those with whom, in his unlucky visit

to Boston, Wells talked of his use of the nitrous oxide, and

of the great discovery which he believed that he had made,

were Dr. Morton and Dr. Charles Jackson. … Morton was a

restless energetic dentist, a rough man, resolute to get

practice and make his fortune. Jackson was a quiet scientific

gentleman, unpractical and unselfish, in good repute as a

chemist, geologist, and mineralogist. At the time of Wells's

visit, Morton, who had been his pupil in 1842, and for a short

time, in 1843, his partner, was studying medicine and anatomy

at the Massachusetts Medical College, and was living in

Jackson's house. Neither Morton nor Jackson put much if any

faith in Wells's story, and Morton witnessed his failure in

the medical theatre. Still, Morton had it in his head that

tooth-drawing might somehow be made painless. … Jackson had

long known, as many others did, of sulphuric ether being

inhaled for amusement and of its producing effects like those

of nitrous oxide; he knew also of its employment as a remedy

for the irritation caused by inhaling chlorine. He had himself

used it for this purpose, and once, in 1842, while using it,

he became completely insensible. He had thus been led to think

that the pure ether might be used for the prevention of pain

in surgical operations; he spoke of it with some scientific

friends, and sometimes advised a trial of it; but he did not

urge it or take any active steps to promote even the trial.

One evening, Morton, who was now in practice as a dentist,

called on him, full of some scheme which he did not divulge,

and urgent for success in painless tooth-drawing. Jackson

advised him to use the ether, and taught him how to use it. On

that same evening, the 30th of September, 1846, Morton inhaled

the ether, put himself to sleep, and, when he awoke, found

that he had been asleep for eight minutes. Instantly, as he

tells, he looked for an opportunity of giving it to a patient;

and one just then coming in, a stout healthy man, he induced

him to inhale, made him quite insensible, and drew his tooth

without his having the least consciousness of what was done.

But the great step had yet to be made. … Could it be right

to incur the risk of insensibility long enough and deep enough

for a large surgical operation? It was generally believed that

in such insensibility there was serious danger to life. Was it

really so? Jackson advised Morton to ask Dr. J. C. Warren to

let him try, and Warren dared to let him. It is hard, now, to

think how bold the enterprise must have seemed to those who

were capable of thinking accurately on the facts then known.

The first trial was made on the 16th of October, 1846. Morton

gave the ether to a patient in the Massachusetts General

Hospital, and Dr. Warren removed a tumour from his neck. The

result was not complete success; the patient hardly felt the

pain of the cutting, but he was aware that the operation was

being performed. On the next day, in a severer operation by

Dr. Hayward, the success was perfect; the patient felt

nothing, and in long insensibility there was no appearance of

danger to life. The discovery might already be deemed

complete; for the trials of the next following days had the

same success, and thence onwards the use of the ether extended

over constantly widening fields. … It might almost be said

that in every place, at least in Europe, where the discovery

was promoted more quickly than in America, the month might be

named before which all operative surgery was agonising, and

after which it was painless."

Sir J. Paget,

Escape from Pain

(Nineteenth Century, December 1879).

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.

The Study of Fermentation and its results.

"It was some time ago the current belief that epidemic

diseases generally were propagated by a kind of malaria, which

consisted of organic matter in a state of motor-decay; that

when such matter was taken into the body through the lungs,

skin, or stomach, it had the power of spreading there the

destroying process by which itself had been assailed. Such a

power was visibly exerted in the case of yeast. A little

leaven was seen to leaven the whole lump—a mere speck of

matter, in this supposed state of decomposition, being

apparently competent to propagate indefinitely its own decay.

Why should not a bit of rotten malaria act in a similar manner

within the human frame? In 1836 a very wonderful reply was

given to this question. In that year Cagniard de la Tour

discovered the yeast-plant—a living organism, which when

placed in a proper medium feeds, grows, and reproduces itself,

and in this way carries on the process which we name

fermentation. By this striking discovery fermentation was

connected with organic growth. Schwann, of Berlin, discovered

the yeast-plant independently about the same time."

J. Tyndall,

Fragments of Science,

volume 1, chapter 5.

{2145}

The question of fermentation "had come to present an entirely

new aspect through the discovery of Cagniard de la Tour that

yeast is really a plant belonging to one of the lowest types

of fungi, which grows and reproduces itself in the fermentable

fluid, and whose vegetative action is presumably the cause of

that fermentation, just as the development of mould in a

jam-pot occasions a like change in the upper stratum of the

jam, on whose surface, and at whose expense, it lives and

reproduces itself. Chemists generally—especially Liebig, who

had a fermentation theory of his own—pooh-poohed this idea

altogether; maintaining the presence of the yeast-plant to be

a mere concomitant, and refusing to believe that it had any

real share in the process. But in 1843, Professor Helmholtz,

then a young undistinguished man, devised a method of stopping

the passage of organic germs from a fermenting into a

fermentable liquid, without checking the passage of fluids;

and as no fermentation was then set up, he drew the inference

that the 'particulate' organic germs, not the soluble material

of the yeast, furnish the primum mobile of this change,—a

doctrine which, though now universally accepted, had to fight

its way for some time against the whole force of chemical

authority. A little before Cagniard de la Tour's discovery, a

set of investigations had been made by Schulze and Schwann, to

determine whether the exclusion of air was absolutely

necessary to prevent the appearance of living organisms in

decomposing fluids, or whether these fluids might be kept free

from animal or vegetable life, by such means as would

presumably destroy any germs which the air admitted to them

might bring in from without, such as passing it through a

red-hot tube or strong sulphuric acid. These experiments, it

should be said, had reference rather to the question of

'spontaneous generation,' or 'abiogenesis,' than to the cause

of fermentation and decomposition; its object being to

determine whether the living things found by the microscope in

a decomposing liquid exposed to the air, spring from germs

brought by the atmosphere, or are generated 'de novo' in the

act of decay—the latter doctrine having then many upholders.

But the discovery of the real nature of yeast, and the

recognition of the part it plays in alcoholic fermentation,

gave an entirely new value to Schulze's and Schwann's results;

suggesting that putrefactive and other kinds of decomposition

may be really due, not (as formerly supposed) to the action of

atmospheric oxygen upon unstable organic compounds, but to a

new arrangement of elements brought about by the development

of germinal particles deposited from the atmosphere. It was at

this point that Pasteur took up the inquiry; and for its

subsequent complete working-out, science is mainly indebted to

him: for although other investigators—notably Professor

Tyndall—have confirmed and extended his conclusions by

ingenious variations on his mode of research, they would be

the first to acknowledge that all those main positions which

have now gained universal acceptance—save on the part of a

few obstinate 'irreconcilables'—have been established by

Pasteur's own labours. … The first application of these

doctrines to the study of disease in the living animal was

made in a very important investigation, committed to Pasteur

by his old master in chemistry (the eminent and eloquent

Dumas), into the nature of the 'pébrine,' which was

threatening to extinguish the whole silk culture of France and

Italy. … Though it concerned only a humble worm, it laid the

foundation of an entirely new system and method of research

into the nature and causes of a large class of diseases in man

and the higher animals, of which we are now only beginning to

see the important issues. Among the most immediately

productive of its results, may be accounted the 'antiseptic

surgery' of Professor Lister; of which the principle is the

careful exclusion of living bacteria and other germs, alike

from the natural internal cavities of the body, and from such

as are formed by disease, whenever these may be laid open by

accident, or may have to be opened surgically. This exclusion

is effected by the judicious use of carbolic acid, which kills

the germs without doing any mischief to the patient; and the

saving of lives, of limbs, and of severe suffering, already

brought about by this method, constitutes in itself a glorious

triumph alike to the scientific elaborator of the

germ-doctrine, and to the scientific surgeon by whom it has

been thus applied. A far wider range of study, however, soon

opened itself. The revival by Dr. Farr of the doctrine of

'zymosis' (fermentation),—long ago suggested by the sagacity

of Robert Boyle, and practically taken up in the middle of the

last century by Sir John Pringle (the most scientific

physician of his time),—as the expression of the effect

produced in the blood by the introduction of a specific poison

(such as that of small-pox, measles, scarlatina, cholera,

typhus, &c.), had naturally directed the attention of

thoughtful men to the question (often previously raised

speculatively), whether these specific poisons are not really

organic germs, each kind of which, a real 'contagium vivum,'

when sown in the circulating fluid, produces a definite

'zymosis' of its own, in the course of which the poison is

reproduced with large increase, exactly after the manner of

yeast in a fermenting wort. Pasteur's success brought this

question to the front, as one not to talk about, but to work at."

W. B. Carpenter,

Disease-Germs

(Nineteenth Century, October, 1881).

ALSO IN:

L. Pasteur,

Studies in Fermentation.

Dr. Duclaux,

Fermentation.

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.

Virchow and Cellular Pathology.

"That really gifted scholar and paragon of industry and

attainment, Rudolph Virchow, announced in 1858 a theory known

as Modern Vitalism which was borrowed from natural scientific

medicine and is distinguished from the vitalism of the

previous century in this, that it breaks up the old vital

force, which was supposed to be either distributed throughout

the entire body, or located in a few organs, into an

indefinite number of associate vital forces working

harmoniously, and assigns to them all the final elementary

principles without microscopic seat. 'Every animal principle

has a sum of vital unities, each of which bears all the

characteristics of life.

{2146}

The characteristics and unity of life cannot be found in any

determinate point of a higher organism, e. g., in the brain,

but only in the definite, ever recurring arrangements of each

element present. Hence it results that the composition of a

large body amounts to a kind of social arrangement, in which

each one of the movements of individual existence is dependent

upon the others, but in such a way that each element has a

special activity of its own, and that each, although it

receives the impulse to its own activity from other parts,

still itself performs its own functions.' This it will be seen

is nothing but another way of expressing the cell doctrine to

which most medical men are now committed, which means that our

bodies are built up with cells, and that each cell has a unity

and a purpose of its own. Sir Robert Hooke in 1677 discovered

plant cells. Schwann discovered animal cells, and Robert Brown

discovered cell nuclei, but it remained for Virchow, using the

microscope, to supply the gap which had risen between

anatomical knowledge and medical theory, that is, to supply a

'cellular pathology,' since which time the cell has assumed

the role which the fibre occupied in the theories of the 17th

and 18th centuries. Time alone can decide as to the ultimate

validity of these views. This theory was from its announcement

most enthusiastically received, and so far has responded to

nearly all the requirements which have been made of it. Even

its author was almost startled with its success. … As a

result of Virchow's labors there has arisen in Germany what

has been called the medical school of natural sciences of

which Virchow is the intellectual father. This school seeks

mainly by means of pathological anatomy and microscopy,

experimental physiology and pathology, and the other applied

sciences, or rather by their methods, to make medicine also an

exact science."

Roswell Park,

Lectures on the History of Medicine (in MS.).

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.

The development of Bacteriology.

"The traditional expression contagium vivum received a more

precise meaning in 1840 from Henle, who in his 'Pathologischen

Untersuchungen,' showed clearly and distinctly that the

contagia till then invisible must be regarded as living

organisms, and gave his reasons for this view. … If we are

forced to recognise the characteristic qualities of living

beings in these contagia, there is no good reason why we

should not regard them as real living beings, parasites. For

the only general distinction between their mode of appearance

and operation and that of parasites is, that the parasites

with which we are acquainted have been seen and the contagia

have not. That this may be due to imperfect observation is

shown by the experiments on the itch in 1840, in which the

contagium, the itch-mite, though almost visible without

magnifying power, was long at least misunderstood. It was only

a short time before that the microscopic Fungus, Achorion,

which causes favus, was unexpectedly discovered, as well as

the Fungus which gives rise to the infectious disease in the

caterpillar of the silkworm known as muscardine. Other and

similar cases occurred at a later time, and among them that of

the discovery of the Trichinae between 1850 and 1860, a very

remarkable instance of a contagious parasite long overlooked.

Henle repeated his statements in 1853 in his 'Rationelle

Pathologie,' but for reasons which it is not our business to

examine, his views on animal pathology met with little

attention or approval. It was in connection with

plant-pathology that Henle's views were first destined to

further development, and obtained a firmer footing. It is true

that the botanists who occupied themselves with the diseases

of plants knew nothing of Henle's pathological writings, but

made independent efforts to carry on some first attempts which

had been made with distinguished success in the beginning of

the century. But they did in fact strike upon the path

indicated by Henle, and the constant advance made after, about

the year 1850, resulted not only in the tracing back of all

infectious diseases in plants to parasites as their exciting

cause, but in proving that most of the diseases of plants are

due to parasitic infection. It may now certainly be admitted

that the task was comparatively easy in the vegetable kingdom,

partly because the structure of plants makes them more

accessible to research, partly because most of the parasites

which infect them are true Fungi, and considerably larger than

most of the contagia of animal bodies. From this time

observers in the domain of animal pathology, partly

influenced, more or less, by these discoveries in botany, and

partly in consequence of the revival of the vitalistic theory

of fermentation by Pasteur about the year 1860, returned to

Henle's vitalistic theory of contagion. Henle himself, in the

exposition of his views, had already indicated the points of

comparison between his own theory and the theory of

fermentation founded at that time by Cagniard-Latour and

Schwann. Under the influence, as he expressly says, of

Pasteur's writings, Davaine recalled to mind the little rods

first seen by his teacher, Rayer, in the blood of an animal

suffering from anthrax, and actually discovered in them the

exciting cause of the disease, which may be taken as a type of

an infectious disease both contagious and miasmatic also, in

so far as it originates, as has been said, in

anthrax-districts. This was, in 1863, a very important

confirmation of Henle's theory, inasmuch as a very small

parasite, not very easy of observation at that time, was

recognised as a contagium. It was some time before much

further advance was made. … The latest advance to be

recorded begins with the participation of Robert Koch in the

work of research since 1876."

A. De Bary,

Lectures on Bacteria,

pages 145-148.

"M. Pasteur is no ordinary man; he is one of the rare

individuals who must be described by the term 'genius.' Having

commenced his scientific career and attained great distinction

as a chemist, M. Pasteur was led by his study of the chemical

process of fermentations to give his attention to the

phenomena of disease in living bodies resembling

fermentations. Owing to a singular and fortunate mental

characteristic, he has been able, not simply to pursue a rigid

path of investigation dictated by the logical or natural

connection of the phenomena investigated, but deliberately to

select for inquiry matters of the most profound importance to

the community, and to bring his inquiries to a successful

practical issue in a large number of instances.

{2147}

Thus he has saved the silkworm industry of France and Italy

from destruction, he has taught the French wine-makers to

quickly mature their wine, he has effected an enormous

improvement and economy in the manufacture of beer, he has

rescued the sheep and cattle of Europe from the fatal disease

'anthrax,' and it is probable—he would not himself assert

that it is at present more than probable—that he has rendered

hydrophobia a thing of the past. The discoveries made by this

remarkable man would have rendered him, had he patented their

application and disposed of them according to commercial

principles, the richest man in the world. They represent a

gain of some millions sterling annually to the community. …

M. Pasteur's first experiment in relation to hydrophobia was

made in December 1880, when he inoculated two rabbits with the

mucus from the mouth of a child which had died of that

disease. As his inquiries extended he found that it was

necessary to establish by means of experiment even the most

elementary facts with regard to the disease, for the existing

knowledge on the subject was extremely small, and much of what

passed for knowledge was only ill-founded tradition."

E. R. Lankester,

The Advancement of Science,

pages 121-123.

"The development of our knowledge relating to the bacteria,

stimulated by the controversy relating to spontaneous

generation and by the demonstration that various processes of

fermentation and putrefaction are due to microörganisms of

this class, has depended largely upon improvements in methods

of research. Among the most important points in the

development of bacteriological technique we may mention first,

the use of a cotton air filter (Schröder and Von Dusch, 1854);

second, the sterilization of culture fluids by heat (methods

perfected by Pasteur, Koch, and others); third, the use of the

aniline dyes as staining agents (first recommended by Weigert

in 1877); fourth, the introduction of solid culture media and

the 'plate method' for obtaining pure cultures, by Koch in

1881. The various improvements in methods of research, and

especially the introduction of solid culture media and Koch's

'plate method' for isolating bacteria from mixed 'cultures,

have placed bacteriology upon a scientific basis. … It was a

distinguished French physician, Davaine, who first

demonstrated the etiological relation of a microörganism of

this class to a specific infectious disease. The anthrax

bacillus had been seen in the blood of animals dying from this

disease by Pollender in 1849, and by Davaine in 1850, but it

was several years later (1863) before the last-named observer

claimed to have demonstrated by inoculation experiments the

causal relation of the bacillus to the disease in question.

The experiments of Davaine were not generally accepted as

conclusive, because in inoculating an animal with blood

containing the bacillus, from an infected animal which had

succumbed to the disease, the living microörganism was

associated with material from the body of the diseased animal.

This objection was subsequently removed by the experiments of

Pasteur, Koch, and many others, with pure cultures of the

bacillus, which were shown to have the same pathogenic effects

as had been obtained in inoculation experiments with the blood

of an infected animal."

G. M. Sternberg,

Manual of Bacteriology,

page 6.

"In 1876 the eminent microscopist, Professor Cohn, of Breslau,

was in London, and he then handed me a number of his

'Beiträge,' containing a memoir by Dr. Koch on Splenic Fever

(Milzbrand, Charbon, Malignant Pustule), which seemed to me to

mark an epoch in the history of this formidable disease. With

admirable patience, skill, and penetration Koch followed up

the life-history of bacillus anthracis, the contagium of this

fever. At the time here referred to he was a young physician

holding a small appointment in the neighbourhood of Breslau,

and it was easy to predict, and indeed I predicted at the

time, that he would soon find himself in a higher position.

When I next heard of him he was head of the Imperial Sanitary

Institute of Berlin. … Koch was not the discoverer of the

parasite of splenic fever. Davaine and Rayer, in 1850, had

observed the little microscopic rods in the blood of animals

which had died of splenic fever. But they were quite

unconscious of the significance of their observation, and for

thirteen years, as M. Radot informs us, strangely let the

matter drop. In 1863 Davaine's attention was again directed to

the subject by the researches of Pasteur, and he then

pronounced the parasite to be the cause of the fever. He was

opposed by some of his fellow-countrymen; long discussions

followed, and a second period of thirteen years, ending with

the publication of Koch's paper, elapsed before M. Pasteur

took up the question. I always, indeed, assumed that from the

paper of the learned German came the impulse towards a line of

inquiry in which M. Pasteur has achieved such splendid

results."

J. Tyndall,

New Fragments,

pages 190-191.

"On the 24th of March, 1882, an address of very serious public

import was delivered by Dr. Koch before the Physiological

Society of Berlin. … The address … is entitled 'The

Etiology of Tubercular Disease.' Koch first made himself

known, and famous, by the penetration, skill, and thoroughness

of his researches on the contagium of anthrax, or splenic

fever. … Koch's last inquiry deals with a disease which, in

point of mortality, stands at the head of them all. 'If,' he

says, 'the seriousness of a malady be measured by the number

of its victims, then the most dreaded pests which have

hitherto ravaged the world—plague and cholera included—must

stand far behind the one now under consideration.' Then

follows the startling statement that one-seventh of the deaths

of the human race are due to tubercular disease. Prior to Koch

it had been placed beyond doubt that the disease was

communicable; and the aim of the Berlin physician has been to

determine the precise character of the contagium which

previous experiments on inoculation and inhalation had proved

to be capable of indefinite transfer and reproduction. He

subjected the diseased organs of a great number of men and

animals to microscopic examination, and found, in all cases,

the tubercles infested by a minute, rod-shaped parasite, which

by means of a special dye, he differentiated from the

surrounding tissue. 'It was,' he says, 'in the highest degree

impressive to observe in the centre of the tubercle-cell the

minute organism which had created it.' Transferring directly,

by inoculation, the tuberculous matter from diseased animals

to healthy ones, he in every instance reproduced the disease.

To meet the objection that it was not the parasite itself, but

some virus in which it was imbedded in the diseased organ,

that was the real contagium, he cultivated his bacilli

artificially for long periods of time and through many

successive generations.

{2148}

With a speck of matter, for example, from a tuberculous human

lung, he infected a substance prepared, after much trial, by

himself, with the view of affording nutriment to the parasite.

In this medium he permitted it to grow and multiply: From the

new generation he took a minute sample, and infected therewith

fresh nutritive matter, thus producing another brood.

Generation after generation of bacilli were developed in this

way, without the intervention of disease. At the end of the

process, which sometimes embraced successive cultivations

extending over half a year, the purified bacilli were

introduced into the circulation of healthy animals of various

kinds. In every case inoculation was followed by the

reproduction and spread of the parasite, and the generation of

the original disease. … The moral of these experiments is

obvious. In no other conceivable way than that pursued by Koch

could the true character of the most destructive malady by

which humanity is now assailed be determined. And however

noisy the fanaticism of the moment may be, the common-sense of

Englishmen will not, in the long run, permit it to enact

cruelty in the name of tenderness, or to debar us from the

light and leading of such investigations as that which is here

so imperfectly described."

J. Tyndall,

New Fragments,

pages 423-428.

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.

The Theory of Germ Diseases.

"An account of the innumerable questions and investigations in

this department of modern pathogenesis, of the various views

on certain questions, etc., does not fall within the compass

of our brief sketch. Nor are we able to furnish a consistent

theory, simply because such an one does not [1889] exist. One

fact alone is agreed upon, to wit, that certain of the lower

fungi, as parasites within or upon the body, excite diseases

(infectious diseases). As regards the modus operandi of these

parasites two main theories are held. According to one theory,

these parasites, by their development, deprive the body of its

nutriment and endanger life particularly when, thronging in

the blood, they deprive this of the oxygen necessary for

existence. According to the other theory, they threaten life

by occasioning decompositions which engender putrid poisons

(ptomaines). These latter poisons were first isolated by P. L.

Panum in 1856, and have been recently specially studied by

Brieger (Ueber Ptomaine, Berlin, 1885-86). They act

differently upon bodies according to the variety of the

alkaloidal poison. Metschnikoff regards the white

blood-corpuscles as antagonists of these parasites (thus

explaining the cases of recovery from parasitic diseases), and

in this point of view calls them 'phagocytes.' On the other

hand E. Salmon and Theodore Smith ('Transactions of the

Washington Biological Society, February 22d, 1886) were the

first to demonstrate that sterilized nutritive solutions or

germ-free products of change of matter of the virulent

exciters of disease, when injected, afford protection. A.

Chauveau as early as 1880 had brought forward evidence of the

probability of this fact, and Hans Buchner in 1879 admitted

the possibility of depriving bacteria of their virulence.

Pasteur, however, believes he has demonstrated that by

continued cultures (also a sort of bacillary Isopathy)

'debilitated' germs act as prophylactics against the

corresponding parasitic diseases, and he even thinks he has

confirmed this by his inoculations against hydrophobia—a

view, at all events, still open to doubt. … The chief

diseases regarded as of parasitic origin at present are:

anthrax (Davaine, 1850); relapsing fever (Obermeier, 1873);

gonorrhœa and blenorrhœa neonatorum (Neisser, 1879); glanders

(Struck, 1882, Loeffler and Schütz); syphilis (Sigm.

Lustgarten, 1884); diphtheria (Oertel, Letzerich, Klebs);

typhus (Eberle, Klebs); tuberculosis (Koch, 1882); cholera

(Koch, 1884); lepra (Armauer-Hansen); actinomycosis (Bollinger

in cattle, 1877; Israel in man, 1884); septicæmia (Klebs);

erysipelas (Fehleisen); pneumonia (Friedländer); malarial

fever (Klebs, Tommasi-Crudeli, Marchiafava); malignant œdema

(Koch); tetanus (Carle and Rattone, Nicolaier, Roeschlaub

assumed a tetania occasioned by bacilli); cancer (Scheuerlen;

priority contested by Dr. G. Rappia and Prof. Domingo Freire

of Rio Janeiro); yellow fever (microbe claimed to have been

discovered by Freire); dysentery (bacillary diphtheritis of

the large intestine); cholera nostras (Finkler and Prior);

scarlet fever (Coze and Feltz, '72); variola and vaccina

(Keber, Zülzer, Weigert, Klebs); acute yellow atrophy of the

liver (Klebs, Waldeyer, Eppinger); endocarditis (Ziegler);

hæmophilia neonatorum (Klebs, Eppinger); trachoma (Sattler);

keratitis (Leber—aspergillus); ulcus rodens corneæ (Sattler);

gonorrhœal rheumatism (Petrone, Kammerer). If the bacterial

theory of infection, constantly threatening life by such

numerous pathogenic varieties of infecting organisms, must be

looked upon as a gloomy one, the anti-bacterial Phagocyte

Theory of Metschnikoff, professor of zoology in Odessa, is

adapted to make one feel more comfortable, inasmuch as it

brings into view the possibility of an antagonism to these

infecting organisms, and explains the method of nature's

cures. Metschnikoff observed that the wandering cells—the

white blood corpuscles—after the manner of amœbæ, surround,

hold fast, digest ('devour,' hence 'phagocytes'), and thus

render harmless the bacteria which have entered the body. …

The prophylactic effects of inoculation are explained on the

theory that by means of this operation the wandering cells are

prepared, as it were, for subsequent accidental irruptions of

similar pathogenic bacteria, are habituated or compelled

thereby to at once devour such organisms when they enter the

body spontaneously, and thus to render them harmless.

Inoculation would thus be a sort of training or education of

the phagocytes. The immunity of many persons from infectious

diseases, so far as it is not effected by inoculations, would

by analogy be explained on the theory that with such

individuals the phagocytes are from the outset so constituted

that they at once render harmless any stray bacteria which

come within their domain by immediately devouring them. …

When … in spite of the phagocytes, the patients die of

infectious diseases, the fact is to be explained by the

excessive number of the bacteria present, which is so great

that the phagocytes are unequal to the task of 'devouring'

them all."

J. H. Baas,

Outlines of the History of Medicine,

pages 1007-1009.

{2149}

MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th Century.

Sanitary Science and Legislation.

"Together with the growth of our knowledge of the causes of

disease there has been … slowly growing up also a new kind

of warfare against disease. It is this science of hygiene

which is now promising to transform all the old traditional

ways of dealing with disease, and which now makes possible the

organisation of the conditions of health. And this science of

hygiene, it must be repeated, rests on the exact knowledge of

the causes of disease which we are now obtaining. … At the

beginning of the eighteenth century Mead, a famous physician

of that day, whose reputation still lives, had proposed the

formation of a central board of health to organise common

measures for the public safety. It was not, however, until

more than a hundred years later, in 1831, under the influence

of the terror of cholera, that this first step was taken; so

that, as it has been well said and often since proved, 'panic

is the parent of sanitation.' In 1842 Sir Edwin Chadwick

issued his report on 'The Sanitary Condition of the Labouring

Population of Great Britain.' This report produced marked

effect, and may truly be said to have inaugurated the new era

of collective action, embodying itself in legislation directed

to the preservation of national health, an era which is thus

just half a century old. Chadwick's report led to a Royal

Commission, which was the first step in the elevation of

public health to a State interest; and a few years later

(1847) Liverpool, and immediately afterwards London, appointed

the first medical officers of health in Great Britain. In 1848

another epidemic of cholera appeared, and a General Board of

Health was established. During this epidemic Dr. Snow began

those inquiries which led to the discovery that the spread of

the disease was due to the contamination of drinking-water by

the intestinal discharges of patients. That discovery marked

the first great stage in the new movement. Henceforth the

objects to be striven for in the evolution of sanitation

became ever more clear and precise, and a succession of

notable discoveries in connection with various epidemics

enlarged the sphere of sanitation, and revealed new

possibilities in the prevention of human misery."

H. Ellis,

The Nationalisation of Health,

pages 21-24.

"Of all countries of the civilized world, none has a sanitary

code so complete and so precise as England. In addition,

English legislation is distinguished from that of other

countries, by the fact that the principal regulations emanate

from Parliament instead of being simple administrative orders.

Thus the legislation is the work of the nation, which has

recognised its necessity in its own interest. Consequently the

laws are respected, and, as a rule, religiously observed,

without objection or murmur. In the whole country, the

marvellous results which have been produced can be seen.

Thanks to these laws, the rate of mortality has been lowered,

the mean duration of life increased, the amount of sickness

decreased. They have greatly alleviated the misery in the

houses of the poor, who, thanks to sanitary measures, have a

better prospect of recovering their health and the means of

providing for their subsistence and that of their families.

… The sanitary administration of England is, in accordance

with the Public Health Act of 1875, in the hands of a central

authority, the Local Government Board; and local authorities,

the Local Boards of Health. The Local Government Board

consists of a president, nominated by the Queen, and the

following ex-officio members:—the Lord President of the Privy

Council, all the principal Secretaries of State for the time

being, the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a

Parliamentary Secretary, and a permanent Secretary. The

President and Secretaries are, properly speaking, the

directors of the Local Government Board, the other members

being only consulted on matters of prime importance. Nine

special departments are controlled by the Local Government

Board:

1. Poor-law administration.

2. Legal questions.

3. Sanitary regulations respecting buildings.

4. Sanitary regulations respecting sewers, streets, etc.

5. Medical and hygienic matters.

6. Vaccination.

7. The Hygiene of factories.

8. The water supply of London.

9. Statistics.

Medical and sanitary matters are under the direction of a

Medical Officer, and an Assistant Medical Officer."

A. Palmberg,

Treatise on Public Health: England,

chapter 1.

"The United States have no uniform legislation for the

organization of public hygiene to the present day. Each State

organizes this service as it chooses. … That which

characterizes the sanitary organization of the States is the

fact that, in a large number of States, the right is granted

to the sanitary administrations to carry before the justices

the infractions of the regulations on this subject. It is a

similar organization to that of Great Britain, with a little

less independence, and it is the logical result of the general

system of administration which exists in the American Union.

… Without doubt the day will come when the National Board of

Health will be by act of Congress, with the consent of all the

States, the real superior council of public hygiene of the

American Union."

E. Sève,

On the General Organization of Public Hygiene

(Proceedings, International Sanitary Conference, 1881).

"The General Government [of the United States] can do little

in the way of compulsory legislation, which might interfere

with the action of the several States to control their own

sanitary affairs. It is possible that upon the ground of power

to legislate with regard to commerce, it might establish some

general system of quarantine and do something toward the

prevention of the pollution of navigable streams; but it could

probably only do this with such restrictions and exceptions as

would make its action of little practical value, unless,

indeed, it should resort to its right of eminent domain, and

become liable for all damages, individual or municipal, which

its action might cause. … No one would deny that the General

Government can properly create an organization for the purpose

of collecting and diffusing information on sanitary matters;

but comparatively few understand how much real power and

influence such an organization might acquire without having

the slightest legal authority to enforce any of its

recommendations. The passing of sanitary laws, and the

granting to a certain department the power to enforce these

laws, will not ensure good public health unless the public at

large supports those laws intelligently, and it can only do

this through State and municipal sanitary organizations. The

General Government might do much to promote the formation of

such organizations, and to assist them in various ways. … By

the 'act to prevent the introduction of infectious or

contagious diseases into the United States, and to establish a

national board of health,' approved March 3, 1879, the first

step has been taken in the direction above indicated.

{2150}

The act provides for a national board of health, to consist of

seven members, appointed by the President, and of four

officers detailed from the Medical Department of the Army,

Medical Department of the Navy, and the Marine Hospital

Service, and the Department of Justice respectively. No

definite term of Office is prescribed, the Board being

essentially provisional in character. The duties of the board

are 'to obtain information upon all matters affecting the

public health, to advise the several departments of the

government, the executives of the several States, and the

Commissioners of the District of Columbia, on all questions

submitted by them, or whenever in the opinion of the board

such advice may tend to the preservation and improvement of

the public health.' The board is also directed to prepare a

plan for a national public health organization in conjunction

with the National Academy of Sciences."

J. S. Billings,

Introduction to "A Treatise on Hygiene and Public Health,"

edited by A. IL Buck.

ALSO IN:

Sir J. Simon,

English Sanitary Institutions

Sir J. Simon,

Public Health: Reports of the Medical Officer

of the Privy Council and Local Government Board.

United States National Board of Health, Annual Reports.

Massachusetts Board of Health, Annual Reports.

----------MEDICAL SCIENCE: End----------

MEDICI, The.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427, and after.

----------MEDINA: Start--------

MEDINA: the City of the Prophet.

By Mahomet's Hegira or flight from Mecca to Yethrib, A. D.

622, the latter city became the seat of Islam and was

henceforward known as Medina—Medinet-en-Neby—"the City of

the Prophet."

S. Lane-Poole,

Studies in a Mosque,

chapter 2.

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

MEDINA: A. D. 661.

The Caliphate transferred.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.

MEDINA: A. D. 683.

Stormed and sacked.

In the civil war which followed the accession of Yezid, the

second of the Omeyyad caliphs, Medina was besieged and stormed

by Yezid's army and given up for three days to every

imaginable brutality on the part of the soldiery. The

inhabitants who survived were made slaves.

Sir W. Muir,

Annals of the Early Caliphate,

chapter 50.

ALSO IN:

W. Irving,

Mahomet and his Successors,

volume 2, chapter 47.

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

----------MEDINA: End----------

MEDINA DEL RIO SECO, Battle of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

MEDIOLANUM.

Modern Milan. Taken by the Romans in 222 B. C. from the

Insubrian Gauls.

See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

MEDIOMATRICI.

The original form of the name of the city of Metz, which had

been called Divodurum by the Gauls at an earlier day.

MEDISM.

MEDIZED GREEKS.

During the wars of the Persians against the Greeks, the former

had many friends and allies, both secret and open, among the

latter. These were commonly called Medized Greeks, and their

treason went by the name of Medism.

MEDITERRANEAN FUND.

A special fund provided by the United States Congress, in

1803, for the War with Tripoli.

H. Adams,

History of the United States,

volume 2, chapter 7.

MEDITERRANEAN SEA:

When named.

"For this sea … the Greeks had no distinctive name, because

it had so long been practically the only one known to them;

and Strabo can only distinguish it as 'the Inner' or 'Our'

Sea. … The now familiar appellation of Mediterranean is in

like manner first used by Solinus [third century], only as a

convenient designation, not as a strictly geographical term.

… The first extant author who employs it distinctly as a

proper name is Isidorus, who wrote in the seventh century."

E: H. Bunbury,

History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 21, section 1,

chapter 23, section 2, foot-note,

chapter 31 (volume 2).

MEERUT, The Sepoy mutiny at.

See INDIA: A. D. 1857 (MAY).

MEGALESIA, The.

See LUDI.

----------MEGALOPOLIS: Start--------

MEGALOPOLIS: B. C. 371.

The founding of the city.

See GREECE: B. C. 371.

MEGALOPOLIS: B. C. 317.

Defense against Polysperchon.

See GREECE: B. C. 321-312.

MEGALOPOLIS: B. C. 222.

Destruction and restoration.

The last exploit of Cleomenes of Sparta, in his struggle with

the Achæan League and its ally, the king of Macedonia, before

the fatal field of Sellasia, was the capture of Megalopolis,

B. C. 222. Most of the citizens escaped. He offered to restore

their town to them, if they would forsake the League. They

refused, and he destroyed it, so utterly that its restoration

was believed to be impossible. But in the following year the

inhabitants were brought back and Megalopolis existed again,

though never with its former importance.

Polybius,

Histories,

book 2, chapter 55 and after (volume 1).

MEGALOPOLIS: B. C. 194-183.

In the Achaian League.

"The city of Megalopolis held at this time [B. C. 194-183] the

same sort of position in the Achaian League which the State of

Virginia held in the first days of the American Union. Without

any sort of legal preëminence, without at all assuming the

character of a capital, Megalopolis was clearly the first city

of the League, the city which gave the nation the largest

proportion of its leading statesmen. Megalopolis, like

Virginia, was 'the Mother of Presidents,' and that too of

Presidents of different political parties. As Virginia

produced both Washington and Jefferson, so Megalopolis, if she

produced Philopoimen and Lykortas, produced also Aristainos

and Diophanes."

E. A. Freeman,

History of Federal Government,

chapter 9, section 2.

----------MEGALOPOLIS: End--------

----------MEGARA: Start--------

MEGARA.

Megara, the ancient Greek city and state whose territory lay

between Attica and Corinth, forming part of the Corinthian

isthmus, "is affirmed to have been originally settled by the

Dorians of Corinth, and to have remained for some time a

dependency of that city. It is farther said to have been at

first merely one of five separate villages—Megara, Heræa,

Peiræa, Kynosura, Tripodiskus—inhabited by a kindred

population, and generally on friendly terms, yet sometimes

distracted by quarrels. …

See CORINTH: B. C. 745-725.

Whatever may be the truth respecting this alleged early

subjection of Megara, we know it in the historical age, and

that too as early as the 14th Olympiad, only as an independent

Dorian city, maintaining the integrity of its territory under its

leader Orsippus, the famous Olympic runner, against some

powerful enemies, probably the Corinthians. It was of no mean

consideration, possessing a territory which extended across

Mount Geraneia to the Corinthian Gulf, on which the fortified

town and port of Pêgæ, belonging to the Megarians, was

situated. It was mother of early and distant colonies,—and

competent, during the time of Solon, to carry on a protracted

contest with the Athenians, for the possession of Salamis;

wherein, although the latter were at last victorious, it was

not without an intermediate period of ill-success and

despair."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 9.

See, also, GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.

{2151}

MEGARA: B. C. 610-600.

Struggle with Athens for Salamis.

Spartan arbitration favorable to the Athenians.

See ATHENS: B. C. 610-586.

MEGARA: B. C. 458-456.

Alliance with Athens in war with Corinth and Ægina.

See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

MEGARA: B. C. 446-445.

Rising against Athens.

See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

MEGARA: B. C. 431-424.

Athenian invasions and ravages.

See ATHENS: B. C. 431.

MEGARA: B. C. 339-338.

Resistance to Philip of Macedon.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

----------MEGARA: End--------

MEGARA OF CARTHAGE, The.

See CARTHAGE: DIVISIONS.

MEGIDDO.

The valley of Megiddo, forming the western part of the great

Plain of Esdraelon, in northern Palestine—stretching from the

valley of the Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, along the

course of the river Kishon—was the field of many important

battles in ancient times. Thothmes III. of the eighteenth

Egyptian dynasty, whose reign is placed about 1600 B. C., met

there, near the city of Megiddo, and defeated a confederacy of

Syrian and Canaanite princes who attempted to throw off his

yoke. A remarkable account of his victory and of the spoils he

took is preserved in inscriptions on the walls of the temple

at Karnak.

H. Brugsch,

History of Egypt,

chapter 13 (volume 1).

It was at Megiddo, also, that Sisera, commanding the forces of

the Canaanites, was beaten and driven to flight by the

Israelites under Barak. Gideon's' assault on the Midianites

was from the slope of Mount Gilboa, which rises out of the

same valley. The latter battle has been called by historians

the Battle of Jezreel, and Jezreel is one of the forms of the

name of the valley of Esdraelon. It was there that the

Philistines were arrayed when Saul fought his last battle with

them, and on the slopes of Gilboa he fell on his sword and

died. On the same historic plain, near the city of Megiddo,

Josiah, king of Judah, fought against Necho, the Pharaoh of

Egypt, B. C. 609, and was defeated and mortally wounded. The

plain of Megiddo was so often, in fact, the meeting place of

ancient armies that it seems to have come to be looked upon as

the typical battle-ground, and apparently the name Armageddon

in Revelations is an allusion to it in that sense. The ancient

city of Megiddo has been identified in site with the present

town of Ledjûn, which is the Legio of the Romans—the station

of a Roman legion.

MEGISTANES, The.

"The king [of the Parthian monarchy] was permanently advised

by two councils, consisting of persons not of his own

nomination, whom rights, conferred by birth or office,

entitled to their seats. One of these was a family conclave,

… or assembly of the full-grown males of the Royal House;

the other was a senate comprising both the spiritual and the

temporal chiefs of the nation, the Sophi, or 'Wise Men,' and

the Magi, or 'Priests.' Together these two bodies constituted

the Megistanes, the 'Nobles' or 'Great Men'—the privileged

class which to a considerable extent checked and controlled

the monarch. The monarchy was elective; but only in the house

of the Arsacidæ."

G. Rawlinson,

Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 6.

MEHDI, AL.

See MAHDI, AL.

MEHEMET ALI AND THE INDEPENDENT PASHALIK OF EGYPT.

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840;

and EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.

MEHERRINS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH

MEIGS, Fort, Sieges of.

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

HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

MELBOURNE MINISTRIES, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1834-1837; and 1841-1842.

MELCHITES.

A name applied in the religious controversies of the 6th

century, by the heretical Jacobites, to the adherents of the

orthodox church. It signified that they were imperialists, or

royalists, taking their doctrines from the sovereign power.

H. F. Tozer,

The Church and the Eastern Empire,

chapter 5.

MELDÆ, The.

A tribe in ancient Gaul which was established in the north of

the modern French department of the Seine-et-Marne and in a

small part of the department of the Oise.

Napoleon III.,

History of Cæsar,

book 3, chapter 2, footnote (volume 2).

MELIAN FAMINE.

See GREECE: B. C. 416.

MELIGNANO,

MARIGNANO, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1515.

MELISCEET INDIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

MELORIA, Battles of (1241 and 1284).

See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

MELOS: Siege, conquest and massacre by the Athenians:

See GREECE: B. C. 416.

MELUN, Siege of.

One of the important sieges in the second campaign of the

English king Henry V. in France, A. D. 1420.

Monstrelet,

Chronicles,

book 1, chapters 226-230 (volume 1).

MEMLUKS.

See MAMELUKES.

----------MEMPHIS, Egypt: Start--------

MEMPHIS, Egypt.

The foundation of Memphis is the first event in Egyptian

history, the one large historical incident in the reign of the

first king, who emerges a real man from the shadow land which

the Egyptians called the reign of the gods. … Menes, the

founder of Memphis and Egyptian history, came from the south.

Civilisation descended the Nile. His native place was Thinis,

or This, in Upper Egypt, a still older town, where his shadowy

predecessors ruled. … A great engineering work was the first

act of the builder. He chose his site … but the stream was

on the wrong side, flowing below the Libyan chain, flowing

over where the city should be, offering no water-bulwark

against the invader from the eastern border. So he raised, a

few miles to the south, a mighty dyke, and turned the river

into the present course, founding the city on the west bank,

with the desert behind and the Nile before. … The new city

received a name which reflects the satisfaction of the ancient

founder: he called it Mennufre, 'the Good' or 'Perfect

Mansion.' This was the civil name. … The civil name is

the parent of the Greek Memphis and the Hebrew Moph, also

found in the form Noph."

R. S. Poole,

Cities of Egypt,

chapter 2.

See, also,

EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE.

{2152}

MEMPHIS: A. D. 640-641.

Surrender to the Moslems.

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

----------MEMPHIS, Egypt: End--------

----------MEMPHIS, Tennessee: Start--------

MEMPHIS, Tennessee: A. D. 1739-1740.

A French fort on the site.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.

MEMPHIS, Tennessee: A. D. 1862.

Naval fight in the river.

Surrender of the city to the Union forces.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JUNE: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

----------MEMPHIS, Tennessee: End--------

MENAPII, The.

See BELGÆ;

also, IRELAND: TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

MENDICANT ORDERS.

Franciscans.

Dominicans.

"This period [12-13th centuries], so prolific in institutions

of every sort, also gave birth to the Mendicant orders, a

species of spiritual chivalry still more generous and heroic

than that which we have just treated [the military-religious

orders], and unique in history. … Many causes combined to

call them into existence. In proportion as the Church grew

wealthy her discipline relaxed, and dangers menaced her on

every side. … The problem thus presented to the Church was

taken up at the opening of the 13th century, and thrown into

practical shape by two men equally eminent in intellectual

endowments and spiritual gifts. While each solved it in his

own way, they were both attached to each other by the closest

friendship. Dominic, a member of the powerful house of Guzman,

was born in the year 1170, at Callaruega (Calahorra, in Old

Castile), a village in the diocese of Osma. While pursuing his

studies in the university of Valencia, he was distinguished by

a spirit of charity and self-sacrifice. … Diego, Bishop of

Osma, … a man of severe character, and ardently devoted to

the good of the Church, found in Dominic one after his own

heart. He took the young priest with him on a mission which he

made to the south of France." Dominic was finally left in

charge of the mission. "His peaceful disposition, his spirit

of prayer, his charity, forbearance, and patient temper formed

a consoling contrast to the bloody crusade which had recently

been set on foot against the Albigenses. After spending ten

years in this toilsome and thankless mission, labouring only

for love of God and the profit of souls, he set out for Rome,

in 1215, with his plans fully matured, and submitted to Pope

Innocent III. the project of giving to the Church a new method

of defence, in an order which should combine the contemplative

life of the monk with the active career of a secular priest.

… Innocent gave his sanction to Dominic's project, provided

he would manage to bring it under some of the existing Rules.

Dominic accordingly selected the Rule of St. Augustine,

introducing a few changes, with a view to greater severity,

taken from the Rule of the Premonstratensians. That the

members of the new order might be free to devote themselves

entirely to their spiritual labours, they were forbidden to

accept any property requiring their active administration, but

were permitted to receive the incomes of such as was

administered by others. Property, therefore, might be held by

the Order as a body, but not administered by its members. Pope

Honorius III. confirmed the action of his illustrious

predecessor, and approved the Order in the following year,

giving it, from its object, the name of the 'Order of Friars

Preachers' ('Ordo Prædicatorum, Fratres Prædicatores'). …

Dominic founded, in the year 1206, an Order of Dominican nuns.

… The dress of the Dominicans is a white garment and

scapular, resembling in form that of the Augustinians, with a

black cloak and a pointed cap. Francis of Assisi, the son of a

wealthy merchant named Bernardini, was born in the year 1182,

in Assisi, in Umbria. His baptismal name was John, but from

his habit of reading the romances of the Troubadours in his

youth, he gradually acquired the name of Il Francesco, or the

Little Frenchman. … When about twenty-four years of age, he

fell dangerously ill, and, while suffering from this attack,

gave himself up to a train of religious thought which led him

to consider the emptiness and uselessness of his past life.

… He … conceived the idea of founding a society whose

members should go about through the whole world, after the

manner of the apostles, preaching and exhorting to penance.

… His zeal gradually excited emulation, and prompted others

to aspire after the same perfection. His first associates were

his townsmen, Bernard Quintavalle and Peter Cattano, and

others soon followed. Their habit consisted of a long brown

tunic of coarse woolen cloth, surmounted by a hood of the same

material, and confined about the waist with a hempen cord.

This simple but ennobling dress was selected because it was

that of the poor peasants of the surrounding country. … He

sent his companions, two-and-two, in all directions, saying to

them in taking leave: 'Go; always travel two-and-two. Pray

until the third hour; then only may you speak. Let your speech

be simple and humble.' … With St. Francis, absolute poverty

was not only a practice, it was the essential principle on

which he based his Order. Not only were the individual members

forbidden to have any personal property whatever, but neither

could they hold any as an Order, and were entirely dependent

for their support upon alms. … Hence the chief difference

between mendicant and other monastic orders consists in this,

that, in the former, begging takes the place of the ordinary

vow of personal poverty. … In 1223, Pope Honorius III.

approved the Order of Franciscans (Fratres Minores), to which

… Innocent III. had given a verbal sanction in 1210."

J. Alzog,

Manual of Universal Church History,

section 247 (volume 2).

"They were" called 'Friars' because, out of humility, their

founders would not have them called 'Father' and 'Dominus,'

like the monks, but simply 'Brother' ('Frater,' 'Frère,'

Friar). … Dominic gave to his order the name of Preaching

Friars; more commonly they were styled Dominicans, or, from

the colour of their habits, Black Friars. … The Franciscans

were styled by their founder 'Fratri Minori'—lesser brothers,

Friars Minors; they were more usually called Grey Friars, from

the colour of their habits, or Cordeliers, from the knotted

cord which formed their characteristic girdle."

E. L. Cutts,

Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,

chapter 5.

{2153}

"People talk of 'Monks and Friars' as if these were

convertible terms. The truth is that the difference between

the Monks and the Friars was almost one of kind. The Monk was

supposed never to leave his cloister. The Friar in St.

Francis' first intention had no cloister to leave."

A. Jessopp,

The Coming of the Friars, 1.

ALSO IN:

Mrs. Oliphant,

Life of St. Francis of Assisi.

H. L. Lacordaire,

Life of St. Dominic.

R. Pauli,

Pictures of Old England,

chapter 2.

E. F. Henderson,

Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,

book 3, number 8.

P. Sabatier,

Life of St. Francis of Assisi.

MENENDEZ'S MASSACRE OF FLORIDA HUGUENOTS.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1565.

MENHIR.

Meaning literally "long-stone." The name is usually given to

single, upright stones, sometimes very large, which are found

in the British islands, France and elsewhere, and which are

supposed to be the rude sepulchral monuments of some of the

earlier races, Celtic and pre-Celtic.

Sir J. Lubbock,

Prehistoric Times,

chapter 5.

MENOMINEES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

MENTANA, Battle of (1867).

See ITALY: A. D. 1867-1870.

----------MENTZ: Start--------

MENTZ: Origin.

See MOGONTIACUM.

MENTZ: A. D. 406.

Destruction by the Germans.

See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.

MENTZ: 12th Century.

Origin of the electorate.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

MENTZ: A. D. 1455-1456.

Appearance of the first printed book.

See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.

MENTZ: A. D. 1631.

Occupied by Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

MENTZ: A. D. 1792.

Occupation by the French Revolutionary army.

Incorporation with the French Republic.

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

MENTZ: A. D. 1793.

Recovery by the Germans.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

MENTZ: A. D. 1801-1803.

Extinction of the electorate.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

----------MENTZ: End--------

MENTZ, Treaty of (1621).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

MENZEL PAPERS, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756, and 1756.

MERCED, The order of La.

"Jayme [king of Aragon, called El Conquistador], when a

captive in the hands of Simon de Montfort [see SPAIN: A. D.

1212-1238], had—mere baby as he was—made a vow that, when he

should be a man and a king, he would endeavour to do something

for the redemption of captives. So, before he was a man in

age, he instituted another religious order of knighthood,

called La Merced, which added to their other duties that of

collecting alms and using them for the ransoming of captives

to the Moors."

C. M. Yonge,

The Story of the Christians and Moors of Spain,

page 184.

MERCENARIES, Revolt of the.

See CARTHAGE: B. C. 241-238.

MERCHANT ADVENTURERS.

"The original Company of the Merchant Adventurers carried on

trade chiefly with the Netherlands. Their principal mart was

at first Bruges, whence it was removed to Antwerp early in the

fifteenth century. In distinction from the staplers, who dealt

in certain raw materials, the Merchant Adventurers had the

monopoly of exporting certain manufactured articles,

especially cloths. Though of national importance, they

constituted a strictly private company, and not, like the

staplers, an administrative organ of the British government.

The former were all subjects of the English crown; the

staplers were made up of aliens as well as Englishmen. In the

sixteenth and seventeenth centuries frequent dissensions broke

out between these two bodies regarding the exportation of

cloth. To carry on foreign trade freely in wool as well as in

cloth, a merchant had to join both companies. Much obscurity

hangs over the early history of the Merchant Adventurers. They

claimed' that John, Duke of Brabant, founded their society in

1216 or 1248, and that it originally bore the name of the

Brotherhood of St. Thomas à Becket. But it could scarcely have

existed in its later form before the reign of Edward III.,

when the cloth industry began to flourish in England. The

earliest charter granted to it as an organized association

dates from the year 1407. Their powers were greatly increased

by Henry VII. The soul of this society, and perhaps its

original nucleus, was the Mercers' Company of London. …

Though the most influential Merchant Adventurers resided in

London, there were many in other English towns. … The

contrast between the old Gild Merchant and the Company of

Merchant Adventurers is striking. The one had to do wholly

with foreign trade, and its members were forbidden to exercise

a manual occupation or even to be retail shopkeepers; the

other consisted mainly of small shopkeepers and artisans. The

line of demarkation between merchants and manual craftsmen was

sharply drawn by the second half of the sixteenth century, the

term 'merchant' having already acquired its modern

signification as a dealer on an extensive scale. Besides the

Company of Merchant Adventurers trading to the Low

Countries—which during the eighteenth century was called the

Hamburg Company—various new Companies of Merchant Adventurers

trading to other lands arose in the sixteenth and seventeenth

centuries, especially during the reigns of Elizabeth and her

immediate successors. Among them were the Russian or Muscovy

Company, the Turkey or Levant Company, the Guinea Company, the

Morocco Company, the Eastland Company, the Spanish Company,

and the East India Company, the last-mentioned being the most

powerful of them all."

C. Gross,

The Gild Merchant,

pages 148-156.

MERCHANT GUILD.

See GUILDS, MEDIÆVAL.

MERCHANT TAYLORS' SCHOOL.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES—ENGLAND.

MERCIA, The Kingdom of.

A kingdom formed at the close of the 6th century by the West

Angles, on the Welsh border, or March. The people who formed

it had acquired the name of Men of the March, from which they

came to be called Mercians, and their kingdom Mercia. In the

next century, under King Penda, its territory and its power

were greatly extended, at the expense of Northumbria.

J. R. Green,

The Making of England.

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

{2154}

MERCY FOR THE REDEMPTION OF CHRISTIAN CAPTIVES, The Order of.

"For the institution of this godlike order, the Christian

world was indebted to Pope Innocent III., at the close of the

12th century. … The exertions of the order were soon crowned

with success. One third of its revenues was appropriated to

the objects of its foundation, and thousands groaning in

slavery were restored to their country. … The order … met

with so much encouragement that, in the time of Alberic, the

monk (who wrote about forty years after its institution), the

number of monastic houses amounted to 600, most of which were

situated in France, Lombardy and Spain."

S. A. Dunham,

History of Spain and Portugal,

book 3, section 3, chapter 4 (volume 4).

MERGENTHEIM, Battle of (1645).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

----------MERIDA: Start--------

MERIDA, Origin of.

See EMERITA AUGUSTA.

MERIDA: A. D. 712.

Siege and capture by the Arab-Moors.

See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

----------MERIDA: End--------

MERIDIAN, Mississippi,

Sherman's Raid to.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

MERMNADÆ, The.

The third dynasty of the kings of Lydia, beginning

with Gyges and ending with Crœsus.

M. Duncker,

History of Antiquity,

book 4, chapter 17 (volume 3).

MEROË, The Kingdom of.

See ETHIOPIA.

MEROM, Battle of.

The final great victory won by Joshua in the conquest of

Canaan, over the Canaanite and Amorite kings, under Jabin,

king of Hazor, who seems to have been a kind of over-king or

chieftain among them.

Dean Stanley,

Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,

lecture 12 (volume 1).

MEROVINGIANS, The.

See FRANKS: A. D. 448-456; and 511-752.

MERRIMAC AND MONITOR, Battle of the.

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

MERRYMOUNT.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1622-1628.

MERTÆ, The.

See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

MERTON, Statutes of.

A body of laws enacted at a Great Council held at Merton, in

England, under Henry III., A. D. 1236, which marks an

important advance made in the development of constitutional

legislation.

G. W. Prothero,

Simon de Montfort.

MERU.

See MERV.

----------MERV: Start--------

MERV, OR MERU: A. D. 1221.

Destruction by Jingis Khan.

In the merciless march through Central Asia of the awful

Mongol horde set in motion by Jingis Khan, the great city of

Meru (modern Merv) was reached in the autumn of A. D. 1220.

This was "Meru Shahjan, i. e., Meru the king of the world, one

of the four chief cities of Khorassan, and one of the oldest

cities of the world. It had been the capital of the great

Seljuk Sultans Melikshah and Sanjar, and was very rich and

populous. It was situated on the banks of the Meri el rond,

also called the Murjab. … The siege commenced on the 25th of

February, 1221. The governor of the town … sent a venerable

imam as an envoy to the Mongol camp. He returned with such

fair promises that the governor himself repaired to the camp,

and was loaded with presents; he was asked to send for his

chief relations and friends; when these were fairly in his

power, Tulni [one of the sons of Jingis Khan] ordered them

all, including the governor, to be killed. The Mongols then

entered the town, the inhabitants were ordered to evacuate it

with their treasures; the mournful procession, we are told,

took four days to defile out. … A general and frightful

massacre ensued; only 400 artisans and a certain number of

young people were reserved as slaves. The author of the

'Jhankushai' says that the Seyid Yzz-ud-din, a man renowned

for his virtues and piety, assisted by many people, were

thirteen days in counting the corpses, which numbered

1,300,000. Ibn al Ethir says that 700,000 corpses were

counted. The town was sacked, the mausolemn of the Sultan

Sanjar was rifled and then burnt, and the walls and citadel of

Meru levelled with the ground."

H. H. Howorth,

History of the Mongols,

volume 1, page 87.

See, also, KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.

MERV, OR MERU: A. D. 1884.

Russian occupation.

See RUSSIA. A. D. 1869-1881.

----------MERV: End--------

MERWAN I., Caliph, A. D. 683-684.

Merwan II., Caliph, 744-750.

MERWING.

One of the forms given to the name of the royal family of the

Franks, established in power by Clovis, and more commonly

known as the Merovingian Family.

MÉRY, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

MESCHIANZA,

MISCHIANZA, The.

See PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1777-1778.

MESOPOTAMIA.

"Between the outer limits of the Syro-Arabian desert and the

foot of the great mountain-range of Kurdistan and Luristan

intervenes a territory long famous in the world's history, and

the chief site of three out of the five empires of whose

history, geography, and antiquities it is proposed to treat in

the present volumes. Known to the Jews as Aram-Naharaim, or

'Syria of the two rivers'; to the Greeks and Romans as

Mesopotamia, or 'the between-river country'; to the Arabs as

Al-Jezireh, or, 'the island,' this district has always taken

its name from the streams [the Tigris and Euphrates] which

constitute its most striking feature."

G. Rawlinson,

Five Great Monarchies: Chaldœa,

chapter 1.

MESSALINA, The infamies of.

See ROME: A. D. 47-54.

MESSANA.

See MESSENE.

MESSAPIANS, The.

See ŒNOTRIANS.

----------MESSENE: Start--------

MESSENE, in Peloponnesus: B. C. 369.

The founding of the city.

Restoration of the enslaved Messenians.

See MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD;

also, GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

MESSENE: B. C. 338.

Territories restored by Philip of Macedon.

See GREECE; B. C. 357-336.

MESSENE: B. C. 184.

Revolt from the Achæan League.

A faction in Messene which was hostile to the Achæan League

having gained the ascendancy, B. C. 184, declared its

secession from the League. Philopœmen, the chief of the

League, proceeded at once with a small force to reduce the

Messenians to obedience, but was taken prisoner and was foully

executed by his enemies. Bishop Thirlwall pronounced him "the

last great man whom Greece produced." The death of Philopœmen

was speedily avenged on those who caused it and Messene was

recovered to the League.

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 65.

ALSO IN:

Plutarch,

Philopœmen.

{2155}

MESSENE (MODERN MESSINA), in Sicily.

The founding of the city.

"Zancle was originally colonised by pirates who came from Cyme

the Chalcidian city in Opicia. … Zancle was the original

name of the place, a name given by the Sicels because the site

was in shape like a sickle, for which the Sicel word is

Zanclon. These earlier settlers were afterwards driven out by

the Samians and other Ionians, who when they fled from the

Persians found their way to Sicily. Not long afterwards

Anaxilas, the tyrant of Rhegium, drove out these Samians. He

then repeopled their city with a mixed multitude, and called

the place Messene, after his native country."

Thucydides,

History,

translated by Jowett,

book 6, section 4.

MESSENE: B. C. 396.

Destruction by the Carthaginians.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.

MESSENE: B. C. 264.

The Mamertines.

See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

MESSINA: A. D. 1849.

Bombardment and capture by King Ferdinand.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

----------MESSENIAN WARS: Start--------

MESSENIAN WARS, The First and Second.

The Spartans were engaged in two successive wars with their

neighbors of Messenia, whose territory, adjoining their own in

the southwestern extremity of Peloponnesus, was rich,

prosperous and covetable. "It was unavoidable that the

Spartans should look down with envy from their bare rocky

ridges into the prosperous land of their neighbours and the

terraces close by, descending to the river, with their

well-cultivated plantations of oil and wine. Besides, the

Dorians who had immigrated into Messenia had, under the

influence of the native population and of a life of

comfortable ease, lost their primitive character. Messenia

seemed like a piece of Arcadia, with which it was most

intimately connected. … Hence this was no war of Dorians

against Dorians; it rather seemed to be Sparta's mission to

make good the failure of the Dorization of Messenia which had

sunk back into Pelasgic conditions of life, and to unite with

herself the remains of the Dorian people still surviving

there. In short, a variety of motives contributed to provoke a

forcible extension of Spartan military power on this

particular side."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

The First Messenian War was commenced B. C. 745 and lasted

twenty years, ending in the complete subjugation of the

Messenians, who were reduced to a state of servitude like that

of the Helots of Sparta. After enduring the oppression for

thirty-nine years, the Messenians rose in revolt against their

Spartan masters, B. C. 685. The leader and great hero of this

Second Messenian War was Aristomenes, whose renown became so

great in the despairing struggle that the latter was called

among the ancients the Aristomnean War. But all the valor and

self-sacrifice of the unhappy Messenians availed nothing. They

gave up the contest, B. C. 668; large numbers of them escaped

to other lands and those who remained were reduced to a more

wretched condition than before.

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 9.

See, also, SPARTA: B. C. 743-510.

MESSENIAN WARS: The Third.

"The whole of Laconia [E. C. 464] was shaken by an earthquake,

which opened great chasms in the ground, and rolled down huge

masses from the highest peaks of Taygetus: Sparta itself

became a heap of ruins, in which not more than five houses are

said to have been left standing. More than 20,000 persons were

believed to have been destroyed by the shock, and the flower

of the Spartan youth was overwhelmed by the fall of the

buildings in which they were exercising themselves at the

time."

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 17.

The Helots of Sparta, especially those who were descended from

the enslaved Messenians, took advantage of the confusion

produced by the earthquake, to rise in revolt. Having secured

possession of Ithome, they fortified themselves in the town

and withstood there a siege of ten years,—sometimes called

the Third Messenian War. The Spartans invited the Athenians to

aid them in the siege, but soon grew jealous of their allies

and dismissed them with some rudeness. This was one of the

prime causes of the animosity between Athens and Sparta which

afterward flamed out in the Peloponnesian War. In the end, the

Messenians at Ithome capitulated and were allowed to quit the

country; whereupon the Athenians settled them at Naupactus, on

the Corinthian gulf, and so gained an ardent ally, in an

important situation.

Thucydides,

History,

book 1, sections 101-103.

Nearly one hundred years later (B. C. 369) when Thebes, under

Epaminondas, rose to power in Greece and Sparta was

humiliated, it was one of the measures of the Theban statesman

to found at Ithome an important city which he named Messene,

into which the long oppressed Messenians were gathered, from

slavery and from exile, and were organized in a state once

more, free and independent.

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 39.

ALSO IN:

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 78.

----------MESSENIAN WARS: End----------

MESSIDOR, The month,

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER) THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

MESTIZO.

MULATTO.

A half-breed person in Peru, born of a white father and an

Indian mother, is called a Mestizo. One born of a white father

and a negro mother is called a mulatto.

J. J. Von Tschudi,

Travels in Peru,

chapter 5.

METAPONTIUM.

See SIRIS.

METAURUS, Battle of the.

See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

METAURUS, Defeat of the Alemanni.

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.

MÉTAYERS.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789.

METEMNEH, Battle of(1885).

See EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.

METHODISTS:

Origin of the Religious Denomination.

"The term Methodist was a college nickname bestowed upon a

small society of students at Oxford who met together between

1729 and 1735 for the purpose of mutual improvement. They were

accustomed to communicate every week, to fast regularly on

Wednesdays and Fridays, and on most days during Lent; to read

and discuss the Bible in common, to abstain from most forms of

amusement and luxury, and to visit sick persons and prisoners

in the gaol. John Wesley, the master-spirit of this society,

and the future leader of the religious revival of the

eighteenth century, was born in 1703, and was the second

surviving son of Samuel Wesley, the Rector of Epworth, in

Lincolnshire. … The society hardly numbered more than

fifteen members, and was the object of much ridicule at the

university; but it included some men who afterwards played

considerable parts in the world.

{2156}

Among them was Charles, the younger brother of John Wesley,

whose hymns became the favourite poetry of the sect, and whose

gentler, more submissive, and more amiable character, though

less fitted than that of his brother for the great conflicts

of public life, was very useful in moderating the movement,

and in drawing converts to it by personal influence. Charles

Wesley appears to have been the first to originate the society

at Oxford; he brought Whitefield into its pale, and besides

being the most popular poet he was one of the most persuasive

preachers of the movement. There, too, was James Hervey, who

became one of the earliest links connecting Methodism with

general literature."

W. E. H. Lecky,

History of England in the 18th Century,

chapter 9 (volume 2).

METHUEN, Rout of.

The first Scotch army assembled by Robert Bruce after he had

been crowned king of Scotland, was surprised and routed by

Aymer de Valence, June 26, 1306.

C. H. Pearson,

History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,

volume 2, chapter 14.

METHUEN TREATY, The.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1703;

and SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704.

METÖACS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

METŒCI.

"Resident aliens, or Metœci, are non-citizens possessed of

personal freedom, and settled in Attica. Their number, in the

flourishing periods of the State, might amount to 45,000, and

therefore was about half that of the citizens."

G. F. Schömann,

Antiquity of Greece: The State,

part 3, chapter 3, section 2.

METON, The year of.

"Hitherto [before the age of Pericles] the Athenians had only

had the Octaëteris, i. e., the period of eight years, of which

three were composed of thirteen months, in order thus to make

the lunar years correspond to the solar. But as eight such

solar years still amount to something short of 99 lunar

months, this cycle was insufficient for its purpose. … Meton

and his associates calculated that a more correct adjustment

might be obtained within a cycle of 6,940 days. These made up

235 months, which formed a cycle of 19 years; and this was the

so-called 'Great Year,' or 'Year of Meton.'"

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).

METRETES, The.

See EPHAH.

METROPOLITANS.

See PRIMATES.

METROPOTAMIA, The proposed State of.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

METTERNICH, The governing system of.

See HOLY ALLIANCE.

----------METZ: Start--------

METZ: Original names.

The Gallic town of Divodurum acquired later the name of

Mediomatrici, which modern tongues have changed to Metz.

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 34, foot-note.

METZ: A. D. 451.

Destruction by the Huns.

See HUNS: A. D. 451.

METZ: A. D. 511-752.

The Austrasian capital.

See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

METZ: A. D. 1552-1559.

Treacherous occupation by the French.

Siege by Charles V.

Cession to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

METZ: A. D. 1648.

Ceded to France in the Peace of Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

METZ: A. D. 1679-1680.

The Chamber of Reannexation.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

METZ: A. D. 1870.

The French army of Bazaine enclosed and besieged.

The surrender.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST), to (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

METZ: A. D. 1871.

Cession to Germany.

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

----------METZ: End--------

MEXICAN PICTURE-WRITING.

See AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING.

----------MEXICO: Start--------

MEXICO.

Ancient: The Maya and Nahua peoples and their civilization.

"Notwithstanding evident marks of similarity in nearly all the

manifestations of the progressional spirit in aboriginal

America, in art, thought, and religion, there is much reason

for and convenience in referring all the native civilization

to two branches, the Maya and the Nahua, the former the more

ancient, the latter the more recent and wide-spread. … It is

only, however, in a very general sense that this

classification can be accepted, and then only for practical

convenience in elucidating the subject; since there are

several nations that must be ranked among our civilized

peoples, which, particularly in the matter of language, show

no Maya nor Nahua affinities. Nor is too much importance to be

attached to the names Maya and Nahua, by which I designate

these parallel civilizations. The former is adopted for the

reason that the Maya people and tongue are commonly regarded

as among the most ancient in all the Central American region,

a region where formerly flourished the civilization that left

such wonderful remains at Palenque, Uxmal, and Copan; the

latter as being an older designation than either Aztec or

Toltec, both of which stocks the race Nahua includes. The

civilization of what is now the Mexican Republic, north of

Tehuantepec, belonged to the Nahua branch, both at the time of

the conquest and throughout the historic period preceding.

Very few traces of the Maya element occur north of Chiapas,

and these are chiefly linguistic, appearing in two or three

nations dwelling along the shores of the Mexican gulf. In

published works upon the subject the Aztecs are the

representatives of the Nahua element; indeed, what is known of

the Aztecs has furnished material for nine tenths of all that

has been written on the American civilized nations in general.

The truth of the matter is that the Aztecs were only the most

powerful of a league or confederation of three nations, which

in the 16th century, from their capitals in the valley, ruled

central Mexico."

H. H. Bancroft,

Native Races of the Pacific States,

volume 2, chapter 2.

"The evidence … has pointed—with varying force, but with

great uniformity of direction—towards the Central or

Usumacinta region [Central America], not necessarily as the

original cradle of American civilization, but as the most

ancient home to which it can be traced by traditional,

monumental, and linguistic records. …

{2157}

Throughout several centuries preceding the Christian era, and

perhaps one or two centuries following, there flourished in

Central America the great Maya empire of the Chanes, Culhuas,

or Serpents, known to its foes as Xibalba, with its centre in

Chiapas at or near Palenque, and with several allied capitals

in the surrounding region. Its first establishment at a remote

period was attributed by the people to a being called Votan,

who was afterwards worshipped as a god. … From its centre in

the Usumacinta region the Votanic power was gradually extended

north-westward towards Anáhuac, where its subjects vaguely

appear in tradition as Quinames, or giants. It also penetrated

northeastward into Yucatan, where Zamná was its reputed

founder, and the Cocomes and Itzas probably its subjects. …

The Maya empire seems to have been in the height of its

prosperity when the rival Nahua power came into prominence,

perhaps two or three centuries before Christ. The origin of

the new people and of the new institutions is as deeply

shrouded in mystery as is that of their predecessors. … The

Plumed Serpent, known in different tongues as Quetzalcoatl,

Gucumatz, and Cukulcan, was the being who traditionally

founded the new order of things. The Nahua power grew up side

by side with its Xibalban predecessor, having its capital

Tulan apparently in Chiapas. Like the Maya power, it was not

confined to its original home, but was borne … towards

Anáhuac. … The struggle on the part of the Xibalbans seems

to have been that of an old effete monarchy against a young

and progressive people. Whatever its cause, the result of the

conquest was the overthrow of the Votanic monarchs at a date

which may be approximately fixed within a century before or

after the beginning of our era. From that time the ancient

empire disappears from traditional history. … Respecting the

ensuing period of Nahua greatness in Central America nothing

is recorded save that it ended in revolt, disaster, and a

general scattering of the tribes at some period probably

preceding the 5th century. The national names that appear in

connection with the closing struggles are the Toltecs,

Chichimecs, Quichés, Nonohualcas, and Tutul Xius, none of them

apparently identical with the Xibalbans. … Of the tribes

that were successively defeated and forced to seek new homes,

those that spoke the Maya dialects, although considering

themselves Nahuas, seem to have settled chiefly in the south

and east. Some of them afterwards rose to great prominence in

Guatemala and Yucatan. … The Nahua-speaking tribes as a rule

established themselves in Anáhuac and in the western and

north-western parts of Mexico. … The valley of Mexico and

the country immediately adjoining soon became the centre of

the Nahuas in Mexico."

H. H. Bancroft,

Native Races of the Pacific States,

volume 5, chapter 3.

See, also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS;

and AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING.

MEXICO: Ancient:

The Toltec empire and civilization.

Are they mythical?

"The old-time story, how the Toltecs in the 6th century

appeared on the Mexican table-land, how they were driven out

and scattered in the 11th century, how after a brief interval

the Chichimecs followed their footsteps, and how these last

were succeeded by the Aztecs who were found in

possession,—the last two, and probably the first, migrating

in immense hordes from the far north-west,—all this is

sufficiently familiar to readers of Mexican history, and is

furthermore fully set forth in the 5th volume of this work. It

is probable, however, that this account, accurate to a certain

degree, has been by many writers too literally construed;

since the once popular theory of wholesale national migrations

of American peoples within historic times, and particularly of

such migrations from the northwest, may now be regarded as

practically unfounded. The 6th century is the most remote

period to which we are carried in the annals of Anáhuac by

traditions sufficiently definite to be considered in any

proper sense as historic records. … At the opening … of

the historic times, we find the Toltecs in possession of

Anáhuac and the surrounding country. Though the civilization

was old, the name was new, derived probably, although not so

regarded by all, from Tollan, a capital city of the empire,

but afterward becoming synonymous with all that is excellent

in art and high culture. Tradition imputes to the Toltecs a

higher civilization than that found among the Aztecs, who had

degenerated with the growth of the warlike spirit, and

especially by the introduction of more cruel and sanguinary

religious rites. But this superiority, in some respects not

improbable, rests on no very strong evidence, since this

people left no relics of that artistic skill which gave them

so great traditional fame; there is, however, much reason to

ascribe the construction of the pyramids at Teotihuacan and

Cholula to the Toltec or a still earlier period. Among the

civilized peoples of the 16th century, however, and among

their descendants down to the present day, nearly every

ancient relic of architecture or sculpture is accredited to

the Toltecs, from whom all claim descent. … So confusing has

been the effect of this universal reference of all traditional

events to a Toltec source, that, while we can not doubt the

actual existence of this great empire, the details of its

history, into which the supernatural so largely enters, must

be regarded as to a great extent mythical. There are no data

for fixing accurately the bounds of the Toltec domain,

particularly in the south. There is very little, however, to

indicate that it was more extensive in this direction than

that of the Aztecs in later times, although it seems to have

extended somewhat farther northward. On the west there is some

evidence that it included the territory of Michoacan, never

subdued by the Aztecs; and it probably stretched eastward to

the Atlantic. … During the most flourishing period of its

traditional five centuries of duration, the Toltec empire was

ruled by a confederacy, similar in some respects to the

alliance of later date between Mexico, Tezcuco and Tlacopan.

The capitals were Culhuacan, Otompan, and Tollan, the two

former corresponding somewhat in territory with Mexico and

Tezcuco, while the latter was just beyond the limits of the

valley toward the north-west. Each of these capital cities

became in turn the leading power in the confederacy. Tollan

reached the highest eminence in culture, splendor, and fame,

and Culhuacan was the only one of the three to survive by name

the bloody convulsions by which the empire was at last

overthrown, and retain anything of her former greatness.

Long-continued civil wars, arising chiefly from dissensions

between rival religious factions, … gradually undermine the

imperial thrones. … So the kings of Tollan, Culhuacan, and

Otompan, lose, year by year, their prestige, and finally, in

the middle of the 11th century, are completely overthrown,

leaving the Mexican tableland to be ruled by new combinations

of rising powers."

H. H. Bancroft,

Native Races of the Pacific States,

volume 2, chapter 2.

{2158}

"Long before the Aztecs, a Toltec tribe called the Acolhuas,

or Culhuas, had settled in the valley of Mexico. The name is

more ancient than that of Toltec, and the Mexican civilization

might perhaps as appropriately be called Culhua as Nahua. The

name is interpreted 'crooked' from coloa, bend; also

'grandfather' from colli. Colhuacan might therefore signify

Land of Our Ancestors."

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 4, page 23, foot-note.

"The most venerable traditions of the Maya race claimed for

them a migration from 'Tollan in Zuyva.' … This Tollan is

certainly none other than the abode of Quetzalcoatl. … The

cities which selected him as their tutelary deity were named

for that which he was supposed to have ruled over. Thus we

have Tollan and Tollantzinco ('behind Tollan') in the Valley

of Mexico, and the pyramid Cholula was called

'Tollan-Cholollan,' as well as many other Tollans and Tulas

among the Nahuatl colonies. The natives of the city of Tula

were called, from its name, Tolteca, which simply means 'those

who dwell in Tollan.' And who, let us ask, were these Toltecs?

They have hovered about the dawn of American history long

enough. To them have been attributed not only the primitive

culture of Central America and Mexico, but of lands far to the

north, and even the earthworks of the Ohio Valley. It is time

they were assigned their proper place, and that is among the

purely fabulous creations of the imagination, among the giants

and fairies, the gnomes and sylphs, and other such fancied

beings which in all ages and nations the popular mind has

loved to create. Toltec, Toltecatl, which in later days came

to mean a skilled craftsman or artificer, signifies, as I have

said, an inhabitant of Tollan—of the City of the Sun—in

other words, a Child of Light. … In some, and these I

consider the original versions of the myth, they do not

constitute a nation at all, but are merely the disciples or

servants of Quetzalcoatl. They have all the traits of beings

of supernatural powers."

D. G. Brinton,

American Hero-Myths,

chapter 3, section 3.

ALSO IN:

D. G. Brinton,

Essays of an Americanist,

pages 83-100.

A recent totally contrary view, in which the Toltecs are fully

accepted and modernized, is presented by M. Charnay.

D. Charnay,

Ancient Cities of the New World.

MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

The Aztec period.

The so called empire of Montezuma.

"The new era succeeding the Toltec rule is that of the

Chichimec empire, which endured with some variations down to

the coming of Cortes. The ordinary version of the early annals

has it, that the Chichimecs, a wild tribe living far in the

north-west, learning that the fertile regions of Central

Mexico had been abandoned by the Toltecs, came down in immense

hordes to occupy the land. … The name Chichimec at the time

of the Spanish conquest, and subsequently, was used with two

significations, first, as applied to the line of kings that

reigned at Tezcuco, and second, to all the wild hunting

tribes, particularly in the broad and little-known regions of

the north. Traditionally or historically, the name has been

applied to nearly every people mentioned in the ancient

history of America. This has caused the greatest confusion

among writers on the subject, a confusion which I believe can

only be cleared up by the supposition that the name Chichimec,

like that of Toltec, never was applied as a tribal or national

designation proper to any people, while such people were

living. It seems probable that among the Nahua peoples that

occupied the country from the 6th to the 11th centuries, a few

of the leading powers appropriated to themselves the title

Toltecs, which had been at first employed by the inhabitants

of Tollan, whose artistic excellence soon rendered it a

designation of honor. To the other Nahua peoples, by whom

these leading powers were surrounded, whose institutions were

identical, but whose polish and elegance of manner were deemed

by these self-constituted aristocrats somewhat inferior, the

term Chichimecs, barbarians, etymologically 'dogs,' was

applied. After the convulsions that overthrew Tollan, and

reversed the condition of the Nahua nations, the 'dogs' in

their turn assumed an air of superiority and retained their

designation, Chichimecs, as a title of honor and nobility."

H. H. Bancroft,

Native Races of the Pacific States,

volume 2, chapter 2.

"We may suppose the 'Toltec period' in Mexican tradition to

have been simply the period when the pueblo-town of Tollan was

flourishing, and domineered most likely over neighbouring

pueblos. One might thus speak it as one would speak of the

'Theban period' in Greek history. After the 'Toltec period,'

with perhaps an intervening 'Chichimec period' of confusion,

came the 'Aztec period;' or, in other words, some time after

Tollan lost its importance, the city of Mexico came to the

front. Such, I suspect, is the slender historical residuum

underlying the legend of a 'Toltec empire.' The Codex Ramirez

assigns the year 1168 as the date of the abandonment of the

Serpent Hill by the people of Tollan. We begin to leave this

twilight of legend when we meet the Aztecs already encamped in

the Valley of Mexico. Finding the most obviously eligible

sites preoccupied, they were sagacious enough to detect the

advantages of a certain marshy spot through which the outlets

of lakes Chalco and Xochimilco, besides sundry rivulets,

flowed northward and eastward into Lake Tezcuco. Here in the

year 1325 they began to build their pueblo, which they called

Tenochtitlan,—a name whereby hangs a tale. When the Aztecs,

hard pressed by foes, took refuge among these marshes, they

came upon a sacrificial stone which they recognized as one

upon which some years before one of their priests had

immolated a captive chief. From a crevice in this stone, where

a little earth was imbedded, there grew a cactus, upon which

sat an eagle holding in its beak a serpent. A priest

ingeniously interpreted this symbolism as a prophecy of signal

and long-continued victory, and forthwith diving into the lake

he had an interview with Tlaloc, the god of waters, who told

him that upon that very spot the people were to build their

town. The place was therefore called Tenochtitlan, or 'place

of the cactus-rock,' but the name under which it afterward came

to be best known was taken from Mexitl, one of the names of

the war-god Huitzilopochtli. The device of the rock and

cactus, with the eagle and serpent, formed a tribal totem for

the Aztecs, and has been adopted as the coat-of-arms of the

present Republic of Mexico.

{2159}

The pueblo of Tenochtitlan was surrounded by salt marshes;

which by dint of dikes and causeways the Aztecs gradually

converted into a large artificial lake, and thus made their

pueblo by far the most defensible stronghold in Anahuac,—

impregnable, indeed, so far as Indian modes of attack were

concerned. The advantages of this commanding position were

slowly but surely realized. A dangerous neighbour upon the

western shore of the lake was the tribe of Tecpanecas, whose

principal pueblo was Azcaputzalco. The Aztecs succeeded in

making an alliance with these Tecpanecas, but it was upon

unfavourable terms and involved the payment of tribute to

Azcaputzalco. It gave the Aztecs, however, some time to

develop their strength. Their military organization was

gradually perfected, and in 1375 they elected their first

tlacatecuhtli, or 'chief-of-men,' whom European writers, in

the loose phraseology formerly current, called 'founder of the

Mexican empire.' The name of this official was Acamapichtli,

or 'Handful-of-Reeds.' During the eight-and-twenty years of

his chieftancy the pueblo houses in Tenochtitlan began to be

built very solidly of stone, and the irregular water-courses

flowing between them were improved into canals. Some months

after his death in 1403 his son Huitzilihuitl, or

'Humming-bird,' was chosen to succeed him. This Huitzilihuitl

was succeeded in 1414 by his brother Chimalpopoca, or 'Smoking

Shield,' under whom temporary calamity visited the Aztec town.

The alliance with Azcaputzalco was broken, and that pueblo

joined its forces to those of Tezcuco on the eastern shore of

the lake. United they attacked the Aztecs, defeated them, and

captured their chief-of-men, who died a prisoner in 1427. He

was succeeded by Izcoatzin, or 'Obsidian Snake,' an aged

chieftain who died in 1436. During these nine years a complete

change came over the scene. Quarrels arose between

Azcaputzalco and Tezcuco; the latter pueblo entered into

alliance with Tenochtitlan, and together they overwhelmed and

destroyed Azcaputzalco, and butchered most of its people. What

was left of the conquered pueblo was made a slave mart for the

Aztecs, and the remnant of the people were removed to the

neighbouring pueblo of Tlacopan, which was made tributary to

Mexico. By this great victory the Aztecs also acquired secure

control of the springs upon Chepultepec, or 'Grasshopper

Hill,' which furnished a steady supply of fresh water to their

island pueblo. The next step was the formation of a

partnership between the three pueblo towns, Tenochtitlan,

Tezcuco, and Tlacopan, for the organized and systematic

plunder of other pueblos. All the tribute or spoils extorted

was to be divided into five parts, of which two parts each

were for Tezcuco and Tenochtitlan, and one part for Tlacopan.

The Aztec chief-of-men became military commander of the

confederacy, which now' began to extend operations to a

distance. The next four chiefs-of-men were Montezuma, or

'Angry Chief,' the First, from 1436 to 1464; Axayacatl, or

'Face-in-the-Water,' from 1464 to 1477; Tizoc, or 'Wounded

Leg,' from 1477 to 1486; and Ahuizotl, or 'Water-Rat,' from

1486 to 1502. Under these chiefs the great temple of Mexico

was completed, and the aqueduct from Chepultepec was increased

in capacity until it not only supplied water for ordinary

uses, but could also be made to maintain the level of the

canals and the lake. In the driest seasons, therefore,

Tenochtitlan remained safe from attack. Forth from this

well-protected lair the Aztec warriors went on their errands

of blood. Thirty or more pueblo towns, mostly between

Tenochtitlan and the Gulf coast, scattered over an area about

the size of Massachusetts, were made tributary to the

Confederacy; and as all these communities spoke the Nahua

language, this process of conquest, if it had not been cut

short by the Spaniards, might in course of time have ended in

the formation of a primitive kind of state. This tributary

area formed but a very small portion of the country which we

call Mexico. If the reader will just look at a map of the

Republic of Mexico in a modern atlas, and observe that the

states of Queretaro, Guanaxuato, Michoacan, Guerrero, and a

good part of La Puebla, lie outside the region sometimes

absurdly styled 'Montezuma's Empire,' and surround three sides

of it, he will begin to put himself into the proper state of

mind for appreciating the history of Cortes and his

companions. Into the outlying region just mentioned, occupied

by tribes for the most part akin to the Nahuas in blood and

speech, the warriors of the Confederacy sometimes ventured,

with varying fortunes. They levied occasional tribute among

the pueblos in these regions, but hardly made any of them

regularly tributary. The longest range of their arms seems to

have been to the eastward, where they sent their tax-gatherers

along the coast into the isthmus of Tehuantepec, and came into

conflict with the warlike Mayas and Quiches. … Such was, in

general outline, what we may call the political situation in

the time of the son of Axayacatl, the second Montezuma, who

was elected chief-of-men in 1502, being then thirty-four years

of age."

J. Fiske,

The Discovery of America,

chapter 8 (volume 2).

MEXICO: A. D. 1517-1518.

First found by the Spaniards.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1518.

MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (February-April).

The coming of Cortes and the Spaniards.

Some time in the latter part of the year 1517, the Spaniards

in Cuba had acquired definite knowledge of a much civilized

people who inhabited "terra firma" to the west of them, by the

return of Hernandez de Cordova from his involuntary voyage to

Yucatan (see AMERICA: A. D. 1157-1518). In the spring of 1518

the Cuban governor, Velasquez, had enlarged that knowledge by

sending an expedition under Grijalva to the Mexican coast,

and, even before Grijalva returned, he had begun preparations

for a more serious undertaking of conquest and occupation in

the rich country newly found. For the command of this second

armament he selected Hernando Cortes, one of the boldest and

most ambitious of the adventurers who had helped to subdue and

settle the island of Cuba. Before the fleet sailed, however, a

jealous distrust of his lieutenant had become excited by some

cause in the governor's mind, and he attempted to supersede

him in the command, Cortes slipped out of port, half prepared

as he was for the voyage, defied the orders of his superior,

and made his way (February, 1519) to the scene of his future

conquests, actually as a rebel against the authority which

commissioned him. "The squadron of Cortés was composed of

eleven small vessels.

{2160}

There were 110 sailors, 553 soldiers, of which 13 were armed

with muskets, and 32 with arquebuses, the others with swords

and pikes only. There were 10 little field-pieces, and 16

horses. Such were the forces with which the bold adventurer

set forth to conquer a vast empire, defended by large armies,

not without courage, according to the report of Grijalva. But

the companions of Cortes were unfamiliar with fear. Cortés

followed the same route as Grijalva. … At the Tabasco River,

which the Spanish called Rio de Grijalva, because that

explorer had discovered it, they had a fight with some natives

who resisted their approach. These natives fought bravely, but

the fire-arms, and above all the horses, which they conceived

to be of one piece with their riders, caused them extreme

terror, and the rout was complete. … The native prince,

overcome, sent gifts to the conqueror, and, without much

knowing the extent of his agreement, acknowledged himself as

vassal of the king of Spain, the most powerful monarch of the

world." Meantime, tidings of a fresh appearance of the same

strange race which had briefly visited the shores of the

empire the year before were conveyed to Montezuma, and the

king, who had sent envoys to the strangers before, but not

quickly enough to find them, resolved to do so again. "The

presents prepared for Grijalva, which had reached the shore

too late, were, alas! all ready. To these were now added the

ornaments used in the decoration of the image of Quetzalcoatl,

on days of solemnity, regarded as the most sacred among all

the possessions of the royal house of Mexico. Cortés accepted

the rôle of Quetzalcoatl and allowed himself to be decorated

with the ornaments belonging to that god without hesitation.

The populace were convinced that it was their deity really

returned to them. A feast was served to the envoys, with the

accompaniment of some European wine which they found

delicious. … During the feast native painters were busy

depicting every thing they saw to be shown to their royal

master. … Cortes sent to Montezuma a gilt helmet with the

message that he hoped to see it back again filled with gold.

… The bearer of this gift and communication, returning

swiftly to the court, reported to the monarch that the

intention of the stranger was to come at once to the capital

of the empire. Montezuma at once assembled a new council of

all his great vassals, some of whom urged the reception of

Cortés, others his immediate dismissal. The latter view

prevailed, and the monarch sent, with more presents to the

unknown invader, benevolent but peremptory commands that he

should go away immediately. … Meanwhile the Spanish camp was

feasting and reposing in huts of cane, with fresh provisions,

in great joy after the weariness of their voyage. They

accepted with enthusiasm the presents of the emperor, but the

treasures which were sent had an entirely different effect

from that hoped for by Montezuma; they only inflamed the

desire of the Spaniard to have all within his grasp, of which

this was but a specimen. It was now that the great mistake in

policy was apparent, by which the Aztec chieftain had for

years been making enemies all over the country, invading

surrounding states, and carrying off prisoners for a horrible

death by sacrifice. These welcomed the strangers and

encouraged their presence."

S. Hale,

The Story of Mexico,

chapter 13.

ALSO IN:

Bernal Diaz del Castillo,

Memoirs,

chapter 2-39 (volume 1).

J. Fiske,

The Discovery of America,

chapter 8 (volume 2).

MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (June-October).

The advance of Cortés to Tlascala.

"Meanwhile Cortés, by his craft, quieted a rising faction of

the party of Velasquez which demanded to be led back to Cuba.

He did this by seeming to acquiesce in the demand of his

followers in laying the foundations of a town and constituting

its people a municipality competent to choose a representative

of the royal authority. This done, Cortés resigned his

commission from Velasquez, and was at once invested with

supreme power by the new municipality. The scheme which

Velasquez had suspected was thus brought to fruition. Whoever

resisted the new captain was conquered by force, persuasion,

tact, or magnetism; and Cortés became as popular as he was

irresistible. At this point messengers presented themselves

from tribes not far off who were unwilling subjects of the

Aztec power. The presence of possible allies was a propitious

circumstance, and Cortés proceeded to cultivate the friendship

of these tribes. He moved his camp day by day along the shore,

inuring his men to marches, while the fleet sailed in company.

They reached a large city [Cempoalla, or Zempoalla, the site

of which has not been determined], and were regaled. Each

chief told of the tyranny of Montezuma, and the eyes of Cortés

glistened. The Spaniards went on to another town, slaves being

provided to bear their burdens. Here they found tax-gatherers

of Montezuma collecting tribute. Emboldened by Cortés' glance,

his hosts seized the Aztec emissaries and delivered them to

the Spaniards. Cortés now played a double game. He propitiated

the servants of Montezuma by secretly releasing them, and

added to his allies by enjoining every tribe he could reach to

resist the Aztec collectors of tribute. The wandering

municipality, as represented in this piratical army, at last

stopped at a harbor where a town (La Villa Rica de Vera Cruz)

sprang up, and became the base of future operations." At this

point in his movements the adventurer despatched a vessel to

Spain, with letters to the king, and with dazzling gifts of

gold and Aztec fabrics. "Now came the famous resolve of

Cortés. He would band his heterogeneous folk together—

adherents of Cortés and of Velasquez—in one common cause and

danger. So he adroitly led them to be partners in the deed

which he stealthily planned. Hulk after hulk of the apparently

worm-eaten vessels of the fleet sank in the harbor, until

there was no flotilla left upon which any could desert him.

The march to Mexico was now assured. The force with which to

accomplish this consisted of about 450 Spaniards, six or seven

light guns, fifteen horses, and a swarm of Indian slaves and

attendants. A body of the Totonacs accompanied them. Two or

three days brought them into the higher plain and its

enlivening vegetation. When they reached the dependencies of

Montezuma, they found orders had been given to extend to them

every courtesy. They soon reached the Anahuac plateau, which

reminded them not a little of Spain itself. They passed from

cacique to cacique, some of whom groaned under the yoke of the

Aztec; but not one dared do more than orders from Montezuma

dictated.

{2161}

Then the invaders approached the territory of an independent

people, those of Tlascala, who had walled their country

against neighboring enemies. A fight took place at the

frontiers, in which the Spaniards lost two horses. They forced

passes against great odds, but again lost a horse or two,—

which was a perceptible diminution of their power to terrify.

The accounts speak of immense hordes of the Tlascalans, which

historians now take with allowances, great or small. Cortés

spread what alarm he could by burning villages and capturing

the country people. His greatest obstacle soon appeared in the

compacted army of Tlascalans arrayed in his front. The

conflict which ensued was for a while doubtful. Every horse

was hurt, and 60 Spaniards were wounded; but the result was

the retreat of the Tlascalans. Divining that the Spanish power

was derived from the sun, the enemy planned a night attack;

but Cortés suspected it, and assaulted them in their own

ambush. Cortés now had an opportunity to display his

double-facedness and his wiles. He received embassies both

from Montezuma and from the senate of the Tlascalans. He

cajoled each, and played off his friendship for the one in

cementing an alliance with the other. But to Tlascala and

Mexico he would go, so he told them. The Tlascalans were not

averse, for they thought it boded no good to the Aztecs, if he

could be bound to themselves. Montezuma dreaded the contact,

and tried to intimidate the strangers by tales of the horrible

difficulties of the journey. Presently the army took up its

march for Tlascala, where they were royally received, and

wives in abundance were bestowed upon the leaders. Next they

passed to Cholula, which was subject to the Aztecs."

J. Winsor,

Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 2, chapter 6.

MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (October).

The Massacre at Cholula.

The march to Mexico.

"The distance from Tlascala to Chololan [or Cholula] is but

from 15 to 20 miles. It was a kind of holy place, venerated

far and wide in Anahuac; pilgrimages were made thither, as the

Mahometans go to Mecca, and Christians to Jerusalem or Rome.

The city was consecrated to the worship of Quetzalcoatl, who

had there the noblest temple in all Mexico, built, like all

the temples in the country, on the summit of a truncated

pyramid. The traveller of the present day beholds this pyramid

on the horizon as he approaches Puebla, on his route from Vera

Cruz to Mexico. But the worship of the beneficent Quetzalcoatl

had been perverted by the sombre genius of the Aztecs. To this

essentially good deity 6,000 human victims were annually

immolated in his temple at Chololan. … The Spaniards found

at Chololan an eager and, to all appearance at least, a

perfectly cordial welcome." But this hospitality masked, it is

said, a great plot for their destruction, which Montezuma had

inspired and to aid which he had sent into the neighborhood of

the city a powerful Mexican army. The plot was revealed to

Cortez—so the Spanish historians relate—and "he took his

resolution with his accustomed energy and foresight. He made

his dispositions for the very next day. He acquainted the

caciques of Chololan that he should evacuate the city at break

of dawn, and required them to furnish 2,000 porters or

'tamanes,' for the baggage. The caciques then organized their

attack for the morrow morning, not without a promise of the

men required, whom, in fact, they brought at dawn to the great

court in which the foreigners were domiciled. The conflict

soon began. The Spaniards, who were perfectly prepared,

commenced by massacring the caciques. The mass of Chololans

that attempted to invade their quarters were crushed under the

fire of their artillery and musketry, and the charges of their

cavalry. Hearing the reports, the Tlascalans, who had been

left at the entrance of the city, rushed on to the rescue. …

They could now glut their hatred and vengeance; they

slaughtered as long as they could, and then set to work at

plunder. The Spaniards, too, after having killed all that

resisted, betook themselves to pillage. The unfortunate city

of Chololan was thus inundated with blood and sacked. Cortez,

however, enjoined that the women and children should be

spared, and we are assured that in that he was obeyed, even by

his cruel auxiliaries from Tlascala. … To the praise of

Cortez it must be said that, after the victory, he once more

showed himself tolerant: he left the inhabitants at liberty to

follow their old religion on condition that they should no

longer immolate human victims. After this signal blow, all the

threats, all the intrigues, of Montezuma, had no possible

effect, and the Aztec emperor could be under no illusion as to

the inflexible intention of Cortez. The latter, as soon as he

had installed new chiefs at Chololan, and effaced the more

hideous traces of the massacre and pillage that had desolated

the city, set out with his own troops and his Indian

auxiliaries from Tlascala for the capital of the Aztec empire,

the magnificent city of Tenochtitlan."

M. Chevalier,

Mexico, Ancient and Modern,

part 2, chapter 4 (volume 1).

MEXICO:

The Capital of Montezuma as described

by Cortés and Bernal Diaz.

"This Province is in the form of a circle, surrounded on all

sides by lofty and rugged mountains; its level surface

comprises an area of about 70 leagues in circumference,

including two lakes, that overspread nearly the whole valley,

being navigated by boats more than 50 leagues round. One of

these lakes contains fresh, and the other, which is the larger

of the two, salt water. On one side of the lakes, in the

middle of the valley, a range of highlands divides them from

one another, with the exception of a narrow strait which lies

between the highlands and the lofty Sierras. This strait is a

bow-shot wide, and connects the two lakes; and by this means a

trade is carried on between the cities and other settlements

on the lakes in canoes without the necessity of travelling by

land. As the salt lake rises and falls with its tides like the

sea, during the time of high water it pours into the other

lake with the rapidity of a powerful stream; and on the other

hand, when the tide has ebbed, the water runs from the fresh

into the salt lake. This great city of Temixtitan

[Tenochtitlan—Mexico] is situated in this salt lake, and from

the main land to the denser parts of it, by whichever route

one chooses to enter, the distance is two leagues. There are

four avenues or entrances to the city, all of which are formed

by artificial causeways, two spears' length in width. The city

is as large as Seville or Cordova; its streets, I speak of the

principal ones, are very wide and straight; some of these, and

all the inferior ones, are half land and half water, and are

navigated by canoes.

{2162}

All the streets at intervals have openings, through which the

water flows, crossing from one street to another; and at these

openings, some of which are very wide, there are also very

wide bridges, composed of large pieces of timber, of great

strength and well put together; on many of these bridges ten

horses can go abreast. … This city has many public squares,

in which are situated the markets and other places for buying

and selling. There is one square twice as large as that of the

city of Salamanca, surrounded by porticoes, where are daily

assembled more than 60,000 souls, engaged in buying and

selling; and where are found all kinds of merchandise that the

world affords, embracing the necessaries of life, as for

instance articles of food, as well as jewels of gold and

silver, lead, brass, copper, tin, precious stones, bones,

shells, snails, and feathers. … Every kind of merchandise is

sold in a particular street or quarter assigned to it

exclusively, and thus the best order is preserved. They sell

everything by number or measure; at least so far we have not

observed them to sell any thing by weight. There is a building

in the great square that is used as an audience house, where

ten or twelve persons, who are magistrates, sit and decide all

controversies that arise in the market, and order delinquents

to be punished. … This great city contains a large number of

temples, or houses for their idols, very handsome edifices,

which are situated in the different districts and the suburbs.

… Among these temples there is one which far surpasses all

the rest, whose grandeur of architectural details no human

tongue is able to describe; for within its precincts,

surrounded by a lofty wall, there is room enough for a town of

500 families. Around the interior of this enclosure there are

handsome edifices, containing large halls and corridors, in

which the religious persons attached to the temple reside.

There are full 40 towers, which are lofty and well built, the

largest of which has 50 steps leading to its main body, and is

higher than the tower of the principal church at Seville. The

stone and wood of which they are constructed are so well

wrought in every part that nothing could be better done. …

This noble city contains many fine and magnificent houses;

which may be accounted for from the fact that all the nobility

of the country, who are the vassals of Muteczuma, have houses

in the city, in which they reside a certain part of the year;

and, besides, there are numerous wealthy citizens who also

possess fine houses."

H. Cortés,

Despatches [Letters] (translated by G. Folsom),

letter 2, chapter 5.

"We had already been four days in the city of Mexico, and

neither our commander nor any of us had, during that time,

left our quarters, excepting to visit the gardens and

buildings adjoining the palace. Cortes now, therefore,

determined to view the city, and visit the great market, and

the chief temple of Huitzilopochtli. … The moment we arrived

in this immense market, we were perfectly astonished at the

vast numbers of people, the profusion of merchandise which was

there exposed for sale, and at the good police and order that

reigned throughout. … Every species of goods which New Spain

produces were here to be found; and everything put me in mind

of my native town Medina del Campo during fair time, where

every merchandise has a separate street assigned for its sale.

… On quitting the market, we entered the spacious yards

which surround the chief temple. … Motecusuma, who was

sacrificing on the top to his idols, sent six papas and two of

his principal officers to conduct Cortes up the steps. There

were 114 steps to the summit. …Indeed, this infernal temple,

from its great height, commanded a view of the whole

surrounding neighbourhood. From this place we could likewise

see the three causeways which led into Mexico. … We also

observed the aqueduct which ran from Chapultepec, and provided

the whole town with sweet water. We could also distinctly see

the bridges across the openings, by which these causeways were

intersected, and through which the waters of the lake ebbed

and flowed. The lake itself was crowded with canoes, which

were bringing provisions, manufactures and other merchandise

to the city. From here we also discovered that the only

communication of the houses in this city, and of all the other

towns built in the lake, was by means of drawbridges or

canoes. In all these towns the beautiful white plastered

temples rose above the smaller ones, like so many towers and

castles in our Spanish towns, and this, it may be imagined,

was a splendid sight."

Bernal Diaz del Castillo,

Memoirs (translated by Lockhart),

chapter 92 (volume 1).

MEXICO:

The same as viewed in the light of modern historical criticism.

"In the West India Islands the Spanish discoverers found small

Indian tribes under the government of chiefs; but on the

continent, in the Valley of Mexico, they found a confederacy

of three Indian tribes under a more advanced but similar

government. In the midst of the valley was a large pueblo, the

largest in America, surrounded with water, approached by

causeways; in fine, a water-girt fortress impregnable to

Indian assault. This pueblo presented to the Spanish

adventurers the extraordinary spectacle of an Indian society

lying two ethnical periods back of European society, but with

a government and plan of life at once intelligent, orderly,

and complete. … The Spanish adventurers who captured the

pueblo of Mexico saw a king in Montezuma, lords in Aztec

chiefs, and a palace in the large joint-tenement house

occupied, Indian fashion, by Montezuma and his

fellow-householders. It was, perhaps, an unavoidable

self-deception at the time, because they knew nothing of the

Aztec social system. Unfortunately it inaugurated American

aboriginal history upon a misconception of Indian life which

has remained substantially unquestioned until recently. The

first eye-witnesses gave the keynote to this history by

introducing Montezuma as a king, occupying a palace of great

extent crowded with retainers, and situated in the midst of a

grand and populous city, over which, and much besides, he was

reputed master. But king and kingdom were in time found too

common to express all the glory and splendor the imagination

was beginning to conceive of Aztec society; and emperor and

empire gradually superseded the more humble conception of the

conquerors. … To every author, from Cortes and Bernal Diaz

to Brasseur de Bourbourg and Hubert H. Bancroft, Indian

society was an unfathomable mystery, and their works have left

it a mystery still. Ignorant of its structure and principles,

and unable to comprehend its peculiarities, they invoked the

imagination to supply whatever was necessary to fill out the

picture. …

{2163}

Thus, in this case, we have a grand historical romance, strung

upon the conquest of Mexico as upon a thread; the acts of the

Spaniards, the pueblo of Mexico, and its capture, are

historical, while the descriptions of Indian society and

government are imaginary and delusive. … There is a strong

probability, from what is known of Indian life and society,

that the house in which Montezuma lived, was a joint-tenement

house of the aboriginal American model, owned by a large

number of related families, and occupied by them in common as

joint proprietors; that the dinner [of Montezuma, in his

palace, as described by Cortes and Bernal Diaz] … was the

usual single daily meal of a communal household, prepared in a

common cookhouse from common stores, and divided, Indian

fashion, from the kettle; and that all the Spaniards found in

Mexico was a simple confederacy of three Indian tribes, the

counterpart of which was found in all parts of America. It may

be premised further that the Spanish adventurers who thronged

to the new world after its discovery found the same race of

Red Indians in the West India Islands, in Central and South

America, in Florida, and in Mexico. In their mode of life and

means of subsistence, in their weapons, arts, usages, and

customs, in their institutions, and in their mental and

physical characteristics, they were the same people in

different stages of advancement. No distinction of race was

observed, and none in fact existed. … Not a vestige of the

ancient pueblo of Mexico (Tenochtitlan) remains to assist us

to a knowledge of its architecture. Its structures, which were

useless to a people of European habits, were speedily

destroyed to make room for a city adapted to the wants of a

civilized race. We must seek for its characteristics in

contemporary Indian houses which still remain in ruins, and in

such of the early descriptions as have come down to us, and

then leave the subject with but little accurate knowledge. Its

situation, partly on dry land and partly in the waters of a

shallow artificial pond formed by causeways and dikes, led to

the formation of streets and squares, which were unusual in

Indian pueblos, and gave to it a remarkable appearance. …

Many of the houses were large, far beyond the supposable wants

of a single Indian family. They were constructed of adobe

brick, and of stone, and plastered over in both cases with

gypsum, which made them a brilliant white; and some were

constructed of a red porous stone. In cutting and dressing

this stone flint implements were used. The fact that the

houses were plastered externally leads us to infer that they

had not learned to dress stone and lay them in courses. It is

not certainly established that they had learned the use of a

mortar of lime and sand. In the final attack and capture, it

is said that Cortes, in the course of seventeen days,

destroyed and levelled three-quarters of the pueblo, which

demonstrates the flimsy character of the masonry. … It is

doubtful whether there was a single pueblo in North America,

with the exception of Tlascala, Cholula, Tezcuco, and Mexico,

which contained 10,000 inhabitants. There is no occasion to

apply the term 'city' to any of them. None of the Spanish

descriptions enable us to realize the exact form and structure

of these houses, or their relations to each other in forming a

pueblo. … It is evident from the citations made that the

largest of these joint-tenement houses would accommodate from

500 to 1,000 or more people, living in the fashion of Indians;

and that the courts were probably quadrangles, formed by

constructing the building on three sides of an inclosed space,

as in the New Mexican pueblos, or upon the four sides, as in

the House of the Nuns, at Uxmal."

L. H. Morgan,

Houses and House-life of the American Aborigines

(United States Geographical and Geological Survey of

Rocky Mountain Region:

Contribution to North American Ethnology, volume 4),

chapter 10.

MEXICO: A. D. 1519-1520.

Captivity of Montezuma, Cortés ruling in his name.

The discomfiture of Narvaez.

The revolt of the capital.

When Cortés had time to survey and to realize his position in

the Mexican capital, he saw that it was full of extreme

danger. To be isolated with so small a force in the midst of

any hostile, populous city would be perilous; but in Mexico

that peril was immeasurably increased by the peculiar

situation and construction of the island-city—Venice-like in

its insulation, and connected with the mainland by long and

narrow, causeways and bridges, easily broken and difficult to

secure for retreat. With characteristic audacity, the Spanish

leader mastered the danger of the situation, so to speak, by

taking Montezuma himself in pledge for the peace and good

behavior of his subjects. Commanded by Cortés to quit his

palace, and to take up his residence with the Spaniards in

their quarters, the Mexican monarch remonstrated but obeyed,

and became from that day the shadow of a king. "During, six

months that Cortes remained in Mexico [from November, 1519,

until May, 1520], the monarch continued in the Spanish

quarters, with an appearance of as entire satisfaction and

tranquillity as if he had resided there, not from constraint,

but through choice. His ministers and officers attended him as

usual. He took cognizance of all affairs; every order was

issued in his name. … Such was the dread which both

Montezuma and his subjects had of the Spaniards, or such the

veneration in which they held them, that no attempt was made

to deliver their sovereign from confinement, and though

Cortes, relying on this ascendant which he had acquired over

their minds, permitted him not only to visit his temples, but

to make hunting excursions beyond the lake, a guard of a few

Spaniards carried with it such a terrour as to intimidate the

multitude, and secure the captive monarch. Thus, by the

fortunate temerity of Cortes in seizing Montezuma, the

Spaniards at once secured to themselves more extensive

authority in the Mexican empire than it was possible to have

acquired in a long course of time by open force; and they

exercised more absolute sway in the name of another than they

could have done in their own. … Cortes availed himself to

the utmost of the powers which he possessed by being able to

act in the name of Montezuma. He sent some Spaniards, whom he

judged best qualified for such commissions, into different

parts of the empire, accompanied by persons of distinction,

whom Montezuma appointed to attend them both as guides and

protectors. They visited most of the provinces, viewed their

soil and productions, surveyed with particular care the

districts which yielded gold or silver, pitched upon several

places as proper stations for future colonies, and endeavoured

to prepare the minds of the people for submitting to the

Spanish yoke." At the same time, Cortes strengthened his

footing in the capital by building and launching two brigantines

on the lake, with an equipment and armament which his royal

prisoner caused to be brought up for him from Vera Cruz.

{2164}

He also persuaded Montezuma to acknowledge himself a vassal of

the King of Castile, and to subject his kingdom to the payment

of an annual tribute. But, while his cunning conquest of an

empire was advancing thus prosperously, the astute Spanish

captain allowed his prudence to be overridden by his religious

zeal. Becoming impatient at the obstinacy with which Montezuma

clung to his false gods, Cortes made a rash attempt, with his

soldiers, to cast down the idols in the great temple of the

city, and to set the image of the Virgin in their place. The

sacrilegious outrage roused the Mexicans from their tame

submission and fired them with an inextinguishable rage. At

this most unfortunate juncture, news came from Vera Cruz which

demanded the personal presence of Cortes on the coast.

Velasquez, the hostile governor of Cuba, to whom the

adventurer in Mexico was a rebel, had sent, at last, an

expedition, to put a stop to his unauthorized proceedings and

to arrest his person. Cortes faced the new menace as boldly as

he had faced all others. Leaving 150 men in the angry Mexican

capital, under Pedro de Alvarado, he set out with the small

remainder of his force to attack the Spanish intruders. Even

after picking up some detachments outside and joining the

garrison at Vera Cruz, he could muster but 250 men; while

Narvaez, who commanded the expedition from Cuba, had brought

800 foot soldiers and 80 horse, with twelve pieces of cannon.

The latter had taken possession of the city of Zempoalla and

was strongly posted in one of its temples. There Cortes

surprised him, in a night attack, took him prisoner, in a

wounded state, and compelled his troops to lay down their

arms. Nearly the whole of the latter were soon captivated by

the commanding genius of the man they had been sent to arrest,

and enlisted in his service. He found himself now at the head

of a thousand well armed men; and he found in the same moment

that he needed them all. For news came from Mexico that

Alvarado, thinking to anticipate and crush a suspected

intention of the Mexicans to rise against him, had provoked

the revolt and made it desperate by a most perfidious, brutal

massacre of several hundred of the chief persons of the

empire, committed while they were celebrating one of the

festivals of their religion, in the temple. The Spaniards at

Mexico were now beleaguered, as the consequence, in their

quarters, and their only hope was the hope that Cortes would

make haste to their rescue,—which he did.

W. Robertson,

History of America,

book 5 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 4, chapters 17-23.

MEXICO: A. D. 1520 (JUNE-JULY).

The return of Cortes to the Mexican Capital.

The battle in the city.

The death of Montezuma.

The disastrous Retreat of the Spaniards.

The alarming intelligence which came to him from the Mexican

capital called out in Cortés the whole energy of his nature.

Hastily summoning back the various expeditions he had already

sent out, and gathering all his forces together, he "reviewed

his men, and found that they amounted to 1,300 soldiers, among

whom were 96 horsemen, 80 cross-bowmen, and about 80

musketeers. Cortez marched with great strides to Mexico, and

entered the city at the head of this formidable force on the

24th of June, 1520, the day of John the Baptist. Very

different was the reception of Cortez on this occasion from

that on his first entry into Mexico, when Montezuma had gone

forth with all pomp to meet him. Now, the Indians stood

silently in the doorways of their houses, and the bridges

between the houses were taken up. Even when he arrived at his

own quarters he found the gates barred, so strict had been the

siege, and he had to demand an entry." The Mexicans, strangely

enough, made no attempt to oppose his entrance into the city

and his junction with Alvarado; yet the day after his return

their attack upon the Spanish quarters, now so strongly

reinforced, was renewed. "Cortez, who was not at all given to

exaggeration, says that neither the streets nor the terraced

roofs ('azoteas') were visible, being entirely obscured by the

people who were upon them; that the multitude of stones was so

great that it seemed as if it rained stones; and that the

arrows came so thickly that the walls and the courts were full

of them, rendering it difficult to move about. Cortez made two

or three desperate sallies, and was wounded. The Mexicans

succeeded in setting fire to the fortress, which was with

difficulty subdued, and they would have scaled the walls at

the point where the fire had done most damage but for a large

force of cross-bowmen, musketeers, and artillery, which Cortez

threw forward to meet the danger. The Mexicans at last drew

back, leaving no fewer than 80 Spaniards wounded in this first

encounter. The ensuing morning, as soon as it was daylight,

the attack was renewed. … Again, and with considerable

success, Cortez made sallies from the fortress in the course

of the day; but at the end of it there were about 60 more of

his men to be added to the list of wounded, already large,

from the injuries received on the preceding day. The third day

was devoted by the ingenious Cortez to making three movable

fortresses, called 'mantas,' which, he thought, would enable

his men, with less danger, to contend against the Mexicans

upon their terraced roofs. … It was on this day that the

unfortunate Montezuma, either at the request of Cortez, or of

his own accord, came out upon a battlement and addressed the

people." He was interrupted by a shower of stones and arrows

and received wounds from which he died soon after. The

fighting on this day was more desperate than it had been

before. The Spaniards undertook to dislodge a body of the

Indians who had posted themselves on the summit of the great

temple, which was dangerously near at hand. Again and again

they were driven back, until Cortez bound his shield to his

wounded arm and led the assault. Then, after three hours of

fighting, from terrace to terrace, they gained the upper

platform and put every Mexican to the sword. But 40 Spaniards

perished in the struggle. "This fight in the temple gave a

momentary brightness to the arms of the Spaniards and afforded

Cortez an opportunity to resume negotiations. But the

determination of the Mexicans was fixed and complete. … They

would all perish, if that were needful, to gain their point of

destroying the Spaniards. They bade Cortez look at the

streets, the squares, and the terraces, covered with people;

and then, in a business-like and calculating manner, they told

him that if 25,000 of them were to die for each Spaniard, still

the Spaniards would perish first. …

{2165}

It generally requires at least as much courage to retreat as

to advance. Indeed, few men have the courage and the ready

wisdom to retreat in time. But Cortez, once convinced that his

position in Mexico was no longer tenable, wasted no time or

energy in parleying with danger. Terror had lost its influence

with the Mexicans, and superior strategy was of little avail

against such overpowering numbers. … Cortez resolved to quit

the city that night [July 1, 1520]. … A little before

midnight the stealthy march began. The Spaniards succeeded in

laying down the pontoon over the first bridge-way, and the

vanguard with Sandoval passed over; but, while the rest were

passing, the Mexicans gave the alarm with loud shouts and

blowing of horns. … Almost immediately upon this alarm the

lake was covered with canoes. It rained, and the misfortunes

of the night commenced by two horses slipping from the pontoon

into the water. Then the Mexicans attacked the pontoon-bearers

so furiously that it was impossible for them to raise it up

again." After that, all seems to have been a confused struggle

in the darkness, where even Cortez could do little for the

unfortunate rear-guard of his troops. "This memorable night

has ever been celebrated in American history as 'la noche

triste.' In this flight from Mexico all the artillery was

lost, and there perished 450 Spaniards, … 4,000 of the

Indian allies, 46 horses, and most of the Mexican prisoners,

including one son and two daughters of Montezuma, and his

nephew the King of Tezcuco. A loss which posterity will ever

regret was that of the books and accounts, memorials and

writings, of which there were some, it is said, that contained

a narrative of all that had happened since Cortez left Cuba.

… In the annals of retreats there has seldom been one

recorded which proved more entirely disastrous."

Sir A. Helps,

Spanish Conquest in America,

book 10, chapters 7-8 (volume 2).

MEXICO: A. D. 1520-1521.

The retreat to Tlascala.

Reinforcements and recovery.

Cortes in the field again.

Preparations to attack Mexico.

"After the disasters and fatigues of the 'noche triste,' the

melancholy and broken band of Cortez rested for a day at

Tacuba, whilst the Mexicans returned to their capital,

probably to bury the dead and purify their city. It is

singular, yet it is certain, that they did not follow up their

successes by a death blow at the disarmed Spaniards. But this

momentary paralysis of their efforts was not to be trusted,

and accordingly Cortez began to retreat eastwardly, under the

guidance of the Tlascalans, by a circuitous route around the

northern limits of lake Zumpango. The flying forces and their

auxiliaries were soon in a famishing condition, subsisting

alone on corn or on wild cherries gathered in the forest, with

occasional refreshment and support from the carcase of a horse

that perished by the way. For six days these fragments of the

Spanish army continued their weary pilgrimage, and, on the

seventh, reached Otumba." At Otumba their progress was barred

by a vast army of the Aztecs, which had marched by a shorter

road to intercept them; but after a desperate battle the

natives fled and the Spaniards were troubled no more until

they reached the friendly shelter of Tlascala. The Tlascalans

held faithfully to their alliance and received the flying

strangers with helpful hands and encouraging words. But many

of Cortez' men demanded permission to continue their retreat

to Vera Cruz. "Just at this moment, too, Cuitlahua, who

mounted the throne of Mexico on the death of Montezuma,

despatched a mission to the Tlascalans, proposing to bury the

hatchet, and to unite in sweeping the Spaniards from the

realm." A hot discussion ensued in the council of the

Tlascalan chiefs, which resulted in the rejection of the

Mexican proposal, and the confidence of Cortez was restored.

He succeeded in pacifying his men, and gave them employment by

expeditions against tribes and towns within reach which

adhered to the Mexican king. After some time he obtained

reinforcements, by an arrival of vessels at Vera Cruz bringing

men and supplies, and he began to make serious preparations

for the reconquest of the Aztec capital. He "constructed new

arms and caused old ones to be repaired; made powder with

sulphur obtained from the volcano of Popocatopetl; and, under

the direction of his builder, Lopez, prepared the timber for

brigantines, which he designed to carry, in pieces, and launch

on the lake at the town of Tezcoco. At that port, he resolved

to prepare himself fully for the final attack, and, this time,

he determined to assault the enemy's capital by water as well

as by land." The last day of December found him once more on

the shores of the Mexican lake, encamped at Tezcoco, with a

Spanish force restored to 600 men in strength, having 40

horses, 80 arquebuses and nine small cannon. Of Indian allies

he is said to have had many thousands. Meantime, Cuitlahua had

died of smallpox—which came to the country with the

Spaniards—and had been succeeded by Guatemozin, his nephew, a

vigorous young man of twenty-five. "At Tezcoco, Cortéz was

firmly planted on the eastern edge of the valley of Mexico, in

full sight of the capital which lay across the lake, near its

western shore, at the distance of about twelve miles. Behind

him, towards the sea-coast, he commanded the country, …

while, by passes through lower spurs of the mountains, he

might easily communicate with the valleys of which the

Tlascalans and Cholulans were masters." One by one he reduced

and destroyed or occupied the neighboring towns, and overran

the surrounding country, in expeditions which made the

complete circle of the valley and gave him a complete

knowledge of it, while they re-established the prestige of the

Spaniards and the terror of their arms. On the 28th of April

the newly built brigantines, 12 in number, were launched upon

the lake, and all was in readiness for an attack upon the

city, with forces now increased by fresh arrivals to 87 horse

and 818 Spanish infantry, with three iron field pieces and 15

brass falconets.

B. Mayer,

Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and Republican,

book 1, chapters 6-8 (volume 1).

MEXICO: A. D. 1521 (May-July).

The siege of the Aztec capital begun.

"The observations which

Cortes had made in his late tour of reconnaissance

had determined him to begin the siege by

distributing his forces into three separate camps,

which he proposed to establish at the extremities

of the principal causeways," under three of his

captains, Alvarado, Olid and Sandoval. The

movement of forces from Tezcuco began on the

10th of May, 1521.

{2166}

Alvarado and Olid occupied Tacuba,

cut the aqueduct which conveyed water

from Chapoltepec to the capital, and made an

unsuccessful attempt to get possession of the

fatal causeway of "the noche triste." Holding

Tacuba, however, Alvarado commanded that

important passage, while Sandoval, seizing the

city of Iztapalapan, at the southern extremity

of the lake, and Olid, establishing himself near the

latter, at Cojohuacan, were planted at the two

outlets, it would seem, of another of the causeways,

which branched to attain the shore at

those two points. When so much had been accomplished,

Cortés, in person, set sail with his

fleet of brigantines and speedily cleared the lake

of all the swarm of light canoes and little vessels

with which the unfortunate Mexicans tried vainly

though valorously to dispute it with him. "This

victory, more complete than even the sanguine

temper of Cortés had prognosticated, proved the

superiority of the Spaniards, and left them,

henceforth, undisputed masters of the Aztec sea.

It was nearly dusk when the squadron, coasting

along the great southern causeway, anchored off

the point of junction, called Xoloc, where the

branch from Cojohuacan meets the principal dike.

The avenue widened at this point, so as to afford

room for two towers, or turreted temples, built

of stone, and surrounded by walls of the same

material, which presented altogether a position

of some strength, and, at the present moment,

was garrisoned by a body of Aztecs. They were

not numerous; and Cortés, landing with his soldiers,

succeeded without much difficulty in dislodging

the enemy, and in getting possession of

the works." Here, in a most advantageous

position on the great causeway, the Spanish

commander fortified himself and established his

headquarters, summoning Olid with half of his

force to join him and transferring Sandoval to

Olid's post at Cojohuacan. "The two principal

avenues to Mexico, those on the south and the

west, were now occupied by the Christians.

There still remained a third, the great dike of

Tepejacac, on the north, which, indeed, taking

up the principal street, that passed in a direct

line through the heart of the city, might be

regarded as a continuation of the dike of Iztapalapan.

By this northern route a means of escape

was still left open to the besieged, and they

availed themselves of it, at present, to maintain

their communications with the country, and to

supply themselves with provisions. Alvarado,

who observed this from his station at Tacuba,

advised his commander of it, and the latter

instructed Sandoval to take up his position on the

causeway. That officer, though suffering at the

time from a severe wound, … hastened to

obey; and thus, by shutting up its only

communication with the surrounding country,

completed the blockade of the capital. But Cortés

was not content to wait patiently the effects of a

dilatory blockade." He arranged with his

subordinate captains the plan of a simultaneous

advance along each of the causeways toward the

city. From his own post he pushed forward with

great success, assisted by the brigantines which

sailed along side, and which, by the flanking fire

of their artillery, drove the Aztecs from one

barricade after another, which they had erected

at every dismantled bridge. Fighting their way

steadily, the Spaniards traversed the whole

length of the dike and entered the city;

penetrated to the great square; saw once more their

old quarters; scaled again the sides of the

pyramid-temple, to slay the bloody priests and to

strip the idols of their jewels and gold. But the

Aztecs were frenzied by this sacrilege, as they

had been frenzied by the same deed before, and

renewed the battle with so much fury that the

Spaniards were driven back in thorough panic

and disarray. "All seemed to be lost;—when

suddenly sounds were heard in an adjoining

street, like the distant tramp of horses galloping

rapidly over the pavement. They drew nearer

and nearer, and a body of cavalry soon emerged

on the great square. Though but a handful in

number, they plunged boldly into the thick of

the enemy," who speedily broke and fled, enabling

Cortés to withdraw his troops in safety. Neither

Alvarado nor Sandoval, who had greater difficulties

to overcome, and who had no help from

the brigantines, reached the suburbs of the city;

but their assault had been vigorously made, and

had been of great help to that of Cortés. The

success of the demonstration spread consternation

among the Mexicans and their vassals, and

brought a number of the latter over to the

Spanish side. Among these latter was the prince

of Tezcuco, who joined Cortés, with a large

force, in the next assault which the latter made

presently upon the city. Again penetrating to

the great square, the Spaniards on this occasion

destroyed the palaces there by fire. But the

spirit of the Mexicans remained unbroken, and

they were found in every encounter opposing as

obstinate a resistance as ever. They contrived,

too, for a remarkable length of time, to run the

blockade of the brigantines on the lake and to

bring supplies into the city by their canoes. But,

at length, when most of the great towns of the

neighborhood had deserted their cause, the

supplies failed and starvation began to do its work

in the fated city. At the same time, the Spaniards

were amply provisioned, and their new

allies built barracks and huts for their shelter.

Cortés "would gladly have spared the town and

its inhabitants. … He intimated more than

once, by means of the prisoners whom he released,

his willingness to grant them fair terms of

capitulation. Day after day, he fully expected

his proffers would be accepted. But day after

day he was disappointed. He had yet to learn

how tenacious was the memory of the Aztecs."

W. H. Prescott,

History of the Conquest of Mexico,

book 6, chapters 4-5.

MEXICO: A. D. 1521 (July).

Disastrous repulse of the Spaniards.

"The impatience of the soldiers grew to a great height, and

was supported in an official quarter—by no less a person than

Alderete, the king's treasurer. Cortez gave way, against his

own judgment, to their importunities" and another general

attack was ordered. "On the appointed day Cortez moved from

his camp, supported by seven brigantines, and by more than

3,000 canoes filled with his Indian allies. When his soldiers

reached the entrance of the city, he divided them in the

following manner. There were three streets which led to the

market-place from the position which the Spaniards had already

gained. Along, the principal street, the king's treasurer,

with 70 Spaniards and 15,000 or 20,000 allies, was to make his

way. His rear was to be protected by a small guard of

horsemen. The other two streets were smaller, and led from the

street of Tlacuba to the market-place.

{2167}

Along the broader of these two streets Cortez sent two of his

principal captains, with 80 Spaniards and 10,000 Indians; he

himself, with eight horsemen, 75 foot-soldiers, 25 musketeers,

and an 'infinite number' of allies, was to enter the narrower

street. At the entrance to the street of Tlacuba he left two

large cannon, with eight horsemen to guard them, and at the

entrance of his own street he also left eight horsemen to

protect the rear. … The Spaniards and their allies made

their entrance into the city with even more success and less

embarrassment than on previous occasions. Bridges and

barricades were gained, and the three main bodies of the army

moved forward into the heart of the city." But in the

excitement of their advance they left unrepaired behind them a

great breach in the causeway, ten or twelve paces wide,

although Cortez had repeatedly enjoined upon his captains that

no such dangerous death-trap should be left to catch them in

the event of a retreat. The neglect in this case was most

disastrous. Being presently repulsed and driven back, the

division which had allowed this chasm to yawn behind it was

engulfed. Cortez, whose distrust had been excited in some way,

discovered the danger, but too late. He made his way to the

spot, only to find "the whole aperture so full of Spaniards

and Indians that, as he says, there was not room for a straw

to float upon the surface of the water. The peril was so

imminent that Cortez not only thought that the Conquest of

Mexico was gone, but that the term of his life as well as of

his victories had come, and he resolved to die there fighting.

All that he could do at first was to help his men out of the

water; and, meanwhile, the Mexicans charged upon them in such

numbers that he and his little party were entirely surrounded.

The enemy seized upon his person, and would have carried him

off but for the resolute bravery of some of his guard, one of

whom lost his life there in succouring his master. … At last

he and a few of his men succeeded in fighting their way to the

broad street of Tlacuba, where, like a brave captain, instead

of continuing his flight, he and the few horsemen who were

with him turned round and formed a rear guard to protect his

retreating troops. He also sent immediate orders to the king's

treasurer and the other commanders to make good their

retreat."

Sir A. Helps,

The Spanish Conquest in America,

book 11, book 1 (volume 2).

"As we were thus retreating, we continually heard the large

drum beating from the summit of the chief temple of the city.

Its tone was mournful indeed, and sounded like the very

instrument of Satan. This drum was so vast in its dimensions

that it could be heard from eight to twelve miles distance.

Every time we heard its mournful sound, the Mexicans, as we

subsequently learnt, offered to their idols the bleeding

hearts of our unfortunate countrymen. … After we had at

last, with excessive toil, crossed a deep opening, and had

arrived at our encampment, … the large drum of

Huitzilopochtli again resounded from the summit of the temple,

accompanied by all the hellish music of shell trumpets, horns,

and other instruments. … We could plainly see the platform,

with the chapel in which those cursed idols stood; how the

Mexicans had adorned the heads of the Spaniards with feathers,

and compelled their victims to dance round the god

Huitzilopochtli; we saw how they stretched them out at full

length on a large stone, ripped open their breasts with flint

knives, tore out the palpitating heart and offered it to their

idols. Alas! we were forced to be spectators of all this, and

how they then seized hold of the dead bodies by the legs and

threw them headlong down the steps of the temple, at the

bottom of which other executioners stood ready to receive

them, who severed the arms, legs, and heads from the bodies,

drew the skin off the faces, which were tanned with the beards

still adhering to them, and produced as spectacles of mockery

and derision at their feasts; the legs, arms, and other parts

of the body being cut up and devoured. … On that terrible

day the loss of the three divisions amounted to 60 men and 7

horses."

Bernal Diaz del Castillo,

Memoirs,

chapter 152 (volume 2).

MEXICO: A. D. 1521 (August).

The last days of the Siege.

The taking of the ruined city.

The end of the Aztec dominion.

"Guatemozin's victory diffused immense enthusiasm among the

Aztecs and those who remained united to them. The priests

proclaimed that the gods, satiated by the sacrifice of the

Spanish prisoners, had promised to rid the country of the

foreigners, and that the promise would be fulfilled within

eight days. This intelligence spread alarm among the allies of

the Spaniards. They deserted in great numbers—not to go over

to the Aztecs, whose anger they dreaded, but to return to

their homes. Cortez had good watch kept in the camp. The

sorties of the besieged were repulsed; the eight days passed

without the Spaniards having lost more than a few marauders.

The allies, seeing that the oracle was wrong, came back to

their former friends. The aggressive ardour of the besieged

grew cooler, and they soon found themselves assailed by the

plagues that ordinarily attack troops massed in a city—not

only famine, but epidemic diseases, the result of want and

overcrowding. … Famine pinched them more cruelly day after

day. Lizards and such rats as they could find were their

richest nourishment; reptiles and insects were eagerly looked

for, trees stripped of their bark, and roots stealthily sought

after by night. Meanwhile, Cortez, seeing that there was no

other means of bringing them to submission, pursued the work

of destruction he had resolved on with so much regret. …

Heaps of bodies were found in every street that was won from

them; this people, so punctilious in their customs of

sepulture, had ceased to bury their dead. … Soon there was

left to the besieged but one quarter, and that the most

incommodious of all, forming barely an eighth of the city,

where there were not houses enough to give them shelter. …

The 13th August, 1521, had now arrived, and that was to be the

last day of this once flourishing empire. Before making a

final assault, Cortez once more invited the emperor to his

presence. His envoys came back with the 'cihuacoatl,' a

magistrate of the first rank, who declared, with an air of

consternation, that Guatemozin knew how to die, but that he

would not come to treat. Then, turning towards Cortez, he

added: 'Do now whatever you please.' 'Be it so,' replied

Cortez; 'go and tell your friends to prepare; they are going

to die.' In fact, the troops advanced; there was a last mêlée,

a last carnage, on land and on the lake. …

{2168}

Guatemozin, driven to the shore of the lake, threw himself

into a canoe with a few warriors, and endeavoured to escape by

dint of rowing; but he was pursued by a brigantine of the

Spanish fleet, taken and brought to Cortez, who received him

with the respect due to a crowned head. … The Aztec empire

had ceased to exist; Spanish sway was established in Mexico.

The Cross was triumphant in that fine country, and there was

no sharer in its reign. The number of persons that perished in

the siege has been differently estimated. The most moderate

calculation puts it at 120,000 on the side of the Aztecs. Very

many Indians fell on the side of the besiegers. The historian

Ixtlixochitl says there were 30,000 dead of the warriors of

Tezcuco alone. All that were left alive of the Aztecs were, at

the request of Guatemozin, allowed to leave the city in

freedom, on the morning after it was taken. … They dispersed

in all directions, everywhere spreading a terror of the

Spaniards, and the feeling that to resist them was impossible.

That conviction must have been established speedily and

firmly, for there was no further attempt at resistance, unless

it were at one point, in the territory of Panuco, near the

Atlantic Ocean."

M. Chevalier,

Mexico, Ancient and Modern,

part 2, chapters 8-9 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

H. Cortes,

Despatches [Letters] MEXICO,

translated by G. Folsom,

letter 3, chapter 5.

MEXICO: A. D. 1521-1524.

The rebuilding of the capital.

The completion and settlement of the Conquest.

"The first ebullition of triumph was succeeded in the army by

very different feelings, as they beheld the scanty spoil

gleaned from the conquered city;" and Cortés was driven, by

the clamors and suspicions of his soldiers, to subject his

heroic captive, Guatemozin, to torture, in the hope of

wringing from him a disclosure of some concealment of his

imagined treasures. Its only result was to add another infamy

to the name and memory of the conquerors. "The

commander-in-chief, with his little band of Spaniards, now

daily recruited by reinforcements from the Islands, still

occupied the quarters of Cojohuacan, which they had taken up

at the termination of the siege. Cortés did not immediately

decide in what quarter of the Valley to establish the new

capital which was to take the place of the ancient

Tenochtitlan. … At length he decided on retaining the site

of the ancient city, … and he made preparations for the

reconstruction of the capital on a scale of magnificence which

should, in his own language, 'raise her to the rank of Queen

of the surrounding provinces, in the same manner as she had

been of yore.' The labor was to be performed by the Indian

population, drawn from all quarters of the Valley, and

including the Mexicans themselves, great numbers of whom still

lingered in the neighborhood of their ancient residence. …

In less than four years from the destruction of Mexico, a new

city had risen on its ruins, which, if inferior to the ancient

capital in extent, surpassed it in magnificence and strength.

It occupied so exactly the same site as its predecessor that

the 'plaza mayor,' or great square, was the same spot which

had been covered by the huge 'teocalli' and the palace of

Montezuma; while the principal streets took their departure as

before from this central point, and, passing through the whole

length of the city, terminated at the principal causeways.

Great alterations, however, took place in the fashion of the

architecture." Meantime, Cortés had been brought into much

danger at the Spanish court, by the machinations of his

enemies, encouraged by Bishop Fonseca, the same minister who

pursued Columbus with hostility. His friends in Spain rallied,

however, to his support, and the result of an investigation,

undertaken by a board to which the Emperor Charles V. referred

all the charges against him, was the confirmation of his acts

in Mexico to their full extent. "He was constituted Governor,

Captain-General, and Chief Justice of New Spain, with power to

appoint to all offices, civil and military, and to order any

person to leave the country whose residence there he might

deem prejudicial to the interests of the Crown. This judgment

of the council was ratified by Charles V., and the commission

investing Cortés with these ample powers was signed by the

emperor at Valladolid, October 15th, 1522. … The attention

of Cortés was not confined to the capital. He was careful to

establish settlements in every part of the country which

afforded a favourable position for them. … While thus

occupied with the internal economy of the country, Cortés was

still bent on his great schemes of discovery and conquest." He

fitted out a fleet to explore the shores of the Pacific, and

another in the Gulf of Mexico—the prime object of both being

the discovery of some strait that would open one ocean to the

other. He also sent Olid in command of an expedition by sea to

occupy and colonize Honduras, and Alvarado, by land, at the

head of a large force, to subdue Guatemala. The former, having

partly accomplished his mission, attempted to establish for

himself an independent jurisdiction, and his conduct induced

Cortés to proceed to Honduras in person. It was in the course

of this expedition that Guatemozin, the dethroned Mexican

chief, who had been forced to accompany his conqueror, was

accused of a plot against the Spaniards and was hung to a

tree. 'We have the testimony of Bernal Diaz, one of the

Spaniards on the spot, that the execution "was most unjust,

and was thought wrong by all of us." "Within three short years

after the Conquest [Cortés] had reduced under the dominion of

Castile an extent of country more than 400 leagues in length,

as he affirms, on the Atlantic coast, and more than 500 on the

Pacific; and, with the exception of a few interior provinces

of no great importance, had brought them to a condition of

entire tranquillity."

W. H. Prescott,

History of the Conquest of Mexico,

book 7, chapters 1-3.

ALSO IN:

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 5 (Mexico, volume 2), chapters 1-8.

MEXICO: A. D. 1535-1540.

Introduction of Printing.

See PRINTING, &C: A. D. 1535—1709.

MEXICO: A. D. 1535-1822.

Under the Spanish viceroys.

"Antonio de Mendoza, Conde de Tendilla, was the first viceroy

sent by Charles V. to New Spain. He arrived in the autumn of

1535. … He had a well-balanced and moderate character, and

governed the country with justice and generosity combined. He

… set himself to reform the abuses which had already

appeared, protected the Indians from the humiliations which

the newly arrived Spaniards were disposed to put upon them; he

stimulated all branches of agriculture, and finding the

natives were already well informed in the cultivation of land,

he encouraged them in this pursuit by all possible efforts. …

{2169}

To the religious orders in Mexico is due in great measure the

firm base upon which the government of Spain was established

there. The new viceroy fully recognized this, and encouraged

the foundations of colleges and schools already undertaken by

them. In every way he promoted the prosperity and growth of

the country, and had the satisfaction in the course of his

government, which lasted 15 years, to see everything bear the

marks of his judgment and enterprise. It was he who founded

two cities [Guadalajara and Valladolid] which have reached

great importance. … Cortés was away when the Viceroy Mendoza

arrived in Mexico. He still retained his title as governor,

with the same powers always conferred upon him; but his long

absences from the capital made it necessary, as he fully

recognized, that some other strong authority should be

established there. Nevertheless, he never got on very well

with such other authorities, and on his return soon became at

odds with Mendoza, who, in his opinion, interfered with his

prerogatives. It was then that Cortés bade farewell to his

family, and taking with him his eldest son and heir, Don

Martin, then eight years old, he embarked for Spain, leaving

Mendoza undisturbed in the execution of his office. … In

1536 was issued the first book printed in Mexico, on a press

imported by Mendoza, and put into the hands of one Juan

Pablos. … In 1550 this good ruler [Mendoza] sailed away from

Mexico. … He passed on to take charge of the government of

Peru, by a practice which came to be quite common—a sort of

diplomatic succession by which the viceroys of New Spain were

promoted to the post at Peru. Don Luis de Velasco, second

viceroy of New Spain, made his entrance into the capital with

great pomp, at the end of the year 1550. He, like his

predecessor, had been selected with care by the orders of

Charles V. … His first decree was one liberating 150 Indians

from slavery, who were working chiefly in the mines. … He

established in Mexico, for the security of travellers upon the

highway, the tribunal of the Holy Brotherhood, instituted in

Spain for the same purpose in the time of Isabella. He founded

the Royal University of Mexico, and the Royal Hospital for the

exclusive use of the natives. … The good Viceroy Velasco

died in 1564, having governed the country for 14 years. …

During the government of this ruler and his predecessor all

the administration of New Spain, political, civil, and

religious was established upon so firm a foundation that it

could go on in daily action like a well regulated machine." In

the meantime, Charles V. had resigned the burden of his great

sovereignty, transferring all his crowns to his narrow-souled

son, Philip II., who cared nothing for the New World except as

a source of gold and silver supply and a field for religious

bigotry. Under Philip "the character of the viceroys was

lowered from the high standard adhered to when Charles the

Emperor selected them himself. To follow the long list of them

would be most tedious and useless, as they passed in rotation,

governing according to the best of their lights for several

years in Mexico, and then passing on, either by death or by

promotion to Peru. In 1571 the Inquisition was fully

established … and the next year the Jesuits arrived. … The

first 'auto-da-fé' was celebrated in the year 1574, when, as

its chronicler mentions cheerfully, 'there perished 21

pestilent Lutherans.' From this time such ceremonies were of

frequent occurrence, but the Inquisition never reached the

point it did in Old Spain. … The viceroys of New Spain under

Philip III. [1578-1621] were, for the most part, men of

judgment and moderation. While the government at home, in the

hands of profligate favorites, was growing weaker and weaker,

that of Mexico was becoming more firmly established." It was

not shaken nor disturbed by the War of the Spanish Succession,

during the early years of the eighteenth century; but the

Revolution in France, which convulsed Europe before that

century closed, wrought changes which were lasting in the New

World as well as the Old. "There were in all 64 viceroys,

beginning with Don Antonio de Mendoza, 1535, and ending with

Juan O'Donoju in 1822."

S. Hale,

The Story of Mexico,

chapters 20-22.

ALSO IN:

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volumes 5-6 (Mexico, volumes 2-3).

MEXICO: A. D. 1539-1586.

Expeditions of Niza, Coronado, and others to the North.

Search for the Seven Cities of Cibola.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.

The first Revolutionary movement.

Hidalgo.

Allende.

Morelos.

"The causes of the coming revolution were not hidden. The law

that excluded Spaniards born in America from equal rights with

those who were immigrants was a natural, not to say necessary,

source of discontent among people whose good-will was much

needed by any viceroy. There was inevitably not a little

mutual repugnance between the Mexican and Spanish stocks, and

the home government did nothing to mollify such asperities.

There were commercial monopolies militant against public

interests. The clergy were alienated, and since they were not

thus so serviceable as formerly in the part of mediators in

enforcing governmental aims, it was found necessary to use

force where the people were not accustomed to it. The Viceroy

Jose de Iturrigaray practised a seeming condescension that

deceived no one, and he pursued his exactions partly by reason

of self-interest, and partly in order to supply Madrid with

means to meet the financial troubles that the Napoleonic era

was creating. After some years of these conditions in New

Spain, a conspiracy, resulting from a reaction, sent the

viceroy back to Spain a prisoner. This gave strength to

revolutionary sentiments, and a few trials for treason

increased the discontent. The men who were now put

successively in the vice-regal place had few qualities for the

times, and a certain timidity of policy was not conducive to

strength of government. … The outbreak, when it came,

brought to the front a curate of Dolores, a native priest,

Miguel Hidalgo, who commanded the confidence of the

disaffected, and was relied upon to guide the priesthood.

Ignacio de Allende had some of the soldierly qualities needed

for a generalissimo. The purpose of these men and their

allies, before they should openly proclaim a revolt, was to

seize some of the leading Spaniards; but their plot being

discovered, they hastily assembled at Dolores and raised the

standard of revolt (1810). Thus banded together, but badly

organized and poorly armed, a body of 5,000 insurgents marched

from Dolores, headed by Hidalgo and Allende, and approached

Guanajuato, where the intendente Riaña had intrenched himself

in a fortified alhondiga, or granary.

{2170}

The attack of the rebels was headlong and bloody. The gates

were fired with flaming rubbish, and through the glowing way

the mad throng rushed, and after a hand-to-hand conflict

(September 28, 1810) the fortress fell. The royalist leader

had been killed, and scenes of pillage and riot followed.

Meanwhile the viceroy in Mexico prepared to receive the

insurgents, and his ally, the church, excommunicated their

leaders. The military force of the royalists was

inconsiderable, and what there was, it was feared, might prove

not as loyal as was desirable. As Hidalgo marched towards the

capital, he tried to seduce to his side a young lieutenant,

Augustin Iturbide, who was in command of a small outlying

force. The future emperor declined the offer, and, making his

way to the city, was at once sent to join Trujillo, who

commanded a corps of observation which confronted the

insurgents, and who finally ran the chances of a battle at Las

Cruces. … The insurgents soon surrounded him, and he was

only able to reach the city by breaking with a part of his

force through the enveloping line. Hidalgo had lost 2,000 men,

but he had gained the day. He soon intercepted a despatch and

learned from it that General Calleja had been put in motion

from San Luis Potosi, and it seemed more prudent to Hidalgo

that, instead of approaching Mexico, he should retreat to be

nearer his recruiting ground. The retrograde movement brought

the usual result to an undisciplined force, and he was already

weakened by desertions when Calleja struck his line of march

at Aculco. Hidalgo felt it important for the revolution to

have time enough to spread into other parts of the province,

and so he merely fought Calleja to cover his further retreat.

The rebel leader soon gathered his forces at Celaya, while

Allende, his colleague, posted himself at Guanajuato. Here the

latter was attacked by Calleja and routed, and the royal

forces made bloody work in the town. Hidalgo, moving to

Valladolid, reorganized his army, and then, proceeding to

Guadalajara, he set up a form of government, with Ignacio

Lopez Rayon as Secretary-general. At this time the insurgents

held completely the provinces of Nueva Galicia, Zacatecas, and

San Luis Potosi, a belt of country stretching from sea to sea

in the latitude of Tampico. … In January, 1811, the signs

were not very propitious for the royalists. … At this

juncture … Hidalgo moved out from Guadalajara with his

entire force, which was large enough, consisting of 60,000

foot, 20,000 horse, and 100 cannon; but it was poorly armed,

and without effective discipline; while Calleja commanded a

well-equipped and well-organized force, but in extent it only

counted 3,000 foot, with as many horse, and ten guns. At the

bridge of Calderon, 10 or 11 leagues from the city, Hidalgo

prepared to stand. Here Calleja attacked him," and won the

day, entering Guadalajara as a victor on the 21st of January,

1811. "Hidalgo fled with his broken army, and soon resigned

the command to Allende. This general had scarcely 4,000 or

5,000 men left when he reached Saltillo, where he joined

Jimenes. The disheartenment of defeat was spreading through

the country. Town after town was heard from as yielding to the

victors. The leaders, counselling together at Saltillo,

resolved to escape to the United States; but, as they were

marching,—about 2,000 in all, with 24 guns and a

money-chest,—they fell into an ambush planned in the interest

of a counter-revolution by one Elizondo, and, with nothing

more than a show of resistance, the party was captured, one

and all. The judgment of death upon Hidalgo, Allende, and

Jimenes soon followed. The main force of the insurgents had

thus disappeared, but a small body still remained in arms

under the lead of Jose Maria Morelos." Morelos was uneducated,

but capable and energetic, and he kept life in the rebellion

for two years. He captured Orizaba in October, 1812, Oajaca in

the following month, and Acapulco in the spring of 1813. In

November of that year he appeared before Valladolid, the

capital of Michoacan, but was attacked there by Iturbide and

routed. "In January, 1814, Morelos made a final stand at

Puruaran, but Iturbide still drove him on. Disaster followed

upon disaster, till finally Morelos was deposed by his own

congress. This body had adherents enough to make it necessary

for Calleja to appeal to the home government for a

reinforcement of 8,000 troops. … Morelos, meanwhile,

commanding an escort which was protecting the migratory

congress, was intercepted and captured by a force of

royalists, and, after the forms of a trial, he was executed

December 22, 1815. The campaign of 1816 was sustained by the

insurgents against a force of 80,000 men which Calleja had

collected. … Neither side had much success, and the war was

simply tedious. At last, in August, a new viceroy, Juan Riaz

de Apodaca, succeeded to Calleja, and uniting a more humane

policy with vigor in disposing his forces, the leading rebel

officers … surrendered in January, 1817. … A certain

quixotic interest is lent to the closing months of the

revolution by the adventurous exploits of Espoz y Mina. He had

fitted out a small expedition in the United States, which,

landing on the Gulf coast, for a while swept victoriously

inland. … But Mina was finally surprised and executed. Other

vagrant rebel leaders fell one by one into the hands of the

royalists; but Guadalupe Victoria held out, and concealed

himself in the wilds for two years."

J. Winsor,

Spanish North America

(Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 8, chapter 4).

ALSO IN:

W. D. Robinson,

Memoirs of the Mexican Revolution.

MEXICO: A. D. 1819.

Texas occupied as a province.

See TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835.

MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.

Independence of Spain.

The brief empire of Iturbide and its fall.

Constitution of the Republic of the United Mexican States.

"The establishment of a constitutional government in Spain, in

1820, produced upon Mexico an effect very different from what

was anticipated. As the constitution provided for a more

liberal administration of government in Mexico than had

prevailed since 1812, the increased freedom of the elections

again threw the minds of the people into a ferment, and the

spirit of independence, which had been only smothered, broke

forth anew. Moreover, divisions were created among the old

Spaniards themselves; some being in favor of the old system,

while others were sincerely attached to the constitution. Some

formidable inroads on the property and prerogatives of the

church alienated the clergy from the new government, and

induced them to desire a return to the old system.

{2171}

The Viceroy, Apodaca, encouraged by the hopes held out by the

Royalists in Spain, although he had at first taken the oath to

support the constitution, secretly favored the party opposed

to it, and arranged his plans for its overthrow. Don Augustin

Iturbide, the person selected by the Viceroy to make the first

open demonstration against the existing government, was

offered the command of a body of troops on the western coast,

at the head of which he was to proclaim the re-establishment

of the absolute authority of the king. Iturbide, accepting the

commission, departed from the capital to take command of the

troops, but with intentions very different from those which

the Viceroy supposed him to entertain. Reflecting upon the

state of the country, and convinced of the facility with which

the authority of Spain might be shaken off,—by bringing the

Creole troops to act in concert with the old insurgents,

—Iturbide resolved to proclaim Mexico wholly independent of

the Spanish nation. Having his head quarters at the little

town of Iguala, on the road to Acapulco, Iturbide, on the 24th

of February, 1821, there proclaimed his project, known as the

'Plan of Iguala,' and induced his soldiers to take an oath to

support it. This 'Plan' declared that Mexico should be an

independent nation, its religion Catholic, and its government

a constitutional monarchy. The crown was offered to Ferdinand

VII, of Spain, provided he would consent to occupy the throne

in person; and, in case of his refusal, to his infant

brothers, Don Carlos and Don Francisco. A constitution was to

be formed by a Mexican Congress; … all distinctions of caste

were to be abolished. … The Viceroy, astonished by this

unexpected movement of Iturbide, and remaining irresolute and

inactive at the capital, was deposed, and Don Francisco

Novello, a military officer, was placed at the head of the

government; but his authority was not generally recognized,

and Iturbide was left to pursue his plans in the interior

without interruption. Being joined by Generals Guerrero and

Victoria as soon as they knew that the independence of their

country was the object of Iturbide, not only all the survivors

of the first insurgents, but whole detachments of Creole

troops flocked to his standard, and his success was soon

rendered certain. The clergy and the people were equally

decided in favor of independence; … and, before the month of

July, the whole country recognized the authority of Iturbide,

with the exception of the capital, in which Novello had shut

himself up with the European troops. Iturbide had already

reached Queretaro with his troops, on his road to Mexico, when

he was informed of the arrival, at Vera Cruz, of a new

Viceroy. … At Cordova, whither the Viceroy had been allowed

to proceed, for the purpose of an interview with Iturbide, the

latter induced him to accept by treaty the Plan of Iguala, as

the only means of securing the lives and property of the

Spaniards then in Mexico, and of establishing the right to the

throne in the house of Bourbon. By this agreement, called the

'Treaty of Cordova,' the Viceroy, in the name of the king, his

master, recognized the independence of Mexico, and gave up the

capital to the army of the insurgents, which took possession

of it, without effusion of blood, on the 27th of September,

1821. All opposition being ended, and the capital occupied, in

accordance with a provision of the Plan of Iguala a

provisional junta was established, the principal business of

which was to call a congress for the formation of a

constitution suitable to the country. At the same time a

regency, consisting of five individuals, was elected, at the

head of which was placed Iturbide. … When the congress

assembled [February 24, 1822], three distinct parties were

found amongst the members. The Bourbonists, adhering to the

Plan of Iguala altogether, wished a constitutional monarchy,

with a prince of the house of Bourbon at its head; the

Republican, setting aside the Plan of Iguala, desired a

federal republic; while a third party, the Iturbidists,

adopting the Plan of Iguala with the exception of the article

in favor of the Bourbons, wished to place Iturbide himself

upon the throne. As it was soon learned that the Spanish

government had declared the treaty of Cordova null and void,

the Bourbonists ceased to exist as a party, and the struggle

was confined to the Iturbidists and the Republicans." By the

aid of a mob demonstration in the city of Mexico, on the night

of May 18, 1822, the former triumphed, and Iturbide was

declared emperor, under the title of Augustin the First. "The

choice was ratified by the provinces without opposition, and

Iturbide found himself in peaceable possession of a throne to

which his own abilities and a concurrence of favorable

circumstances had raised him. Had the monarch elect been

guided by counsels of prudence, and allowed his authority to

be confined within constitutional limits, he might perhaps

have continued to maintain a modified authority; but

forgetting the unstable foundation of his throne, he began his

reign with all the airs of hereditary royalty. On his

accession a struggle for power immediately commenced between

him and the congress." After arbitrarily imprisoning the most

distinguished members of that body, Iturbide, at last,

proclaimed its dissolution and substituted a junta of his own

nomination. "Before the end of November an insurrection broke

out in the northern provinces, but this was speedily quelled

by the imperial troops." It was followed in December by a more

formidable revolt, led off by Santa Anna (or Santana), a young

general who had supported Iturbide, but who had been haughtily

dismissed from the government of Vera Cruz. Santa Anna was

joined by Victoria and other old Republican leaders, and the

power of Iturbide crumbled so rapidly that he resigned his

crown on the 19th of March, 1823, promising to quit the

country, on being assured a yearly allowance of $25,000 for

his support. "With his family and suite he embarked for

Leghorn on the 11th of May. … From Italy he proceeded to

London, and made preparations for returning to Mexico; in

consequence of which, congress, on the 28th of April, 1824,

passed a decree of outlawry against him. He landed in disguise

at Soto la Marina, July 14th, 1824; was arrested by General

Garza, and shot at Padillo by order of the provincial congress

of Tamaulipas, on the 19th of that month. … On the departure

of Iturbide, a temporary executive was appointed, consisting

of Generals Victoria, Bravo, and Negrete, by whom the

government was administered until the meeting of a new

congress, which assembled at the capital in August, 1823.

{2172}

This body immediately entered on the duties of preparing a new

constitution, which was submitted on the 31st of January,

1824, and definitively sanctioned on the 4th of October

following. By this instrument, modeled somewhat after the

constitution of the United States, the absolute independence

of the country was declared, and the several Mexican Provinces

were united in a Federal Republic. The legislative power was

vested in a Congress, consisting of a Senate and a House of

Representatives. … The supreme executive authority was

vested in one individual, styled the 'President of the United

Mexican States.' … The third article in the constitution

declared that 'The Religion of the Mexican Nation is, and will

be perpetually, the Roman Catholic Apostolic. The nation will

protect it by wise and just laws, and prohibit the exercise of

any other whatever.' … On the 1st of January, 1825, the

first congress under the federal constitution assembled in the

city of Mexico; and, at the same time, General Guadalupe

Victoria was installed as president of the republic, and

General Nicholas Bravo as vice-president. The years 1825 and

1826 passed with few disturbances; the administration of

Victoria was generally popular; and the country enjoyed a

higher degree of prosperity than at any former or subsequent

period."

M. Willson,

American History,

book 3, part 2, chapters 4-5.

ALSO IN:

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 7 (Mexico, volume 3), chapters 29-33,

and volume 8, chapters 1-2.

MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.

Free-Masonry in politics.

The rival branches of the order.

The Escocés and the Yorkinos.

For some years a furious contest raged between two political

societies, "known as the 'Escocés' and 'Yorkinos'—or, as we

should call them, Scotch Free-Masons and York

Free-Masons—whose secret organizations were employed for

political purposes by two rival political parties. At the time

of the restoration of the Constitutional Government of Spain

in 1820, Free-Masonry was introduced into Mexico; and as it

was derived from the Scotch branch of that order, it was

called, after the name of the people of Scotland, 'Escocés.'

Into this institution were initiated many of the old Spaniards

still remaining in the country, the Creole aristocracy, and

the privileged classes—parties that could ill endure the

elevation of a Creole colonel, Iturbide, to the Imperial

throne. When Mr. Poinsett was sent out as Embassador to Mexico

[1822], he carried with him the charter for a Grand Lodge from

the American, or York order of Free-Masons in the United

States. Into this new order the leaders of the Democratic

party were initiated. The bitter rivalry that sprung up

between these two branches of the Masonic body kept the

country in a ferment for ten years, and resulted finally in

the formation of a party whose motto was opposition to all

secret societies, and who derived their name of Anti-Masons

from the party of the same name then flourishing in the United

States. When the Escocés had so far lost ground in popular

favor as to be in the greatest apprehension from their

prosperous but imbittered rivals, the Yorkinos, as a last

resort, to save themselves, and to ruin the hated

organization, they pronounced against all secret societies.

… 'General Bravo,' Vice-President of Mexico, and leader of

the Escocés, having issued his proclamation declaring that, as

a last resort, he appealed to arms to rid the republic of that

pest, secret societies, and that he would not give up the

contest until he had rooted them out, root and branch, took up

his position at Tulansingo—a village about 30 miles north of

the City of Mexico. Here, at about daylight on the morning of

the 7th January, 1828, he was assailed by General Guerrero,

the leader of the Yorkinos, and commander of the forces of

government.' After a slight skirmish, in which eight men were

killed and six wounded, General Bravo and his party were made

prisoners; and thus perished forever the party of the Escocés.

This victory was so complete as to prove a real disaster to

the Yorkinos. The want of outside pressure led to internal

dissensions; so that when two of its own members, Guerrero and

Pedraza, became rival candidates for the presidency, the

election was determined by a resort to arms."

R. A. Wilson,

Mexico: its Peasants and its Priests,

chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapter 2.

MEXICO: A. D. 1828-1844.

The rise of Santa Anna.

Dissolution of the Federal System.

The Unitary Republic established.

Recognition by Spain.

The Pastry War.

Retrogradation and decline.

"After the death of Iturbide, by far the most powerful person

in the nation was the Creole general Santa Anna, who, at the

age of 24, had already destroyed the military empire of his

chief. Santa Anna at first interested himself in the visionary

project of Bolivar for framing a general confederation of the

new nations of South America.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.

This project … failed completely; and for several years he

settled down as governor of Vera Cruz, reconciled himself to

the Federal Republic, and took no part in public life. In

1828, however, the Presidential election led to a civil war in

which Santa Anna and his favourite Veracrusanos first found

out their capabilities; and they had an opportunity of testing

them again in the next year, when the feeble force of

Barrados, the last military attempt made by Spain to reduce

Mexico, was cut to pieces at Tampico. From that movement Santa

Anna became the sole controller of the destinies of the

country: and in 1833 he was elected President. Forty years ago

all Europe knew the picture of Santa Anna, with his tall spare

figure, sunburnt face, and black hair curling over his

forehead; how he lived on his hacienda of Manga de Clavo,

cockfighting, gambling, and horse-racing, occasionally putting

himself at the head of his bronzed troops, and either making a

dash at an insurrection, or making a pronunciamento on his own

account. Mexican histories tell how gallantly he defended Vera

Cruz in 1839, against the French invasion under Prince de

Joinville [called 'the Pastry War,' because consequent on the

non-payment of French claims, among which there was prominence

given to a certain pastry-cook's claim for goods destroyed in

the riot of a revolution at the capital in 1828]; how his leg,

having been shattered by a ball, was buried with a solemn

service and a funeral oration in the cemetery of Santa Paula

in Mexico; and how, in a few years, when Santa Anna was in

disgrace with the people, they destroyed the tomb, and kicked

Santa Anna's limb about the streets with every mark of hatred

and contempt. …

{2173}

The manifold difficulties of government in Mexico sufficiently

attested the weakness of the Federal constitution; and in

1835, after a trial of eleven years, the state governments

were dissolved, and the Republic, one and indivisible, set up

for a time in their place. There was now to be a President,

elected by an indirect vote for eight years, a Senate, and a

House of Deputies, both elected by a direct popular vote, and

an elective Supreme Court. Santa Anna, who was identified with

the Unitary principle, was re-elected three times; so that

with some intermission he governed Mexico for 20 years. The

dissolution of the Federal government naturally strengthened

the hands of Santa Anna; and in 1836 Mexico was for the first

time recognized by Spain. But the unitary republic was a time

of disaster and disgrace; and from the point of view of

progress it was a period of reaction. … Europe looked

forward, almost without jealousy, to the time when the great

nation of North America would absorb this people of

half-civilized Indians mixed with degenerate Spaniards. Events

which now happened greatly strengthened this impression."

E. J. Payne,

History of European Colonies,

chapter 20, sections 6-7.

MEXICO: A. D. 1829-1837.

The Abolition of Slavery.

"The general affairs of the country in the second half of 1829

were in a chaotic state. Disorganization fettered every branch

of the government. … And yet, amidst its constant struggle,

Guerrero's administration decreed several progressive

measures, the most important of which was the abolition of

slavery. African slavery had indeed been reduced to narrow

limits. The Dominican provincial of Chiapas, Father Matias

Cordoba, gave freedom to the slaves on the estates of his

order. On the 16th of September, 1825, President Victoria had

liberated in the country's name the slaves purchased with a

certain fund collected for that purpose, as well as those

given up by their owners to the patriotic junta. The general

abolition, however, was not actually carried out for some

time, certain difficulties having arisen; and several states,

among which was Zacatecas, had decreed the freedom of slaves

before the general government arrived at a final conclusion on

the subject. As a matter of fact, the few remaining slaves

were in domestic service, and treated more like members of

families than as actual chattels. At last Deputy Tornel,

taking advantage of the time when Guerrero was invested with

extraordinary powers, drew up and laid before him a decree for

total abolition. It was signed September 15, 1829, and

proclaimed the next day, the national anniversary. The law met

with no demur save from Coahuila and Texas, in which state

were about 1,000 slaves, whose manumission would cost heavily,

as the owners held them at a high valuation. It seems that the

law was not fully enforced; for on the 5th of April, 1837,

another was promulgated, declaring slavery abolished without

exception and with compensation to the owners."

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapter 4.

MEXICO: A. D. 1845.

The Annexation of Texas to the United States.

See TEXAS: A. D. 1836-1845.

MEXICO: A. D. 1846.

The American aggression which precipitated war.

"Texas had claimed the Rio Grande as her western limit, though

she had never exercised actual control over either New Mexico

or the country lying between the Nueces and the Rio Grande.

The groundless character of the claims of Texas to the Rio

Grande as its western boundary was even admitted by some

friends of the measure. … Silas Wright, … referring to the

boundaries of Texas, declared that 'they embraced a country to

which Texas had no claims, over which she had never asserted

jurisdiction, and which she had no right to cede.' Mr. Benton

denounced the treaty [of annexation and cession of territory]

as an attempt to seize 2,000 square miles of Mexican territory

by the incorporation of the left bank of the Rio del Norte,

which would be an act of direct aggression. … In ordering,

therefore, General Taylor to pass a portion of his forces

westward of the river Nueces, which was done before annexation

was accomplished, President Polk put in peril the peace and

the good name of the country. In his Annual Message of

December of that year [1845] he stated that American troops

were in position on the Nueces, 'to defend our own and the

rights of Texas.' But, not content with occupying ground on

and westward of the Nueces, he issued, on the 13th of January,

1846, the fatal order to General Taylor to advance and 'occupy

positions on or near the left bank of the Rio del Norte.' That

movement of the army from Corpus Christi to the Rio Grande, a

distance of more than 100 miles, was an invasion of Mexican

territory,—an act of war for which the President was and must

ever be held responsible by the general judgment of mankind."

H. Wilson,

History of the Rise and Fall

of the Slave Power in America,

volume 2, chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

T. H. Benton,

Thirty Years' View,

volume 2, chapter 149.

MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

The American conquest of California.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.

MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

War with the United States.

The first movements of American invasion.

Palo Alto.

Resaca de la Palma.

Monterey.

Buena Vista.

Fremont in California.

"The annexation of Texas accomplished [see TEXAS: A. D.

1824-1836, and 1836-1845], General Taylor, the United States

commander in the Southwest, received orders to advance to the

Rio Grande. Such was the impoverished and distracted condition

of Mexico that she apparently contemplated no retaliation for

the injury she had sustained, and, had the American army

remained at the Nueces, a conflict might perhaps have been

avoided. But, on Taylor's approaching the Rio Grande, a combat

ensued [May 8, 1846] at Palo Alto with Arista, the Mexican

commander, who crossed over that stream. It ended in the

defeat of the Mexicans, and the next day another engagement

took place at Resaca de la Palma, with the same result. These

actions eventually assumed considerable political importance.

They were among the causes of General Taylor's subsequent

elevation to the Presidency. As soon as intelligence of what

had occurred reached Washington, President Polk, forgetting

that the author of a war is not he who begins it, but he who

has made it necessary, addressed a special message to Congress

announcing that the Mexicans 'had at last invaded our

territory, and shed the blood of our fellow-citizens on our

own soil.' Congress at once (May 13th, 1846) passed an act

providing money and men.

{2174}

Its preamble stated, 'Whereas, by the act of the Republic of

Mexico, a state of war exists between that country and the

United States, be it enacted,' etc. As long previously as

1843, Mr. Bocanegra, the Mexican Minister of Foreign

Relations, had formally notified the American government that

the annexation of Texas would inevitably lead to war. General

Almonte, the Mexican minister at Washington, in a note to Mr.

Upshur, the Secretary of State, said that, 'in the name of his

nation, and now for them, he protests, in the most solemn

manner, against such an aggression; and he moreover declares,

by express order of his government, that, on sanction being

given by the executive of the Union to the incorporation of

Texas into the United States, he will consider his mission

ended, seeing that, as the Secretary of State will have

learned, the Mexican government is resolved to declare war as

soon as it receives intimation of such an act.' War being thus

provoked by the American government, General Scott received

orders (November 18th, 1846) to take command of the expedition

intended for the invasion of Mexico."

J. W. Draper,

History of the American Civil War,

chapter 23 (volume 1).

After his defeat at Resaca de la Palma, the Mexican general

Arista "retreated in the direction of San Luis Potosi, and was

superseded by General Pedro Ampudia. General Taylor marched

his forces across the Rio Grande on the 17th of May and the

invasion of Mexico was begun in earnest. From the 21st to the

24th of September, he was engaged with 7,000 men in the attack

upon Monterey, the capital of Nueva Leon, garrisoned by a

force of 9,000. He met with the same success which had

attended his former engagements. General Ampudia was also

forced to retire to San Luis Potosi. The brilliant features of

this attack were the assault upon Obispado Viejo by General

Worth on the first day of the fight, and the storming of the

heights above on the following day. … Upon the defeat of

Ampudia, Santa Anna, having then just attained to the chief

magistracy of Mexico [the American blockading squadron at Vera

Cruz had permitted him to return to the country, expecting

that his presence would be advantageous to the invaders], and

left it in the hands of his Vice-President, Gomez Farias, took

the command of the Mexican forces and set out to check the

advance of General Taylor. On the 23d of February, 1847, the

bloody battle of Angostura, as it is called by the Mexicans

(known to the Americans as the battle of Buena Vista), was

fought, and lost by the Mexican army. Santa Anna returned to

San Luis Potosi, whence he was called to the capital to head

off the insurrection against Gomez Farias, by the party called

derisively the Polkos, because their insurrection at that time

was clearly favorable to the movements of the American army,

and because James K. Polk was then the President of the United

States and head of the American party favorable to the war. It

was at this time that the army of Taylor was reduced to about

5,000 men in order to supply General Winfield Scott with

forces to carry out his military operations, and the field of

war was transferred to the region between Vera Cruz and the

capital. While these events were in progress an expedition

under General John C. Fremont had been made over-land through

New Mexico and into California [see CALIFORNIA: A. D.

1846-1847; and NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846], and under the

directions of the United States government the Mexicans of

California had been incited to revolt."

A. H. Noll,

Short History of Mexico,

chapter 9.

ALSO IN:

H. Von Holst,

Constitutional and Political History of the U. S.,

volume 3, chapters 4-9.

H. O. Ladd,

History of the War with Mexico,

chapters 4-8.

E. D. Mansfield,

History of the Mexican War,

chapters 2-4 and 8.

O. O. Howard,

General Taylor,

chapters 8-19.

MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (March-September).

General Scott's campaign.

From Vera Cruz to the capital.

Cerro Gordo.

Contreras.

Churubusco.

Molino del Rey.

Chapultepec.

The conquest complete.

"General Winfield Scott was ordered to Mexico, to take chief

command and conduct the war according to his own plan. This

was, in brief, to carry an expedition against Vera Cruz,

reduce its defences, and then march on the city of Mexico by

the shortest route. … On the 7th of March [1847], the fleet

with Scott's army came to anchor a few miles south of Vera

Cruz, and two days later he landed his whole force—nearly

12,000 men—by means of surf-boats. Vera Cruz was a city of

7,000 inhabitants, strongly fortified. … On the 22d the

investment was complete. A summons to surrender being refused,

the batteries opened, and the bombardment was kept up for four

days, the small war vessels joining in it. The Mexican

batteries and the castle [of San Juan de Ulloa, on a reef in

the harbor] replied with spirit, and with some little effect;

but the city and castle were surrendered on the 27th. The want

of draught animals and wagons delayed till the middle of April

the march upon the capital of the country, 200 miles distant.

The first obstacle was found at Cerro Gordo, 50 miles

northwest of Vera Cruz, where the Mexicans had taken position

on the heights around a rugged mountain pass, with a battery

commanding every turn of the road. A way was found to flank

the position on the extreme left, and on the morning of April

18th the Americans attacked in three columns. … The

divisions of Twiggs and Worth … attacked the height of Cerro

Gordo, where the Mexicans were most strongly intrenched, and

where Santa Anna commanded in person. This being carried by

storm, its guns were turned first upon the retreating

Mexicans, and then upon the advanced position that Pillow was

assaulting in front. The Mexicans, finding themselves

surrounded, soon surrendered. Santa Anna, with the remainder

of his troops, fled toward Jalapa, where Scott followed him

and took the place."

W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,

Popular History of the United States,

volume 4, chapter 14.

"Less than a month later [after the battle of Cerro Gordo] the

American army occupied the city of Puebla. Scott remained at

Puebla during June and July, awaiting reinforcements and

drilling them as they arrived. On the 7th of August he set out

for the capital, which was now defended by about 30,000

troops. A series of encounters took place on the 19th, and on

the next day three battles were fought, at Contreras,

Churubusco, and San Antonio. They were in reality parts of one

general engagement. The troops on both sides fought with

stubbornness and bravery, but in the end the Mexicans were

completely routed, and the pursuit of the flying enemy reached

almost to the gates of the capital. A commissioner, Nicholas

P. Trist, having been previously appointed to negotiate with

the Mexicans, an armistice was now agreed upon, to begin on

the 23d of August.

{2175}

The armistice, from a strategic point of view, was a mistake,

the advantage of the overwhelming victories of the 19th and

20th was in great part lost, and the Mexicans were enabled to

recover from the demoralization which had followed their

defeat. The position of the American army, in the heart of the

enemy's country, where it might be cut off from reinforcements

and supplies, was full of danger, and the fortifications which

barred the way to the capital, Molino del Rey, Casa Mata, and

Chapultepec, were exceedingly formidable. On the 7th of

September the armistice came to an end. The negotiations had

failed, and General Scott prepared to move on the remaining

works. A reconnoisance was made on that day, and on the 8th

Scott attacked the enemy. The army of Santa Anna was drawn up

with its right resting on Casa Mata and its left on Molino del

Rey. Both these positions were carried by assault, and the

Mexicans, after severe loss, were defeated and driven off the

field. The next two days were occupied in preparing for the

final assault upon Chapultepec. A careful disposition was made

of the troops, batteries were planted within range, and on the

12th they opened a destructive fire. On the 13th a

simultaneous assault was made from both sides, the troops

storming the fortress with great bravery and dash, and the

works were carried, the enemy flying in confusion. The army

followed them along the two causeways of Belen and San Cosmé,

fighting its way to the gates of the city. Here a struggle

continued till after nightfall, the enemy making a desperate

defence. Early the next morning, a deputation of the city

council waited upon General Scott, asking for terms of

capitulation. These were refused, and the divisions of Worth

and Quitman entered the capital. Street fighting was kept up

for two days longer, but by the 16th the Americans had secured

possession of the city. Negotiations were now renewed, and the

occupation of the territory, meanwhile, continued. The

principal towns were garrisoned, and taxes and duties

collected by the United States. Occasional encounters took

place at various points, but the warfare was chiefly of a

guerrilla character. Towards the close of the war General

Scott was superseded by General Butler. But the work had been

already completed."

J. R. Soley,

The Wars of the United States, 1789-1850

(Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 7, chapter 6).

ALSO IN:

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapters 17-20.

General W. Scott,

Memoirs, by himself,

chapters 27-32 (volume 2.)

President's Message and Documents,

December 7, 1847

(Senate Ex. Doc., No. 1, 30th Cong., 1st Session).

MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

The Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo.

Territory ceded to the United States.

"The Mexican people had now succumbed to the victorious armies

of the 'barbarians of the North.' The Mexican Government was

favorable to the settlement of the questions which had caused

this unhappy war. A new administration was in power. General

Anaya on the 11th of November was elected President of the

Mexican Republic until the 8th of January, 1848, when the

constitutional term of office would expire. … National pride

… bowed to the necessities of the republic, and the deputies

assembled in the Mexican Congress favored the organization of

a commission for the purpose of reopening negotiations with

Mr. Trist, who still remained in Mexico, and was determined to

assume the responsibility of acting still as agent of the

United States [although his powers had been withdrawn]. The

lack of coöperation by the adherents of Santa Anna prevented

immediate action on the part of these commissioners. On the

8th of January, 1848, General Herrera was elected

Constitutional President of the Mexican Republic. … Under

the new administration negotiations were easily opened with a

spirit of harmony and concession which indicated a happy

issue. Mexico gave up her claim to the Nueces as the

boundary-line of her territory, and the United States did not

longer insist upon the cession of Lower California and the

right of way across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. The previous

offer of money by the United States for the cession of New

Mexico and Upper California was also continued. … On the 2d

of February a treaty of peace was unanimously adopted and

signed by the commissioners at the city of Guadaloupe Hidalgo.

… The ratifications of the Mexican Congress and of the

United States Senate were exchanged May 30th, 1848. The United

States, by the terms of this treaty, paid to Mexico $15,000,000

for the territory added to its boundaries. They moreover freed

the Mexican Republic from all claims of citizens of the United

States against Mexico for damages, which the United States

agreed to pay to the amount of $3,250,000. The boundary-line

was also fixed between the two republics. It began in the Gulf

of Mexico three miles from the mouth of the Rio Grande del

Norte, running up the centre of that river to the point where

it strikes the southern boundary of New Mexico; then westward

along that southern boundary which runs north of Elpaso, to

its western termination; thence northward along the western

line of New Mexico until it intersects the first branch of the

river Gila, thence down the middle of the Gila until it

empties into the Rio Colorado, following the division line

between Upper and Lower California to the Pacific Ocean, one

marine league south of the port of San Diego. On the 12th of

June, the last of the United States troops left the capital of

Mexico. … The partisan supporters of President Polk's

administration did not hesitate to avow that the war with

Mexico was waged for conquest of territory. … The demands of

indemnity from Mexico first made by the United States were

equal, exclusive of Texas, to half of the domain of Mexico,

embracing a territory upward of 800,000 square miles. … The

area of New Mexico, as actually ceded by treaty to the United

States, was 526,078 square miles. The disputed ground of

Texas, which rightfully belonged to Mexico, and which was also

yielded in the treaty of peace, contained no less than 125,520

square miles. The acquisition of the total amount of 651,591

square miles of territory was one of the direct results of

this war, in which President Polk was ever pretending 'to

conquer a peace.' To this must be added the undisputed region

of Texas, which was 325,520 square miles more, in order

adequately to represent the acquisition of territory to the

United States, amounting to 851,590 square miles. This has

been computed to be seventeen times the extent of the State of

New York. … The territory thus acquired included ten degrees

of latitude on the Pacific coast, and extended east to the Rio

Grande, a distance of 1,000 miles, … Five thousand miles of

sea-coast were added to the possessions of the United States.

… The mineral resources of the conquered territory,

including California, New Mexico, Arizona, Western Colorado,

Utah, and Nevada, have been developed to such an extent that

their value is beyond computation."

H. O. Ladd,

History of the War with Mexico,

chapters 30-31.

ALSO IN:

Treaties and Conventions between the United States

and other Countries (edition of 1889),

pages 681-694.

{2176}

MEXICO: A. D. 1848-1861.

The succession of Revolutions and the War of the Reform.

The new Constitution.

The government of Juarez and

the Nationalization of Church property.

"For a brief period, after the withdrawal of the American

army, the Mexican people drew the breath of peace, disturbed

only by outbreaks headed by the turbulent Paredes. … In

June, 1848, Señor Herrera (who had been in power at the

opening of the war with the United States) took possession of

the presidential chair. For the first time within the memory

of men then living, the supreme power changed hands without

disturbance or opposition. … The army … was greatly

reduced, arrangements were made with creditors abroad, and for

the faithful discharge of internal affairs. General Mariano

Arista, formerly minister of war, assumed peaceful possession

of power, in January, 1851, and continued the wise and

economical administration of his predecessor. But Mexico could

not long remain at peace, even with herself; she was quiet

merely because utterly prostrated, and in December, 1852, some

military officers, thirsting for power, rebelled against the

government. They commenced again the old system of

'pronunciamientos'; usually begun by some man in a province

distant from the seat of government, and gradually gaining

such strength that when finally met by the lawful forces they

were beyond control. Rather than plunge his country anew into

the horrors of a civil war, General Arista resigned his office

and sailed for Europe, where he died in poverty a few years

later. It may astonish anyone except the close student of

Mexican history to learn the name of the man next placed in

power by the revolutionists, for it was no one else than

General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna! Recalled by the

successful rebels from his exile in Cuba and South America,

Santa Anna hastened to the scene of conflict. … He commenced

at once to extend indefinitely the army, and to intrench

himself in a position of despotic power, and, in December,

1853, he issued a decree which, in substance, declared him

perpetual dictator. This aroused opposition all over the

country, and the Liberals, who were opposed to an arbitrary

centralized government, rose in rebellion. The most successful

leaders were Generals Alvarez and Comonfort, who, after

repeated victories, drove the arch conspirator from the

capital, on the 9th of August, 1855. Santa Anna secretly

left the city of Mexico, and a few days later embarked at Vera

Cruz for Havana. During several years he resided in Cuba, St.

Thomas, Nassau, and the United States, constantly intriguing

for a return to power in Mexico."

F. A. Ober,

Young Folks' History of Mexico,

chapter 33.

"Upon the flight of Santa Anna, anarchy was imminent in the

capital. The most prominent promoters of the revolution

assembled quickly, and elected General Romulo Diaz de la Vega

acting-president, and he succeeded in establishing order. …

By a representative assembly General Martin Carrera was

elected acting-president, and he was installed on the 15th of

August, 1855, but resigned on the 11th of the following month,

when the presidency devolved a second time upon General Romulo

Diaz de la Vega. The revolution of Alvarez and Comonfort,

known as the Plan de Ayotla, was entirely successful, and

under the wise and just administration of Diaz de la Vega, the

country was brought to the wholly abnormal state of quiet and

order. Representatives of the triumphant party assembled in

Cuernavaca and elected General Juan Alvarez president ad

interim, and upon the formation of his cabinet he named

Comonfort his Minister of War. Returning to the capital, he

transferred the presidency to his Minister of War, and on the

12th of December, 1855, General Ignacio Comonfort entered upon

the discharge of his duties as acting-president. He was made

actual president by a large majority in the popular election

held two years later, and was reinstalled on the 1st of

December, 1857. He proved to be one of the most remarkable

rulers of Mexico, and his administration marks the beginning

of a new era in Mexican history. Scarcely had Comonfort begun

his rule as the substitute of Alvarez, when revolutions again

broke out and assumed formidable proportions. Puebla was

occupied by 5,000 insurgents. Federal troops sent against them

joined their cause. Comonfort succeeded in raising an army of

16,000 men, well equipped, and at its head marched to Puebla

and suppressed the revolution before the end of March. But in

October another rebellion broke out in Puebla, headed by

Colonel Miguel Miramon. The government succeeded in

suppressing this, as well as one which broke out in San Luis

Potosi, and another, under the leadership of General Tomas

Mejia, in Queretaro. It was by Comonfort that the war between

the Church and the government, so long threatened, was

precipitated. In June, 1856, he issued a decree ordering the

sale of all the unimproved real estate held by the Church, at

its assessed value. The Church was to receive the proceeds,

but the land was to become thereby freed from all

ecclesiastical control." Upon information of a conspiracy

centering in one of the monasteries of the city of Mexico, the

president sent troops to take possession of the place, and

finally ordered it to be suppressed. These measures provoked

an implacable hostility on the part of the supporters of the

Church. "On the 5th of February, 1857, the present

Constitution of Mexico was adopted by Congress. Comonfort, as

Provisional President, subscribed it, and it was under its

provisions that he was elected actual president. But ten days

after his inauguration in December, 1857, and his taking the

oath to support the new Constitution, the President, supposing

that he could gain the full support of the Liberals, and

claiming that he had found the operation of the Constitution

impracticable, dissolved Congress and set the Constitution

aside. He threw his legal successor, Benito Juarez, the

President of the Supreme Court of Justice, and one of the

supporters of the new Constitution, into prison." Revolution

upon revolution now followed in quick succession. Comonfort

fled the country. Zuloaga, Pezuela, Pavon, Miramon, were

seated in turn in the presidential chair for brief terms of a

half recognized government.

{2177}

"Constitutionally (if we may ever use that word seriously in

connection with Mexican affairs), upon the abandonment of the

presidency by Comonfort, the office devolved upon the

President of the Supreme Court of Justice. That office was

held at the time by Don Benito Juarez, who thereupon became

president de jure of Mexico. … The most curious specimen of

the nomenclature adopted in Mexican history is that which

gives to the struggle between the Church party and its allies

and the Constitutional government the name of the War of the

Reform. … What was thereby reformed it would be difficult to

say, … further than the suppression of the outreaching

power, wealth, and influence of the Church, and the assertion

of the supremacy of the State. … But the 'War of the Reform'

had all the bitterness of a religious war. … Juarez, who is

thus made to appear as a reformer, was the most remarkable man

Mexico has ever produced. He was born in 1806 in the mountains of

Oaxaca. … He belonged to the Zapoteca tribe of Indians. Not

a drop of Spanish blood flowed in his veins. … Upon the

flight of Comonfort, Juarez was utterly without support or

means to establish his government. Being driven out of the

capital by Zuloaga he went to Guadalajara, and then by way of

the Pacific coast, Panama, and New Orleans, to Vera Cruz.

There he succeeded in setting up the Constitutional

government, supporting it out of the customs duties collected

at the ports of entry on the Gulf coast. It was war to the

knife between the President in Vera Cruz and the

Anti-Presidents in the capital. … On the 12th of July, 1859,

Juarez made a long stride in advance of Comonfort by issuing

his famous decree, 'nationalizing'—that is, sequestrating, or

more properly confiscating—the property of the Church. It was

enforced in Vera Cruz at once. … The armies of the two rival

governments met in conflict on many occasions. It was at

Calpulalpam, in a battle lasting from the 21st to the 24th of

December, 1860, that Miramon was defeated and forced to leave

the country. General Ortega, in command of the forces of

Juarez, advanced to the capital and held it for the return of

his chief. When the army of Juarez entered the capital, on the

27th of December, the decree of sequestration began to be

executed there with brutal severity. … Monasteries were

closed forthwith, and the members of the various religious

orders were expelled [from] the country. … It is said that

from the 'nationalized' church property the government secured

$20,000,000, without, as subsequent events showed, deriving

any permanent benefit from it. It helped to precipitate

another war, in which it was all dissipated, and the country

was poorer than ever. … The decree issued by Juarez from

Vera Cruz in 1859, nationalizing the property of the Church,

was quickly followed up by a decree suspending for two years

payment on all foreign debts. The national debt at that time

amounted to about $100,000,000, according to some statements,

and was divided up between England, Spain, and France.

England's share was about $80,000,000. France's claim was

comparatively insignificant. They were all said to have been

founded upon usurious or fraudulent contracts, and the French

claim was especially dubious. … Upon the issuing of the

decree suspending payment on these foreign debts, the three

creditor nations' at once broke off diplomatic relations with

Mexico, and Napoleon III., of France, proceeded to carry out a

plan which had for some time occupied his mind."

A. H. Noll,

Short History of Mexico,

chapters 10-11.

ALSO IN:

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapters 20-30,

and volume 9 (6), chapter 1.

See CONSTITUTION OF MEXICO.

MEXICO: A. D. 1853.

Sale of Arizona to the United States.

The Gadsden Treaty.

See ARIZONA: A. D. 1853.

MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.

The French intervention.

Maximilian's ill-starred empire and its fate.

The expedition against Mexico "was in the beginning a joint

undertaking of England, France, and Spain. Its professed

object, as set forth in a convention signed in London on

October 31st, 1861, was 'to demand from the Mexican

authorities more efficacious protection for the persons and

properties of their (the Allied Sovereigns') subjects, as well

as a fulfilment of the obligations contracted toward their

Majesties by the Republic of Mexico.' … Lord Russell, who

had acted with great forbearance towards Mexico up to this

time, now agreed to co-operate with France and Spain in

exacting reparation from Juarez. But he defined clearly the

extent to which the intervention of England would go. England

would join in an expedition for the purpose, if necessary, of

seizing on Mexican custom-houses, and thus making good the

foreign claims. But she would not go a step further. She would

have nothing to do with upsetting the Government of Mexico, or

imposing any European system on the Mexican people.

Accordingly, the Second Article of the Convention pledged the

contracting parties not to seek for themselves any acquisition

of territory or any special advantage, and not to exercise in

the internal affairs of Mexico any influence of a nature to

prejudice the right of the Mexican nation to choose and to

constitute freely the form of its government. The Emperor of

the French, however, had already made up his mind that he

would establish a sort of feudatory monarchy in Mexico. He had

long had various schemes and ambitions floating in his mind

concerning those parts of America on the shores of the Gulf of

Mexico, which were once the possessions of France. … At the

very time when he signed the convention with the pledge

contained in its second article, he had already been making

arrangements to found a monarchy in Mexico. If he could have

ventured to set up a monarchy with a French prince at its

head, he would probably have done so; but this would have been

too bold a venture. He, therefore, persuaded the Archduke

Maximilian, brother of the Emperor of Austria, to accept the

crown of the monarchy he proposed to set up in Mexico. The

Archduke was a man of pure and noble character, but evidently

wanting in strength of mind, and he agreed, after some

hesitation, to accept the offer. Meanwhile the joint

expedition sailed. We [the English] sent only a line-of-battle

ship, two frigates, and 700 marines. France sent in the first

instance about 2,500 men, whom she largely reinforced

immediately after. Spain had about 6,000 men, under the

command of the late Marshal Prim. The Allies soon began to

find that their purposes were incompatible. There was much

suspicion about the designs of France. … Some of the claims

set up by France disgusted the other Allies. The Jecker claims

were for a long time after as familiar a subject of ridicule

as our own Pacifico claims had been.

{2178}

A Swiss house of Jecker & Company had lent the former

Government of Mexico $750,000, and got bonds from that

Government, which was on its very last legs, for $15,000,000.

The Government was immediately afterwards upset, and Juarez

came into power. M. Jecker modestly put in his claim for

$15,000,000. Juarez refused to comply with the demand. He

offered to pay the $750,000 lent and five per cent. interest,

but he declined to pay exactly twenty times the amount of the

sum advanced. M. Jecker had by this time become somehow a

subject of France, and the French Government took up his

claim. It was clear that the Emperor of the French had

resolved that there should be war. At last the designs of the

French Government became evident to the English and Spanish

Plenipotentiaries, and England and Spain withdrew from the

Convention. … The Emperor of the French 'walked his own wild

road, whither that led him.' He overran a certain portion of

Mexico with his troops. He captured Puebla after a long and

desperate resistance [and after suffering a defeat on the 5th

of May, 1862, in the battle of Cinco de Mayo]; he occupied the

capital, and he set up the Mexican Empire, with Maximilian as

Emperor. French troops remained to protect the new Empire.

Against all this the United States Government protested from

time to time. … However, the Emperor Napoleon cared nothing

just then about the Monroe doctrine, complacently satisfied

that the United States were going to pieces, and that the

Southern Confederacy would be his friend and ally. He received

the protests of the American Government with unveiled

indifference. At last the tide in American affairs turned. The

Confederacy crumbled away; Richmond was taken; Lee

surrendered; Jefferson Davis was a prisoner. Then the United

States returned to the Mexican Question, and the American

Government informed Louis Napoleon that it would be

inconvenient, gravely inconvenient, if he were not to withdraw

his soldiers from Mexico. A significant movement of American

troops under a renowned General, then flushed with success,

was made in the direction of the Mexican frontier. There was

nothing for Louis Napoleon but to withdraw [March, 1867]. …

The Mexican Empire lasted two months and a week after the last

of the French troops had been withdrawn. Maximilian

endeavoured to raise an army of his own, and to defend himself

against the daily increasing strength of Juarez. He showed all

the courage which might have been expected from his race, and

from his own previous history. But in an evil hour for

himself, and yielding, it is stated, to the persuasion of a

French officer, he had issued a decree that all who resisted

his authority in arms should be shot. By virtue of this

monstrous ordinance, Mexican officers of the regular army,

taken prisoners while resisting, as they were bound to do, the

invasion of a European prince, were shot like brigands. The

Mexican general, Ortega, was one of those thus shamefully done

to death. When Juarez conquered, and Maximilian, in his turn,

was made a prisoner, he was tried by court-martial, condemned

and shot. … The French Empire never recovered the shock of

this Mexican failure."

J. McCarthy,

History of Our Own Times,

chapter 44.

ALSO IN:

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 9 (Mexico, volume 6), chapters 1-14.

H. M. Flint,

Mexico under Maximilian.

F. Salm-Balm,

My Diary in Mexico (1867).

S. Schroeder,

The Fall of Maximilian's Empire.

Count E. de Keratry,

The Rise and Fall of the Emperor Maximilian.

J. M. Taylor,

Maximilian and Carlotta.

U. R. Burke,

Life of Benito Juarez.

MEXICO: A. D. 1867-1892.

The restored Republic.

"On the 15th of July [1867] Juarez made a solemn entry into

the capital. Many good citizens of Mexico, who had watched

gloomily the whole episode of the French intervention, now

emerged to light and rejoiced conspicuously in the return of

their legitimate chief. … He was received with genuine

acclamations by the populace, while high society remained

within doors, curtains close-drawn, except that the women took

pride in showing their deep mourning for the death of the

Emperor. … Peace now came back to the country. A general

election established Juarez as President, and order and

progress once more consented to test the good resolutions of

the Republic." Santa Anna made one feeble and futile attempt

to disturb the quiet of his country, but was arrested without

difficulty and sent into exile again. But Juarez had many

opponents and enemies to contend with. "As the period of

election approached, in 1871, party lines became sharply

divided, and the question of his return to power was warmly

contested. A large body still advocated the re-election of

Juarez, as of the greatest importance to the consolidation of

the Constitution and reform, but the admirers of military

glory claimed the honors of President for General Diaz, who

had done so much, at the head of the army, to restore the

Republic. A third party represented the interests of Lerdo,

minister of Juarez all through the epoch of the intervention,

a man of great strength of character and capacity for

government. … The campaign was vigorous throughout the

country. … The election took place; the Juaristas were

triumphant. Their party had a fair majority and Juarez was

re-elected. But the Mexicans not yet had learned to accept the

ballot, and a rebellion followed. The two defeated parties

combined, and civil war began again. Government defended

itself with vigor and resolution, and, in spite of the

popularity of General Diaz as a commander, held its own during

a campaign of more than a year. Its opponents were still

undaunted, and the struggle might have long continued but for

the sudden death of Juarez, on the 19th of July, 1872. … Don

Sebastian Lerdo de Tejada, then President of the Supreme

Court, assumed the government, was elected President, and the

late agitation of parties was at an end. For three years peace

reigned in Mexico, and then began another revolution. Towards

the end of 1875, rumors of dissatisfaction were afloat. …

Early in the next year, a 'Plan' was started, one of those

fatal propositions for change which have always spread like

wildfire through the Mexican community. By midsummer, the

Republic was once more plunged in civil war. Although he had

apparently no hand in the 'Plan' of Tuxtepec, General Porfirio

Diaz appeared at the head of the army of the revolutionists.

… During the summer there was fighting and much confusion,

in the midst of which the election took place for the choice

of President for another term of four years.

{2179}

The result was in favor of Lerdo de Tejada, but he was so

unpopular that he was obliged soon after to leave the capital,

on the 20th of November, accompanied by his ministers and a

few other persons. The other Lerdistas hid themselves,

Congress dissolved, and the opposition triumphed. Thus ended

the government of the Lerdistas, but a few days before the

expiration of its legal term. On the 24th of November, General

Porfirio Diaz made his solemn entry into the capital, and was

proclaimed Provisional President. After a good deal of

fighting all over the country, Congress declared him, in May,

1877, to be Constitutional President for a term to last until

November 30, 1880. … President Diaz was able to consolidate

his power, and to retain his seat without civil war, although

this has been imminent at times, especially towards the end of

his term. In 1880, General Manuel Gonsalez was elected, and on

the 1st of December of that year, for the second time only in

the history of the Republic, the retiring President gave over

his office to his legally elected successor. … The

administration of Gonsalez passed through its four years

without any important outbreak. … At the end of that term

General Diaz was re-elected and became President December 1,

1884. The treasury of the country was empty, the Republic

without credit, yet he has [1888] … succeeded in placing his

government upon a tolerably stable financial basis, and done

much to restore the foreign credit of the Republic."

S. Hale,

The Story of Mexico,

chapter 41-42.

"At the close of Maximilian's empire Mexico had but one

railroad, with 260 miles of track. To-day she has them running

in all directions, with an [aggregate] of 10,025 kilometers

(about 6,300 miles), and is building more. Of telegraph lines

in 1867 she had but a few short connections, under 3,000

kilometers; now she has telephone and telegraph lines which

aggregate between 60,000 and 70,000 kilometers. … In his …

message to Congress (1891) President Diaz said: 'It is

gratifying to me to be able to inform Congress that the

financial situation of the republic continues to improve. …

Without increasing the tariff, the custom-houses now collect

$9,000,000 more than they did four years ago.' … The

revenues of the republic have more than doubled in the past

twenty years. In 1870 they were $16,000,000; they are

estimated now at over $36,000,000." The third term of

President Diaz, "now [1892] drawing to a close, has been one

of great prosperity. … As we write popular demonstrations

are being made in favor of another term."

W. Butler,

Mexico in Transition,

pages 284-287.

President Diaz was re-elected for a fourth term, which began

December 1, 1892, and will expire in 1896.

ALSO IN:

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 9 (Mexico volume 6), chapter 19.

----------MEXICO: End----------

MIAMIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, ILLINOIS, and SACS, &c.

MICESLAUS I.,

King of Poland, A. D. 964-1000.

Miceslaus II., King of Poland, 1025-1037.

Miceslaus III., Duke of Poland, 1173-1177.

MICHAEL

The first of the Romanoffs, Czar of Russia, A. D. 1613-1645.

Michael I., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), 811-813.

Michael II. (called the Armorian), Emperor in the East, 820-829.

Michael III., Emperor in the East, 842-867.

Michael IV., Emperor in the East, 1034-1041.

Michael V., Emperor in the East, 1041-1042.

Michael VI., Emperor in the East, 1056-1057.

Michael VII., Emperor in the East, 1071-1078.

Michael VIII. (Palæologus), Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1260-1261;

Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1261-1282.

Michael Wiecnowiecki, King of Poland, 1670-1674.

----------MICHIGAN: Start----------

MICHIGAN:

The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, and OJIBWAYS.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1680.

Traversed by La Salle.

See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1686-1701.

The founding of the French post at Detroit.

See DETROIT: A. D. 1686-1701.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1760.

The surrender to the English.

See CANADA: A. D. 1760.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1763.

Cession to Great Britain.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1763.

The King's proclamation excluding settlers.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1763-1764.

Pontiac's War.

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1774.

Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1775-1783.

Held by the British throughout the War of Independence.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779, CLARK'S CONQUESTS.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1784.

Included in the proposed states of Cherronesus and Sylvania.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1785-1786.

Partially covered by the western land claims of Massachusetts

and Connecticut, ceded to the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1787.

The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.

Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1805.

Detached from Indiana Territory and

distinctly named and organized.

See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1811.

Tecumseh and his League.

Battle of Tippecanoe.

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

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1812.

The surrender of Detroit and the whole territory

to the British arms by General Hull.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1813.

Recovery by the Americans.

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

HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1817.

The founding of the University of Michigan.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1837.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1818-1836.

Extension of Territorial limits to the Mississippi,

and then beyond.

See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1837.

Admission into the Union as a State.

Settlement of Boundaries.

A conflict between the terms of the constitution under which

the state of Ohio was admitted into the Union in 1803 and the

Act of Congress which, in 1805, erected the Territory of

Michigan, gave rise to a serious boundary dispute between the

two. The Michigan claim rested not only upon the Act of 1805,

but primarily upon the great

Ordinance of 1787.

{2180}

It involved the possession of a wedge-shaped strip of

territory, which "averaged six miles in width, across Ohio,

embraced some 468 square miles, and included the lake-port of

Toledo and the mouth of the Maumee river." In 1834, Michigan

began to urge her claims to statehood. "Without waiting for an

enabling act, a convention held at Detroit in May and June,

1835, adopted a state constitution for submission to congress,

demanding entry into the Union, 'in conformity to the fifth

article of the ordinance' of 1787—of course the boundaries

sought being those established by the article in question.

That summer, there were popular disturbances in the disputed

territory, and some gunpowder harmlessly wasted. In December,

President Jackson laid the matter before congress in a special

message. Congress quietly determined to 'arbitrate' the

quarrel by giving to Ohio the disputed tract, and offering

Michigan, by way of partial recompense, the whole of what is

to-day her upper peninsula. Michigan did not want the

supposedly barren and worthless country to her northwest,

protested long and loud against what she deemed to be an

outrage, declared that she had no community of interest with

the north peninsula, and was separated from it by

insurmountable natural barriers for one-half of the year,

while it rightfully belonged to the fifth state, to be formed

out of the Northwest Territory. But congress persisted in

making this settlement of the quarrel one of the conditions

precedent to the admission of Michigan into the Union. In

September, 1836, a state convention, called for the sole

purpose of deciding the question, rejected the proposition on

the ground that congress had no right to annex such a

condition, according to the terms of the ordinance; a second

convention, however, approved of it on the 15th of December

following, and congress at once accepted this decision as

final. Thus Michigan came into the sisterhood of states,

January 26, 1837, with the territorial limits which she

possesses to-day."

R. G. Thwaites,

The Boundaries of Wisconsin

(Wisconsin Historical Society Collections,

volume 11, pages 456-460).

ALSO IN:

B. A. Hinsdale,

The Old Northwest,

chapter 17.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1854.

Early organization and victory of the Republican Party.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.

----------MICHIGAN: End----------

----------MICHIGAN, Lake: Start----------

MICHIGAN, Lake:

The Discovery.

See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

MICHIGAN, Lake:

Navigated by La Salle.

See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

----------MICHIGAN, Lake: End----------

MICHIGANIA,

The proposed State of.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

MICHILLIMACKINAC.

See MACKINAW.

MICHMASH, War of.

One of Saul's campaigns against the Philistines received this

name from Jonathan's exploit in scaling the height of Michmash

and driving the garrison in panic from their stronghold.

I. Samuel XIV.

Dean Stanley,

Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,

lecture 21 (volume 2).

MICKLEGARTH.

"Constantine had transplanted the Roman name, the centre of

Roman power, and much of what was Roman in ideas and habits,

to Byzantium, the New Rome.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 330.

The result was that remarkable empire [see BYZANTINE EMPIRE]

which, though since its fall it has become a by-word, was,

when it was standing, the wonder and the envy of the barbarian

world, the mysterious 'Micklegarth,' 'the Great City, the Town

of towns,' of the northern legends."

R. W. Church,

The Beginning of the Middle Ages,

chapter 6.

MICMACS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

MICROSCOPE IN MEDICINE, The.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18TH CENTURIES, and after.

MIDDLE AGES.

"The term Middle Ages is applied to the time which elapsed

between the fall of the Roman Empire and the formation of the

great modern monarchies, between the first permanent invasion

of the Germans, at the beginning of the 5th century of our era

[see GAUL: A. D. 406-409], and the last invasion, made by the

Turks, ten centuries later, in 1453."

V. Duruy,

History of the Middle Ages, author's preface.

"It is not possible to fix accurate limits to the Middle Ages;

… though the ten centuries from the 5th to the 15th seem, in

a general point of view, to constitute that period."

H. Hallam,

The Middle Ages, preface to first edition.

"We commonly say that ancient history closed with the year 476

A. D. The great fact which marks the close of that age and the

beginning of a new one is the conquest of the Western Roman

Empire by the German tribes, a process which occupied the

whole of the fifth century and more. But if we are to select

any special date to mark the change, the year 476 is the best

for the purpose. … When we turn to the close of medieval

history we find no such general agreement as to the specific

date which shall be selected to stand for that fact. For one

author it is 1453, the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire

through the capture of Constantinople by the Turks; for

another, 1492, the discovery of America; for another, 1520,

the full opening of the Reformation. This variety of date is

in itself very significant. It unconsciously marks the

extremely important fact that the middle ages come to an end

at different dates in the different lines of

advance—manifestly earlier in politics and economics than

upon the intellectual side. … It is a transition age. Lying,

as it does, between two ages, in each of which there is an

especially rapid advance of civilization, it is not itself

primarily an age of progress. As compared with either ancient

or modern history, the additions which were made during the

middle ages to the common stock of civilization are few and

unimportant. Absolutely, perhaps, they are not so. … But the

most important of them fall within the last part of the

period, and they are really indications that the age is

drawing to a close, and a new and different one coming on.

Progress, however much there may have been, is not its

distinctive characteristic. There is a popular recognition of

this fact in the general opinion that the medieval is a very

barren and uninteresting period of history—the 'dark

ages'—so confused and without evident plan that its facts are

a mere disorganized jumble, impossible to reduce to system or

to hold in mind. This must be emphatically true for every one,

unless there can be found running through all its confusion

some single line of evolution which will give it meaning and

organization. … Most certainly there must be some such

general meaning of the age.

{2181}

The orderly and regular progress of history makes it

impossible that it should be otherwise. Whether that meaning

can be correctly stated or not is much more uncertain. It is

the difficulty of doing this which makes medieval history seem

so comparatively barren a period. The most evident general

meaning of the age is … assimilation. The greatest work

which had to be done was to bring the German barbarian, who

had taken possession of the ancient world and become

everywhere the ruling race, up to such a level of attainment

and understanding that he would be able to take up the work of

civilization where antiquity had been forced to suspend it and

go on with it from that point. … Here, then, is the work of

the middle ages. To the results of ancient history were to be

added the ideas and institutions of the Germans; to the

enfeebled Roman race was to be added the youthful energy and

vigor of the German. Under the conditions which existed this

union could not be made—a harmonious and homogeneous

Christendom could not be formed, except through centuries of

time, through anarchy, and ignorance, and superstition."

G. B. Adams,

Civilization During the Middle Ages,

introduction.

"We speak, sometimes, of the 'Dark Ages,' and in matters of

the exact sciences perhaps they were dark enough. Yet we must

deduct something from our youthful ideas of their obscurity

when we find that our truest lovers of beauty fix the building

age of the world between the years 500 and 1500 of our era.

Architecture, more than any other art, is an index to the

happiness and freedom of the people; and during this period of

1,000 years, 'an architecture, pure in its principles,

reasonable in its practice, and beautiful to the eyes of all

men, even the simplest,' covered Europe with beautiful

buildings from Constantinople to the north of Britain. In

presence of this manifestation of free and productive

intelligence, unmatched even in ancient Greece and Rome, and

utterly unmatchable to-day, we may usefully reflect upon the

expressive and constructive force of the spirit of

Christendom, even in its darkest hours. The more closely we

examine the question, the less ground we shall find for the

conception of the Middle Ages as a long sleep followed by a

sudden awakening. Rather we should consider that ancient

Greece was the root, and ancient Rome the stem and branches of

our life; that the Dark Ages, as we call them, represent its

flower, and the modern world of science and political freedom

the slowly-matured fruit. If we consider carefully that the

Christian humanistic spirit held itself as charged from the

first with the destinies of the illiterate and half-heathen

masses of the European peoples, whereas, neither in Greece nor

in the Roman Empire was civilisation intended for more than a

third or a fourth part of the inhabitants of their

territories, we shall not be surprised at an apparent fall of

intellectual level, which really meant the beginning of a

universal rise hitherto unknown in the history of the world.

Ideas of this kind may help us to understand what must remain

after all a paradox, that we have been taught to apply the

term 'Dark Ages' to the period of what were in some respects

the greatest achievements of the human mind, for example, the

Cathedral of Florence and the writings of Dante. … It is

perfectly obvious now to all who look carefully at these

questions, that the instinct of our physical science and

naturalistic art, of our evolutionist philosophy and

democratic politics, is not antagonistic to, but is

essentially one with the instinct which, in the Middle Ages,

regarded all beauty and truth and power as the working of the

Divine reason in the mind of man and in nature. What a genuine

though grotesque anticipation of Charles Darwin is there in

Francis of Assisi preaching to the birds!"

B. Bosanquet,

The Civilization of Christendom,

chapter 3.

"'I know nothing of those ages which knew nothing.' I really

forget to which of two eminent wits this saying belongs; but I

have often thought that I should have liked to ask him how he

came to know so curious and important a fact respecting ages

of which he knew nothing. Was it merely by hearsay? Everybody

allows, however, that they were dark ages. Certainly; but what

do we mean by darkness? Is not the term, as it is generally

used, comparative? Suppose I were to say that I am writing 'in

a little dark room,' would you understand me to mean that I

could not see the paper before me? Or if I should say that I

was writing 'on a dark day,' would you think I meant that the

sun had not risen by noon? Well, then, let me beg you to

remember this, when you and I use the term, dark ages. …

Many causes … have concurred to render those ages very dark

to us; but, for the present, I feel it sufficient to remind

the reader, that darkness is quite a different thing from

shutting the eyes: and that we have no right to complain that

we can see but little until we have used due diligence to see

what we can. As to the other point—that is, as to the degree

of darkness in which those ages were really involved, and as

to the mode and degree in which it affected those who lived in

them, I must express my belief, that it has been a good deal

exaggerated. There is no doubt that those who lived in what

are generally called the 'middle' or the 'dark' ages, knew

nothing of many things which are familiar to us, and which we

deem essential to our comfort, and almost to our existence;

but still I doubt whether, even in this point of view, they

were so entirely dark as some would have us suppose."

S. R. Maitland,

The Dark Ages,

introduction.

"In the Middle Ages both sides of human consciousness—that

which was turned within as that which was turned without—lay

dreaming or half-awake beneath a common veil. The veil was

woven of faith, illusion, and childish prepossession, through

which the world and history were seen clad in strange hues.

Man was conscious of himself only as a member of a race,

people, party, family, or corporation—only through some

general category. In Italy this veil first melted into air; an

objective treatment and consideration of the state and of all

the things of this world became possible. The subjective side

at the same time asserted itself with corresponding emphasis;

man became a spiritual individual, and recognised himself as

such."

J. Burckhardt,

The Renaissance in Italy,

part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

See, also,

EUROPE (page 1010-1048):

EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL;

LIBRARIES, MEDIÆVAL;

MEDICAL SCIENCE, MEDIÆVAL;

MONEY AND BANKING, MEDIÆVAL.

MIDDLEBURG:

Taken by the Gueux of Holland (1574).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.

MIDDLESEX, Origin of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

{2182}

MIDDLESEX ELECTIONS, John Wilkes and the.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1774.

MIDIANITES, The.

"The name of Midian, though sometimes given peculiarly to the

tribe on the south-east shores of the Gulf of Akaba, was

extended to all Arabian tribes on the east of the

Jordan,—'the Amalekites, and all the children of the East.'"

Dean Stanley,

Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,

lecture 15 (volume 1).

MIGDOL.

See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

MIGHTY HOST, Knights of the.

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

MIGNONS OF HENRY III., The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.

MIKADO.

"Though this is the name by which the whole outer world knows

the sovereign of Japan, it is not that now used in Japan

itself, except in poetry and on great occasions. The Japanese

have got into the habit of calling their sovereign by such

alien Chinese titles as Tenshi, 'the Son of Heaven'; Ten-o, or

Tenno, 'the Heavenly Emperor'; Shujo, 'the Supreme Master.'

His designation in the official translations of modern public

documents into English is 'Emperor.' … The etymology of the

word Mikado is not quite clear. Some—and theirs is the

current opinion—trace it to 'mi,' 'august,' and 'kado,' a

'gate,' reminding one of the 'Sublime Porte' of Turkey. …

The word Mikado is often employed to denote the monarch's

Court as well as the monarch himself."

B. H. Chamberlain,

Things Japanese,

page 229.

MIKASUKIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

MILAN, King, Abdication of.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1879-1889.

----------MILAN: Start--------

MILAN: B. C. 223-222.

The capital of the Insubrian Gauls (Mediolanum).

Taken by the Romans.

See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

MILAN: A. D. 268.

Aureolus besieged.

During the miserable and calamitous reign of the Roman emperor

Gallienus, the army on the Upper Danube invested their leader,

Aureolus, with the imperial purple, and crossed the Alps to

place him on the throne. Defeated by Gallienus in a battle

fought near Milan, Aureolus and his army took refuge in that

city and were there besieged. During the progress of the siege

a conspiracy against Gallienus was formed in his own camp, and

he was assassinated. The crown was then offered to the soldier

Claudius—afterwards called Claudius Gothicus—and he accepted

it. The siege of Milan was continued by Claudius, the city was

forced to surrender and Aureolus was put to death.

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 11.

MILAN: A. D. 286.

The Roman imperial court.

"Diocletian and Maximian were the first Roman princes who

fixed, in time of peace, their ordinary residence in the

provinces. … The court of the emperor of the west [Maximian]

was, for the most part, established at Milan, whose situation,

at the foot of the Alps, appeared far more convenient than

that of Rome, for the important purpose of watching the

motions of the barbarians of Germany. Milan soon assumed the

splendour of an imperial city. The houses are described as

numerous and well-built; the manners of the people as polished

and liberal."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 13.

MILAN: A. D. 313.

Constantine's Edict of Toleration.

See ROME: A. D. 313.

MILAN: A. D. 374-397.

The Ambrosian Church.

The greatness of the Milanese, in later times, "was chiefly

originated and promoted by the prerogatives of their

Archbishop, amongst which that of crowning, and so in a manner

constituting, the King of Italy, raised him in wealth and

splendour above every other prelate of the Roman Church, and

his city above every other city of Lombardy in power and

pride. … It is said that the Church of Milan was founded by

St. Barnabas; it is certain that it owed its chief

aggrandisement, and the splendour which distinguished it from

all other churches, to St. Ambrose [Archbishop from 374 to

397], who, having come to Milan in the time of Valentinian as

a magistrate, was by the people made Bishop also, and as such

was able to exalt it by the ordination of many inferior

dignitaries, and by obtaining supremacy for it over all the

Bishops of Lombardy. … This church received from St. Ambrose

a peculiar liturgy, which was always much loved and venerated

by the Milanese, and continued longer in use than any of those

which anciently prevailed in other churches of the West. To

the singing in divine service, which was then artless and

rude, St. Ambrose, taking for models the ancient melodies

still current in his time, the last echoes of the civilisation

of distant ages, imparted a more regular rhythm [known as 'the

Ambrosian Chant']; which, when reduced by St. Gregory to the

grave simplicity of tone that best accords with the majesty of

worship, obtained the name of 'Canto fermo'; and afterwards

becoming richer, more elaborate, and easier to learn through

the many ingenious inventions of Guido d' Arezzo, … was

brought by degrees to the perfection of modern counterpoint.

… St. Ambrose also composed prayers for his church, and

hymns; amongst others, according to popular belief, that most

sublime and majestic one, the Te Deum, which is now familiar

and dear to the whole of Western Christendom. It is said that

his clergy were not forbidden to marry. Hence an opinion

prevailed that this church, according to the ancient statutes,

ought not to be entirely subject to that of Rome."

G. B. Testa,

History of the War of Frederick I.

against the Communes of Lombardy,

pages 23-24.

MILAN: A. D. 404.

Removal of the Imperial Court.

See ROME: A. D.404-408.

MILAN: A. D. 452.

Capture by the Huns.

See HUNS: A. D. 452.

MILAN: A. D. 539.

Destroyed by the Goths.

When Belisarius, in his first campaign for the recovery of

Italy from the Goths, had secured possession of Rome, A. D.

538, he sent a small force northward to Milan, and that city,

hating its Gothic rulers, was gladly surrendered to him. It

was occupied by a small Roman garrison and unwisely left to

the attacks upon it that were inevitable. Very soon the Goths

appeared before its walls, and with them 10,000 Burgundians

who had crossed the Alps to their assistance. Belisarius

despatched an army to the relief of the city, but the generals

in command of it were cowardly and did nothing. After stoutly

resisting for six months, suffering the last extremes of

starvation and misery, Milan fell, and a terrible vengeance

was wreaked upon it. "All the men were slain, and these, if

the information given to Procopius was correct, amounted to

300,000. The women were made slaves, and handed over by the

Goths to their Burgundian allies in payment of their services.

The city itself was rased to the ground: not the only time

that signal destruction has overtaken the fair capital of

Lombardy."

T. Hodgkin,

Italy and her Invaders,

book 5, chapter 11.

See, also, ROME: A. D. 535-553.

{2183}

"The Goths, in their last moments, were revenged by the

destruction of a city second only to Rome in size and

opulence."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 41.

MILAN: 11th Century.

Acquisition of Republican independence.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

MILAN: A. D. 1162.

Total destruction by Frederick Barbarossa.

See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.

MILAN: A. D. 1167.

The rebuilding of the city.

See ITALY: A. D. 1166-1167.

MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

The rise and the reign of the Visconti.

Extension of their Tyranny over Lombardy.

The downfall of their House.

"The power of the Visconti in Milan was founded upon that of

the Della Torre family, who preceded them as Captains General

of the people at the end of the 13th century. Otho, Archbishop

of Milan, first laid a substantial basis for the dominion of

his house by imprisoning Napoleone Della Torre and five of his

relatives in three iron cages in 1277, and by causing his

nephew Matteo Visconti to be nominated both by the Emperor and

by the people of Milan as imperial Vicar. Matteo, who headed

the Ghibelline party in Lombardy, was the model of a prudent

Italian despot. From the date 1311, when he finally succeeded

in his attempts upon the sovereignty of Milan [see ITALY: A.

D. 1310-1313], to 1322, when he abdicated in favour of his son

Galeazzo, he ruled his states by force of character, craft,

and insight, more than by violence or cruelty. Excellent as a

general, he was still better as a diplomatist, winning more

cities by money than by the sword. All through his life, as

became a Ghibelline chief at that time, he persisted in fierce

enmity against the Church. … Galeazzo, his son, was less

fortunate than Matteo, surnamed Il Grande by the Lombards. The

Emperor Louis of Bavaria threw him into prison on the occasion

of his visit to Milan in 1327 [see ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330],

and only released him at the intercession of his friend

Castruccio Castracane. To such an extent was the growing

tyranny of the Visconti still dependent upon their office

delegated from the Empire. … Azzo [the son of Galeazzo]

bought the city, together with the title of Imperial Vicar,

from the same Louis who had imprisoned his father. When he was

thus seated in the tyranny of his grandfather, he proceeded to

fortify it further by the addition of ten Lombard towns, which

he reduced beneath the supremacy of Milan. At the same time he

consolidated his own power by the murder of his uncle Marco in

1329, who had grown too mighty as a general. … Azzo died in

1339, and was succeeded by his uncle Lucchino," who was

poisoned by his wife in 1349. "Lucchino was potent as a

general and governor. He bought Parma from Obizzo d' Este, and

made the town of Pisa dependent upon Milan. … Lucchino left

sons, but none of proved legitimacy. Consequently he was

succeeded by his brother Giovanni, son of old Matteo il Grande

and Archbishop of Milan. This man, the friend of Petrarch, was

one of the most notable characters of the 14th century.

Finding himself at the head of 16 cities, he added Bologna to

the tyranny of the Visconti, in 1350, and made himself strong

enough to defy the Pope. … In 1353 Giovanni annexed Genoa to

the Milanese principality, and died in 1354, having

established the rule of the Visconti over the whole of the

north of Italy, with the exception of Piedmont, Verona,

Mantua, Ferrara, and Venice. The reign of the Archbishop

Giovanni marks a new epoch in the despotism of the Visconti.

They are now no longer the successful rivals of the Della

Torre family, or dependents on imperial caprice, but self-made

sovereigns, with a well-established power in Milan and a wide

extent of subject territory. Their dynasty, though based on

force and maintained by violence, has come to be acknowledged;

and we shall soon see them allying themselves with the royal

houses of Europe. After the death of Giovanni, Matteo's sons

were extinct. But Stefano, the last of his family, had left

three children, who now succeeded to the lands and cities of

the house. They were named Matteo, Bernabo, and Galeazzo.

Between these three princes a partition of the heritage of

Giovanni Visconti was effected. … Milan and Genoa were to be

ruled by the three in common." Matteo was put out of the way

by his two brothers in 1355. Bernabo reigned brutally at

Milan, and Galeazzo with great splendor at Pavia. The latter

married his daughter to the Duke of Clarence, son of Edward

III. of England, and his son to Princess Isabella, of France.

"Galeazzo died in 1378, and was succeeded in his own portion

of the Visconti domain by his son Gian Galeazzo," who was

able, seven years afterwards, by singular refinements of

treachery, to put his uncle to death and take possession of

his territories. "The reign of Gian Galeazzo, which began with

this coup-de-main (1385-1402), forms a very important chapter

in Italian history. … At the time of his accession the

Visconti had already rooted out the Correggi and Rossi of

Parma, the Scotti of Piacenza, the Pelavicini of San Donnino,

the Tornielli of Novara, the Ponzoni and Cavalcabò of Cremona,

the Beccaria and Languschi of Pavia, the Fisiraghi of Lodi,

the Brusati of Brescia. … But the Carrara family still ruled

at Padua, the Gonzaga at Mantua, the Este at Ferrara, while

the great house of Scala was in possession of Verona. Gian

Galeazzo's schemes were at first directed against the Scala

dynasty. Founded, like that of the Visconti, upon the imperial

authority, it rose to its greatest height under the Ghibelline

general Can Grande and his nephew Mastino in the first half of

the 14th century (1312-1351). Mastino had himself cherished

the project of an Italian Kingdom; but he died before

approaching its accomplishment. The degeneracy of his house

began with his three sons. The two younger killed the eldest;

of the survivors the stronger slew the weaker and then died in

1374, leaving his domains to two of his bastards. One of

these, named Antonio, killed the other in 1381, and afterwards

fell a prey to the Visconti in 1387. In his subjugation of

Verona Gian Galeazzo contrived to make use of the Carrara

family, although these princes were allied by marriage to the

Scaligers, and had everything to lose by their downfall.

{2184}

He next proceeded to attack Padua, and gained the co-operation

of Venice. In 1388 Francesco da Carrara had to cede his

territory to Visconti's generals, who in the same year

possessed themselves for him of the Trevisan Marches. It was

then that the Venetians saw too late the error they had

committed in suffering Verona and Padua to be annexed by the

Visconti. … Having now made himself master of the north of

Italy with the exception of Mantua, Ferrara, and Bologna, Gian

Galeazzo turned his attention to these cities." By intrigues

of devilish subtlety and malignity, he drew the Marquis of

Ferrara and the Marquis of Mantua into crimes which were their

ruin, and made his conquest of those cities easy. "The whole

of Lombardy was now prostrate before the Milanese viper. His

next move was to set foot in Tuscany. For this purpose Pisa

had to be acquired; and here again he resorted to his devilish

policy of inciting other men to crimes by which he alone would

profit in the long run. Pisa was ruled at that time by the

Gambacorta family, with an old merchant named Pietro at their

head." Gian Galeazzo caused Pietro to be assassinated, and

then bought the city from the assassins (1399). "In 1399 the

Duke laid hands on Siena; and in the next two years the plague

came to his assistance by enfeebling the ruling families of

Lucca and Bologna, the Guinizzi and the Bentivogli, so that he

was now able to take possession of those cities. There

remained no power in Italy, except the Republic of Florence

and the exiled but invincible Francesco da Carrara, to

withstand his further progress. Florence [see FLORENCE: A. D.

1390-1402] delayed his conquests in Tuscany. Francesco managed

to return to Padua. Still the peril which threatened the whole

of Italy was imminent. … At last, when all other hope of

independence for Italy had failed, the plague broke out with

fury in Lombardy," and Gian Galeazzo died of it in 1402, aged

55. "At his death his two sons were still mere boys. … The

generals refused to act with them, and each seized upon such

portions of the Visconti inheritance as he could most easily

acquire. The vast tyranny of the first Duke of Milan fell to

pieces in a day." The dominion which his elder son lost (see

ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406) and which his younger son regained

(see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447) slipped from the family on the

death of the last of them, in 1447.

J. A. Symonds,

Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,

chapter 2.

"At the end of the fourteenth century their [the Visconti's]

informal lordship passed by a royal grant [from the Emperor

Wenceslaus to Gian-Galeazzo; A. D. 1395] into an acknowledged

duchy of the Empire. The dominion which they had gradually

gained, and which was thus in a manner legalized, took in all

the great cities of Lombardy, those especially which had

formed the Lombard League against the Swabian Emperors. Pavia

indeed, the ancient rival of Milan, kept a kind of separate

being, and was formed into a distinct county. But the duchy

granted by Wenceslaus to Gian-Galeazzo stretched far on both

sides of the lake of Garda."

E. A. Freeman,

Historical Geography of Europe,

chapter 8, section 3.

ALSO IN:

J. C. L. de Sismondi,

History of the Italian Republics,

chapter 4.

G. Procter (G. Perceval, pseudonym),

History of Italy,

chapters 4-5 (volume 1).

T. A. Trollope,

History of the Commonwealth of Florence,

book 4, chapters 4-6 (volume 2).

MILAN: A. D. 1360-1391.

Wars with Florence and with the Pope.

Dealings with the Free Companies.

See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

MILAN: A. D. 1422.

The sovereignty of Genoa surrendered to the Duke.

See GENOA: A. D. 1381-1422.

MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

Competitors for the ducal succession to the Visconti.

The prize carried off by Francesco Sforza.

War of Milan and Florence with Venice, Naples,

Savoy, and other states.

John Galeazzo Visconti had married (as stated above) a

daughter of King John of France. "Valentine Visconti, one of

the children of this marriage, married her cousin, Louis, duke

of Orleans, the only brother of Charles VI. In their marriage

contract, which the pope confirmed, it was stipulated that,

upon failure of heirs male in the family of Visconti; the

duchy of Milan should descend to the posterity of Valentine

and the duke of Orleans. That event took place. In the year

1447, Philip Maria, the last prince of the ducal family of

Visconti, died. Various competitors claimed the succession.

Charles, duke of Orleans, pleaded his right to it, founded on

the marriage contract of his mother, Valentine Visconti.

Alfonso, king of Naples, claimed it in consequence of a will

made by Philip Maria in his favor. The emperor contended that,

upon the extinction of male issue in the family of Visconti,

the fief returned to the superior lord, and ought to be

re-annexed to the empire. The people of Milan, smitten with

the love of liberty which in that age prevailed among the

Italian states, declared against the dominion of any master,

and established a republican form of government. But during

the struggle among so many competitors, the prize for which

they contended was seized by one from whom none of them

apprehended any danger. Francis Sforza, the natural son of

Jacomuzzo Sforza, whom his courage and abilities had elevated

from the rank of a peasant to be one of the most eminent and

powerful of the Italian condottieri, having succeeded his

father in the command of the adventurers who followed his

standard, had married a natural daughter of the last duke of

Milan [see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447]. Upon this shadow of a

title Francis founded his pretensions to the duchy, which he

supported with such talents and valor as placed him at last on

the ducal throne."

W. Robertson,

History of Charles the Fifth:

View of the Progress of Society,

section 3.

"Francesco Sforza possessed himself of the supreme power by

treachery and force of arms, but he saved for half a century

the independence of a State which, after 170 years of tyranny,

was no longer capable of life as a commonwealth, and furthered

its prosperity, while he powerfully contributed to the

formation of a political system which, however great its

weakness, was the most reasonable under existing

circumstances. Without the aid of Florence and Cosimo de'

Medici, he would not have attained his ends. Cosimo had

recognised his ability in the war with Visconti, and made a

close alliance with him. … It was necessary to choose

between Sforza and Venice, for there was only one alternative:

either the condottiere would make himself Duke of Milan, or the

Republic of San Marco would extend its rule over all Lombardy.

In Florence several voices declared in favour of the old ally

on the Adriatic. … Cosimo de' Medici gave the casting-vote

in Sforza's favour. …

{2185}

Without Florentine money; Sforza would never have been able to

maintain the double contest—on the one side against Milan,

which he blockaded and starved out; and on the other against

the Venetians, who sought to relieve it, and whom he repulsed.

And when, on March 25, 1450, he made his entry into the city

which proclaimed him ruler, he was obliged to maintain himself

with Florentine money till he had established his position and

re-organised the State. … Common animosity to Florence and

Sforza drew Venice and the king [Alfonso, of Naples] nearer to

one another, and at the end of 1451 an alliance, offensive and

defensive, was concluded against them, which Siena, Savoy, and

Montferrat joined. … On May 16, 1452, the Republic, and,

four weeks later, King Alfonso, declared war, which the

Emperor Frederick III., then in Italy, and Pope Nicholas V.,

successor to Eugenius IV. since 1447, in vain endeavoured to

prevent." The next year "a foreign event contributed more than

all to terminate this miserable war. … On May 29, 1453,

Mohammed II. stormed Constantinople. The West was threatened,

more especially Venice, which had such great and wealthy

possessions in the Levant, and Naples. This time the excellent

Pope Nicholas V. did not exert himself in vain. On April 9,

1454, Venice concluded a tolerably favourable peace with

Francesco Sforza at Lodi, in which King Alfonso, Florence,

Savoy, Montferrat, Mantua, and Siena, were to be included. The

king, who had made considerable preparations for war, did not

ratify the compact till January 26 of the following year. The

States of Northern and Central Italy then joined in an

alliance, and a succession of peaceful years followed."

A. von Reumont,

Lorenzo de' Medici,

book 1, chapter 7 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

W. P. Urquhart,

Life and Times of Francesco Sforza.

A. M. F. Robinson,

The End of the Middle Ages: Valentine Visconti.

The French Claim to Milan.

MILAN: A. D. 1464.

Renewed surrender of Genoa to the Duke.

See GENOA: A. D. 1458-1464.

MILAN: A. D. 1492-1496.

The usurpation of Ludovico, the Moor.

His invitation to Charles VIII. of France.

The French invasion of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1492-1494; and 1494-1496.

MILAN: A. D. 1499-1500.

Conquest by Louis XII. of France.

His claim by right of Valentine Visconti.

See ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500.

MILAN: A. D. 1501.

Treaty for the investiture of Louis XII. as Duke,

by the Emperor Maximilian.

See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

MILAN: A. D. 1512.

Expulsion of the French and restoration of the Sforzas.

Notwithstanding the success of the French at Ravenna, in their

struggle with the Holy League formed against them by Pope

Julius II. (see ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513), they could not hold

their ground in Italy. "Cremona shook off the yoke of France,

and city after city followed her example. Nor did it seem

possible longer to hold Milan in subjection. That versatile

state, after twice bending the neck to Louis, a second time

grew weary of his government; and greedily listened to the

proposal of the Pope to set upon the throne Massimiliano

Sforza, son of their late Duke Ludovico. Full of this project

the people of Milan rose simultaneously to avenge the

cruelties of the French; the soldiers and merchants remaining

in the city were plundered, and about 1,500 put to the sword.

The retreating army was harassed by the Lombards, and severely

galled by the Swiss; and after encountering the greatest

difficulties, the French crossed the Alps, having preserved

none of their conquests in Lombardy except the citadel of

Milan, and a few other fortresses. … At the close of the

year, Massimiliano Sforza made his triumphal entry into Milan,

with the most extravagant ebullitions of delight on the part

of the people."

Sir R. Comyn,

History of the Western Empire,

chapter 37 (volume 2).

MILAN: A. D. 1515.

French reconquest by Francis I.

Final overthrow of the Sforzas.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1515; and 1515-1518.

MILAN: A. D. 1517.

Abortive attempt of the Emperor Maximilian against the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.

MILAN: A. D. 1521-1522.

The French again expelled.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

MILAN: A. D. 1524-1525.

Recaptured and lost again by Francis I. of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.

MILAN: A. D. 1527-1529.

Renewed attack of the French king.

Its disastrous end.

Renunciation of the French claim.

See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

MILAN: A. D. 1544.

Repeated renunciation of the claims of Francis I.

The duchy becomes a dependency of the Spanish crown.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

MILAN: A. D. 1635-1638.

Invasion of the duchy by French and Italian armies.

See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

MILAN: A. D. 1713.

Cession of the duchy to Austria.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

MILAN: A. D. 1745.

Occupied by the Spaniards and French.

See ITALY: A. D. 1745.

MILAN: A. D. 1746.

Recovered by the Austrians.

See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.

MILAN: A. D. 1749-1792.

Under Austrian rule after the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle.

See ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.

MILAN: A. D. 1796.

Occupation by the French.

Bonaparte's pillage of the Art-galleries and Churches.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

MILAN: A. D. 1799.

Evacuation by the French.

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

MILAN: A. D. 1800.

Recovery by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

MILAN: A. D. 1805.

Coronation of Napoleon as king of Italy.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

MILAN: A. D. 1807-1808.

Napoleon's adornment of the city and its cathedral.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808 (NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY).

MILAN: A. D. 1814-1815.

Restored to Austria.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);

and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

MILAN: A. D. 1848-1849.

Insurrection.

Expulsion of the Austrians.

Failure of the struggle.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

MILAN: A. D. 1859.

Liberation from the Austrians.

See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

----------MILAN: End----------

MILAN DECREE, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810;

also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

MILANESE,

MILANESS, The.

The district or duchy of Milan.

MILESIANS, Irish.

In Irish legendary history, the followers of Miled, who came

from the north of Spain and were the last of the four races

which colonized Ireland.

T. Wright,

History of Ireland,

book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

See IRELAND: THE PRIMITIVE INHABITANTS.

----------MILETUS: Start----------

{2186}

MILETUS.

Miletus, on the coast of Asia Minor, near its southwestern

extremity, "with her four harbours, had been the earliest

anchorage on the entire coast. Phœnicians, Cretans, and

Carians, had inaugurated her world-wide importance, and Attic

families, endowed with eminent energy, had founded the city

anew.

See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

True, Miletus also had a rich territory of her own in her

rear, viz., the broad valley of the Mæander, where among other

rural pursuits particularly the breeding of sheep flourished.

Miletus became the principal market for the finer sorts of

wool; and the manufacture of this article into variegated

tapestry and coloured stuffs for clothing employed a large

multitude of human beings. But this industry also continued in

an increasing measure to demand importation from without of

all kinds of materials of art, articles of food, and slaves.

See ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539.

In no city was agriculture made a consideration so secondary

to industry and trade as here. At Miletus, the maritime trade

even came to form a particular party among the citizens, the

so-called 'Aeinautæ,' the 'men never off the water.'"

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book. 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).

Miletus took an early leading part in the great Ionian

enterprises of colonization and trade, particularly in the

Pontus, or Black Sea, where the Milesians succeeded the

Phœnicians, establishing important commercial settlements at

Sinope, Cyzicus and elsewhere. They were among the last of the

Asiatic Ionians to succumb to the Lydian monarchy, and they

were the first to revolt against the Persian domination, when

that had taken the place of the Lydian. The great revolt

failed and Miletus was practically destroyed.

See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

Recovering some importance it was destroyed again by

Alexander. Once more rising under the Roman empire, it was

destroyed finally by the Turks and its very ruins have not

been identified with certainty;

MILETUS: B. C. 412.

Revolt from Athens.

See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

----------MILETUS: End----------

MILITARY-RELIGIOUS ORDERS.

See HOSPITALLERS;

TEMPLARS;

TEUTONIC KNIGHTS;

and ST. LAZARUS. KNIGHTS OF.

MILL SPRING, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

MILLENIAL YEAR, The.

"It has often been stated that in the tenth century there was

a universal belief that the end of the world was to happen in

the year 1000 A. D. This representation has recently been

subjected to a critical scrutiny by Eiken, Le Roy, and Orsi,

and found to be an unwarrantable exaggeration. It would be

still less applicable to any century earlier or later than the

tenth. A conviction of the impending destruction of the world,

however, was not uncommon at almost any period of the middle

age. It is frequently found expressed in the writings of

Gregory of Tours, Fredegar, Lambert of Hersfeld, Ekkehard of

Aurach, and Otto of Freisingen."

R. Flint,

History of the Philosophy of History: France, etc.,

pages 101-102.

MILOSCH OBRENOVITCH, The career of.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

MILTIADES:

Victory at Marathon.

Condemnation and death.

See GREECE: B. C. 490;

also, ATHENS: B. C. 501-490, and B. C. 489-480.

MILVIAN BRIDGE, Battle of the (B. C. 78).

See ROME: B. C. 78-68.

MIMS, Fort, The massacre at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

MINA.

See TALENT;

also, SHEKEL.

MINCIO, Battle of the.

See ITALY: A. D. 1814.

MINDEN, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST).

MINE RUN MOVEMENT, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

MING DYNASTY, The.

See CHINA: THE ORIGIN OF THE PEOPLE, &c.;

and 1294-1882.

MINGELSHEIM, Battle of (1622).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

MINGOES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MINGOES.

MINIMS.

"Of the orders which arose in the 15th century, the most

remarkable was that of Eremites [Hermits] of St. Francis, or

Minims, founded … by St. Francis of Paola, and approved by

Sixtus IV. in 1474." St. Francis, a Minorite friar of

Calabria, was one of the devotees whom Louis XI. of France

gathered about himself during his last days, in the hope that

their intercessions might prolong his life. To propitiate him,

Louis "founded convents at Plessis and at Amboise for the new

religious society, the members of which, not content with the

name of Minorites, desired to signify their profession of

utter insignificance by styling themselves Minims."

J. C. Robertson,

History of the Christian Church,

volume 8, pages 369 and 224.

MINISTRY.

MINISTERIAL GOVERNMENT, The English.

See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

MINNE.

See GUILDS OF FLANDERS.

----------MINNESOTA: Start--------

MINNESOTA:

The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

MINNESOTA: A. D. 1803.

Part of the state, west of the Mississippi,

acquired in the Louisiana Purchase.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

MINNESOTA: A. D. 1834-1838.

Joined to Michigan Territory; then to Wisconsin; then to Iowa.

See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

MINNESOTA: A. D. 1849-1858.

Territorial and State organizations.

Minnesota was organized as a Territory in 1849, and admitted

to the Union as a State in 1858.

----------MINNESOTA: End--------

MINNETAREES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HIDATSA, and SIOUAN FAMILY.

----------MINORCA: Start----------

MINORCA: 13th Century.

Conquest by King James of Aragon.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.

{2187}

MINORCA: A. D. 1708.

Acquisition by England.

In 1708, during the War of the Spanish Succession, Port Mahon,

and the whole island of Minorca, were taken by an English

expedition from Barcelona, under General Stanhope, who

afterwards received a title from his conquest, becoming

Viscount Stanhope of Mahon. Port Mahon was then considered the

best harbor in the Mediterranean and its importance to England

was rated above that of Gibraltar.

Earl Stanhope,

History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,

chapter 10.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

At the Peace of Utrecht Minorca was ceded to Great Britain and

remained under the British flag during the greater part of the

18th century.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

MINORCA: A. D. 1756.

Taken by the French.

At the outbreak of the Seven Years War, in 1756, there was

great dread in England of an immediate French invasion; and

"the Government so thoroughly lost heart as to request the

King to garrison England with Hanoverian troops. This dread

was kept alive by a simulated collection of French troops in

the north. But, under cover of this threat, a fleet was being

collected at Toulon, with the real design of capturing

Minorca. The ministry were at last roused to this danger, and

Byng was despatched with ten sail of the line to prevent it.

Three days after he set sail the Duke de Richelieu, with

16,000 men, slipped across into the island, and compelled

General Blakeney, who was somewhat old and infirm, to withdraw

into the castle of St. Philip, which was at once besieged. On

the 19th of May—much too late to prevent the landing of

Richelieu—Byng arrived within view of St. Philip, which was

still in the possession of the English. The French Admiral, La

Galissonnière, sailed out to cover the siege, and Byng, who

apparently felt himself unequally matched—although West, his

second in command, behaved with gallantry and success—called

a council of war, and withdrew. Blakeney, who had defended his

position with great bravery, had to surrender. The failure of

Byng, and the general weakness and incapacity of the ministry,

roused the temper of the people to rage; and Newcastle,

trembling for himself, threw all the blame upon the Admiral,

hoping by this means to satisfy the popular cry. … A court

martial held upon that officer had been bound by strict

instructions, and had found itself obliged to bring in a

verdict of guilty, though without casting any imputation on

the personal courage of the Admiral. On his accession to power

Pitt was courageous enough, although he rested on the popular

favour, to do his best to get Byng pardoned, and urged on the

King that the House of Commons seemed to wish the sentence to

be mitigated. The King is said to have answered in words that

fairly describe Pitt's position, 'Sir, you have taught me to

look for the sense of my subjects in another place than the

House of Commons.' The sentence was carried out, and Byng was

shot on the quarter-deck of the 'Monarque' at Portsmouth

(March 14, 1757)."

J. F. Bright,

History of England,

period 3, pages 1021-1022.

MINORCA: A. D. 1763.

Restored to England by the Treaty of Paris.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

MINORCA: A. D. 1782.

Captured by the Spaniards.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.

MINORCA: A. D. 1802.

Ceded to Spain by the Treaty of Amiens.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

----------MINORCA: End----------

MINORITES, The.

The Franciscan friars, called by their founder "Fratri

Minori," bore very commonly the name of the Minorites.

See MENDICANT ORDERS.

MINQUAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SUSQUEHANNAS.

MINSIS,

MUNSEES,

MINISINKS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and DELAWARES;

and, also, MANHATTAN ISLAND.

MINTO, Lord, The Indian administration of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

MINUTE-MEN.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1774.

MINYI, The.

"The race [among the Greeks] which … first issues forth with

a history of its own from the dark background of the Pelasgian

people is that of the Minyi. The cycle of their heroes

includes Iason and Euneus, his son, who trades with Phœnicians

and with Greeks. … The myths of the Argo were developed in

the greatest completeness on the Pagasæan gulf, in the seats

of the Minyi; and they are the first with whom a perceptible

movement of the Pelasgean tribes beyond the sea—in other

words, a Greek history in Europe—begins. The Minyi spread

both by land and sea. They migrated southwards into the

fertile fields of Bœotia, and settled on the southern side of

the Copæic valley by the sea. … After leaving the low

southern coast they founded a new city at the western

extremity of the Bœotian valley. There a long mountain ridge

juts out from the direction of Parnassus, and round its

farthest projection flows in a semicircle the Cephissus. At

the lower edge of the height lies the village of Skripu.

Ascending from its huts, one passes over primitive lines of

wall to the peak of the mountain, only approachable by a rocky

staircase of a hundred steps, and forming the summit of a

castle. This is the second city of the Minyi in Bœotia, called

Orchomenus: like the first, the most ancient walled royal seat

which can be proved to have existed in Hellas, occupying a

proud and commanding position over the valley by the sea. Only

a little above the dirty huts of clay rises out of the depths

of the soil the mighty block of marble, more than twenty feet

high, which covered the entrance of a round building. The

ancients called it the treasury of Minyas, in the vaults of

which the ancient kings were believed to have hoarded the

superfluity of their treasures of gold and silver, and in

these remains endeavoured to recall to themselves the glory of

Orchomenus sung by Homer."

E. Curtius,

History of Greece,

book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

See, also, BŒOTIA;

and GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.

MIR, The Russian.

"The 'mir' is a commune, whose bond is unity of autonomy and

of possession of land. Sometimes the mir is a single village.

In this case the economic administration adapts itself exactly

to the civil. Again, it may happen that a large village is

divided into many rural communes. Then each commune has its

special economic administration, whilst the civil and police

administration is common to all. Sometimes, lastly, a number

of villages only have one mir. Thus the size of the mir may

vary from 20 or 30 to some thousands of 'dvors.' … The

'dvor,' or court, is the economic unit: it contains one or

several houses, and one or several married couples lodge in

it. The 'dvor' has only one hedge and one gate in common for

its inmates. … With the Great Russians the mir regulates

even the ground that the houses stand on; the mir has the

right to shift about the 'dvors.' …

{2188}

Besides land, the communes have property of another kind:

fish-lakes, communal mills, a communal herd for the

improvement of oxen and horses; finally, storehouses, intended

for the distribution to the peasants of seeds for their fields

or food for their families. The enjoyment of all these various

things must be distributed among the members of the commune,

must be distributed regularly, equally, equitably. Thus, a

fair distribution today will not be fair five or six years

hence, because in some families the number of members will

have increased, in others diminished. A new distribution,

therefore, will be necessary to make the shares equal. For a

long time this equalization can be brought about by partial

sharings-up, by exchange of lots of ground between the private

persons concerned, without upsetting everybody by a general

redistribution. … The Russian mir is not an elementary unit.

It is made up of several primordial cells—of small circles

that form in perfect freedom. The mir only asks that the

circles (osmaks) are equal as to labour-power. This condition

fulfilled, I am free to choose my companions in accordance

with my friendships or my interests. When the village has any

work to do, any property to distribute, the administration or

the assembly of the commune generally does not concern itself

with individuals, but with the 'osmak' … Each village has an

administration; it is represented by a mayor (selskï

starosta), chosen by the mir. But this administration has to

do only with affairs determined upon in principle by the

communal assembly. The starosta has no right of initiating any

measures of importance. Such questions (partition of the land,

new taxes, leases of communal property, etc.) are only

adjudicated and decided by the assembly of the mir. All the

peasants living in the village come to the assembly, even the

women. If, for example, the wife, by the death of her husband,

is the head of the family, at the assembly she has the right

to vote. … The peasants meet very frequently. … The

assemblies are very lively, … courageous, independent."

L. Tikhomirov,

Russia, Political and Social,

book 3, chapter 2, with foot-note,

chapter 1 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

D. M. Wallace,

Russia,

volume 1, chapter 8.

W. T. Stead,

The Truth about Russia,

book 4, chapter 2.

A. Leroy-Beaulieu,

The Empire of the Tsars,

part 1, book 8.

MIRABEAU, and the French Revolution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (MAY). to 1790-1791.

MIRACULOUS VICTORY, The.

See THUNDERING LEGION.

MIRAFLORES, Battle of (1881).

See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

MIRANDA, Revolutionary undertakings of.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800;

and COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

MIRANHA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

MIRISZLO, Battle of (1600).

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-18TH CENTURIES.

MISCHIANZA, The.

See PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1777-1778.

MISCHNA, The.

Rabbi Jehuda, the Patriarch at Tiberius, was the author (about

A. D. 194) of "a new constitution to the Jewish people. He

embodied in the celebrated Mischna, or Code of Traditional

Law, all the authorized interpretations of the Mosaic Law, the

traditions, the decisions of the learned, and the precedents

of the courts or schools. … The sources from which the

Mischna was derived may give a fair view of the nature of the

Rabbinical authority, and the manner in which it had

superseded the original Mosaic Constitution. The Mischna was

grounded,

1. On the Written Law of Moses.

2. On the Oral Law, received by Moses on Mount Sinai,

and handed down, it was said, by uninterrupted tradition.

3. The decisions or maxims of the Wise Men.

4. Opinions of particular individuals, on which the

schools were divided, and which still remained open.

5. Ancient usages and customs.

The distribution of the Mischna affords a curious

exemplification of the intimate manner in which the religious

and civil duties of the Jews were interwoven, and of the

authority assumed by the Law over every transaction of life.

The Mischna commenced with rules for prayer, thanksgiving,

ablutions; it is impossible to conceive the minuteness or

subtlety of these rules, and the fine distinctions drawn by

the Rabbins. It was a question whether a man who ate figs,

grapes, and pomegranates, was to say one or three graces; …

whether he should sweep the house and then wash his hands, or

wash his hands and then sweep the house. But there are nobler

words."

H. H. Milman,

History of the Jews,

book 19.

See, also, TALMUD.

MISE OF AMIENS, The.

See OXFORD, PROVISIONS OF.

MISE OF LEWES, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

MISENUM, Treaty of.

The arrangement by which Sextus Pompeius was virtually

admitted (B. C. 40) for a time into partnership with the

triumvirate of Antony, Octavius and Lepidus, was so called.

See ROME: B. C. 44-42.

MISR.

See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

MISSI DOMINICI.

"Nothing was more novel or peculiar in the legislation of Karl

[Charlemagne] than his institution of imperial deputies,

called Missi Dominici, who were regularly sent forth from the

palace to oversee and inspect the various local

administrations. Consisting of a body of two or three officers

each, one of whom was always a prelate, they visited the

counties every three months, and held there the local assizes,

or 'placita minores.' … Even religion and morals were not

exempted from this scrutiny."

P. Godwin,

History of France: Ancient Gaul,

chapter 17.

See, also, PALATINE, COUNTS.

MISSIONARY RIDGE:

Its position, and the battle fought on it.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE);

and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

----------MISSISSIPPI: Start--------

MISSISSIPPI:

The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY, and CHEROKEES.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1629.

Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1663.

Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk, Chesterfield, and others.

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

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1732.

Mostly embraced in the new province of Georgia.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1763.

Partly embraced in West Florida, ceded to Great Britain.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES;

FLORIDA: A. D. 1763;

and NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1779-1781.

Reconquest of West Florida by the Spaniards.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.

{2189}

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1783.

Mostly covered by the English cession to the United States.

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

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1783-1787.

Partly in dispute with Spain.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1798-1804.

The Territory constituted and organized.

"The territory heretofore surrendered by the Spanish

authorities, and lying north of the 31st degree of latitude,

with the consent and approbation of the State of Georgia, was

erected into a territory of the United States by act of

Congress, approved April 7th, 1798, entitled 'an act for the

amicable settlement of limits with the State of Georgia, and

authorizing the establishment of a government in the

Mississippi Territory. The territory comprised in the new

organization, or the original Mississippi Territory, embraced

that portion of country between the Spanish line of

demarkation and a line drawn due east from the mouth of the

Yazoo to the Chattahoochy River. The Mississippi River was its

western limit and the Chattahoochy its eastern. The

organization of a territorial government by the United States

was in no wise to impair the rights of Georgia to the soil,

which was left open for future negotiation between the State

of Georgia and the United States." In 1802 the State of

Georgia ceded to the United States all her claim to lands

south of the State of Tennessee, stipulating to receive

$1,250,000" out of the first nett proceeds of lands lying in

said ceded territory." In 1804 "the whole of the extensive

territory ceded by Georgia, lying north of the Mississippi

Territory, and south of Tennessee, was … annexed to the

Mississippi Territory, and was subsequently included within

its limits and jurisdiction. The boundaries of the Mississippi

Territory, consequently, were the 31st degree on the south,

and the 35th degree on the north, extending from the

Mississippi River to the western limits of Georgia, and

comprised the whole territory now embraced in the States of

Alabama and Mississippi, excepting the small Florida District

between the Pearl and Perdido Rivers. Four fifths of this

extensive territory were in the possession of the four great

southern Indian confederacies, the Choctâs, the Chickasâs, the

Creeks, and the Cherokees, comprising an aggregate of about

75,000 souls, and at least 10,000 warriors. The only portions

of this territory to which the Indian title had been

extinguished was a narrow strip from 15 to 50 miles in width,

on the east side of the Mississippi, and about 70 miles in

length, and a small district on the Tombigby."

J. W. Monette,

Discovery and Settlement of the

Valley of the Mississippi,

book 5, chapter 13 (volume 2).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1803.

Portion acquired by the Louisiana Purchase.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1812-1813.

Spanish West Florida annexed to Mississippi Territory

and possession taken.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1813-1814.

The Creek War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1817.

Constitution as a State and admission into the Union.

The sixth and seventh of the new States added to the original

Union of thirteen were Indiana and Mississippi. "These last

almost simultaneously found representation in the Fifteenth

Congress; and of them Indiana, not without an internal

struggle, held steadfastly to the fundamental Ordinance of

1787 under which it was settled, having adopted its free State

constitution in June, 1816; Mississippi, which followed on the

slave side, agreeing upon a constitution, in August, 1817,

which the new Congress, at its earliest opportunity [December

10, 1817] after assembling, pronounced republican in form, and

satisfactory."

J. Schouler,

History of the United States,

volume 3, page 100.

At the same time, the part of Mississippi Territory which

forms the present State of Alabama was detached and erected

into the Territory of Alabama.

See ALABAMA: A. D. 1817-1819.

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1861 (January).

Secession from the Union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1862 (April-May).

The taking of Corinth by the Union forces.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1862 (May-July).

First Union attempts against Vicksburg.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1862 (September-October).

The battles of Iuka and Corinth.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: MISSISSIPPI).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1863 (April-May).

Grierson's raid.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (APRIL-MAY: MISSISSIPPI).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1863 (April-July).

Federal siege and capture of Vicksburg.

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

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1863 (July).

Capture and destruction of Jackson.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JULY: MISSISSIPPI).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1864 (February).

Sherman's raid to Meridian.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE—MISSISSIPPI).

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1865 (March-April).

Wilson's raid.

The end of the Rebellion.

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

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1865 (June).

Provisional government set up under

President Johnson's plan of Reconstruction.

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

MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1865-1870.

State reconstruction.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.

----------MISSISSIPPI: End--------

----------MISSISSIPPI RIVER: Start--------

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1519.

Discovery of the mouth by Pineda, for Garay.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1525.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1528-1542.

Crossed by Cabeça de Vaca, and by Hernando de Soto.

Descended by the survivors of De Soto's company.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1673.

Discovery by Joliet and Marquette.

See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1682.

Exploration to the mouth by La Salle.

See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1712.

Called the River St. Louis by the French.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1783-1803.

The question of the Right of Navigation

disputed between Spain and the United States.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787;

and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800, and 1798-1803.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1861-1863.

Battles and Sieges of the Civil War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI), Belmont;

1862 (MARCH-APRIL), NEW

Madrid and Island No. 10;

1862 (APRIL), New Orleans;

1862 (MAY-JULY), First Vicksburg attack;

1862 (JUNE), Memphis;

1862 (DECEMBER), Second Vicksburg attack;

1863 (JANUARY-APRIL), and (APRIL-JULY),

Siege and capture of Vicksburg;

1863 (MAY-JULY), Port Hudson and the clear opening of the River.

----------MISSISSIPPI RIVER: End--------

{2190}

MISSISSIPPI SCHEME, John Law's.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720;

and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.

----------MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: Start--------

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: A. D. 1763.

Cession of the eastern side of the river to Great Britain.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: A. D. 1803.

Purchase of the western side by the United States.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

----------MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: End--------

MISSOLONGHI, Siege and capture of (1825-1826).

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

----------MISSOURI: Start--------

MISSOURI: A. D. 1719-1732.

First development of lead mines by the French.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1763-1765.

French withdrawal to the West of the Mississippi.

The founding of St. Louis.

See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1803.

Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1804-1812.

Upper Louisiana organized as the Territory of Louisiana.

The changing of its name to Missouri.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1812.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1819.

Arkansas detached.

See ARKANSAS: A. D. 1819-1836.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1821.

Admission to the Union.

The Compromise concerning Slavery.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1854-1859.

The Kansas Struggle.

See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (February-July).

The baffling of the Secessionists.

Blair, Lyon and the Home Guards of St. Louis.

The capture of Camp Jackson.

Battle of Boonville.

A loyal State Government organized.

The seizure of arsenals and arms by the secessionists of the

Atlantic and Gulf States "naturally, directed the attention of

the leaders of the different political parties in Missouri to

the arsenal in St. Louis, and set them to work planning how

they might get control of the 40,000 muskets and other

munitions of war which it was known to contain. …

Satisfied that movements were on foot among irresponsible

parties, Unionist as well as Secessionist, to take possession

of this post, General D. M. Frost, of the Missouri state

militia, a graduate of West Point and a thorough soldier, is

said to have called Governor Jackson's attention to the

necessity of 'looking after' it. … Jackson, however, needed

no prompting. … He did not hesitate to give Frost authority

to seize the arsenal, whenever in his judgment it might become

necessary to do so. Meanwhile he was to assist in protecting

it against mob violence of any kind or from any source. …

Frost, however, was not the only person in St. Louis who had

his eyes fixed upon the arsenal and its contents. Frank Blair

was looking longingly in the same direction, and was already

busily engaged in organizing the bands which, supplied with

guns from this very storehouse, enabled him, some four months

later, to lay such a heavy hand upon Missouri. Just then, it

is true, he could not arm them, … but he did not permit this

to interfere with the work of recruiting and drilling. That

went on steadily, and as a consequence, when the moment came

for action, Blair was able to appear at the decisive point

with a well-armed force, ten times as numerous as that which

his opponents could bring against him. In the mean time,

whilst these two, or rather three, parties (for Frost can

hardly be termed a secessionist, though as an officer in the

service of the State he was willing to obey the orders of his

commander) were watching each other, the federal government

awoke from its lethargy, and began to concentrate troops in

St. Louis for the protection of its property. … By the 18th

of February, the day of the election of delegates to the

convention which pronounced so decidedly against secession,

there were between four and five hundred men behind the

arsenal walls. … General Harney, who was in command of the

department and presumably familiar with its condition, under

date of February 19, notified the authorities at Washington

that there was no danger of an attack, and never had been. …

Such was not the opinion of Captain Nathaniel Lyon, who had

arrived at the arsenal on the 6th of February, and who was

destined, in the short space of the coming six months, to

write his name indelibly in the history of the State. …

Under the stimulating influence of two such spirits as Blair

and … [Lyon] the work of preparation went bravely on. By the

middle of April, four regiments had been enlisted, and Lyon,

who was now in command of the arsenal, though not of the

department, proceeded to arm them in accordance with an order

which Blair had procured from Washington. Backed by this

force, Blair felt strong enough to set up an opposition to the

state government, and accordingly, when Jackson refused to

furnish the quota of troops assigned to Missouri under

President Lincoln's call of April 15, 1861 [see UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL)], he telegraphed to Washington

that if an order to muster the men into the service was sent

to Captain Lyon 'the requisition would be filled in two days.'

The order was duly forwarded, and five regiments having been

sworn in instead of four, as called for, Blair was offered the

command. This he declined, and, on his recommendation, Lyon

was elected in his place. On the 7th and 8th of May another

brigade was organized. … This made ten regiments of

volunteers, besides several companies of regulars and a

battery of artillery, that were now ready for service; and as

General Harney, whose relatives and associates were suspected

of disloyalty, had been ordered to Washington to explain his

position, Lyon was virtually in command of the department. …

Jackson, … though possessed of but little actual power, was

unwilling to give up the contest without an effort. He did not

accept the decision of the February election as final. …

Repairing to St. Louis, as soon as the adjournment of the

General Assembly had left him free, he began at once, in

conjunction with certain leading secessionists, to concert

measures for arming the militia of the State. …

{2191}

To this end, the seizure of the arsenal was held to be a

prerequisite, and General Frost was preparing a memorial

showing how this could best be done, when the surrender of

Fort Sumter and the President's consequent call for troops

hurried Jackson into a position of antagonism to the federal

government. … He sent messengers to the Confederate

authorities at Montgomery, Alabama, asking them to supply him

with the guns that were needed for the proposed attack on the

arsenal; and he summoned the General Assembly to meet at

Jefferson City on the 2d of May, to deliberate upon such

measures as might be deemed necessary for placing the State in

a position to defend herself. He also ordered, as he was

authorized to do under the law, the commanders of the several

military districts to hold the regular yearly encampments for

the purpose of instructing their men in drill and discipline.

… Practically its effect was limited to the first or Frost's

brigade, as that was the only one that had been organized

under the law. On the 3d of May, this little band, numbering

less than 700 men, pitched their tents in a wooded valley in

the outskirts of the city of St. Louis, and named it Camp

Jackson, in honor of the governor. It is described as being

surrounded on all sides, at short range, by commanding hills;

it was, moreover, open to a charge of cavalry in any and every

direction, and the men were supplied with but five rounds of

ammunition each, hardly enough for guard purposes. In a word,

it was defenseless, and this fact is believed to be conclusive

in regard to the peaceful character of the camp as it was

organized. … Lyon … announced his intention of seizing the

entire force at the camp, without any ceremony other than a

demand for its surrender. … Putting his troops in motion

early in the morning of the 10th of May; he surrounded Camp

Jackson and demanded its surrender. As Frost could make no

defense against the overwhelming odds brought against him, he

was of course obliged to comply; and his men, having been

disarmed, were marched to the arsenal, where they were

paroled. … After the surrender, and whilst the prisoners

were standing in line, waiting for the order to march, a crowd

of men, women and children collected and began to abuse the

home guards, attacking them with stones and other missiles. It

is even said that several shots were fired at them, but this

lacks confirmation. According to Frost, who was at the head of

the column of prisoners, the first intimation of firing was

given by a single shot, followed almost immediately by volley

firing, which is said to have been executed with precision

considering the rawness of the troops. When the fusillade was

checked, it was found that 28 persons had been killed or

mortally wounded, among whom were three of the prisoners, two

women, and one child. … Judging this action by the reasons

assigned for it, and by its effect throughout the State, it

must be pronounced a blunder. So far from intimidating the

secessionists, it served only to exasperate them; and it drove

not a few Union men, among them General Sterling Price, into

the ranks of the opposition and ultimately into the

Confederate army."

L. Carr,

Missouri,

chapter 14.

When news of the capture of Camp Jackson reached Jefferson

City, where the legislature was in session, Governor Jackson

at once ordered a bridge on the railroad from St. Louis to be

destroyed, and the legislature made haste to pass several

bills in the interest of the rebellion, including one which

placed the whole military power of the State in the hands of

the Governor. Armed with this authority, Jackson proceeded to

organize the Militia of Missouri as a secession army. Meantime

Captain Lyon had been superseded in command by the arrival at

St. Louis of General Harney, and the latter introduced a total

change of policy at once. He was trapped into an agreement

with Governor Jackson and Sterling Price, now general-in-chief

of the Missouri forces, which tied his hands, while the

cunning rebel leaders were rapidly placing the State in active

insurrection. But the eyes of the authorities at Washington

were opened by Blair; Harney was soon displaced and Lyon

restored to command. This occurred May 30th. On the 15th of

June Lyon took possession of the capital of the State,

Jefferson City, the Governor and other State officers taking

flight to Boonville, where their forces were being gathered.

Lyon promptly followed, routing and dispersing them at

Boonville on the 17th. The State Convention which had taken a

recess in March was now called together by a committee that

had been empowered to do so before the convention separated,

and a provisional State government was organized (July 31)

with a loyal governor, Hamilton R. Gamble, at its head.

J. G. Nicolay,

The Outbreak of the Rebellion,

chapter 10.

ALSO IN:

T. L. Snead,

The Fight for Missouri.

J. Peckham,

General Nathaniel Lyon and Missouri in 1861.

MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (July-September).

Sigel's retreat from Carthage.

Death of Lyon at Wilson's Creek.

Siege of Lexington.

Fremont in command.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI).

A. D. 1861 (August-October).

Fremont in command.

His premature proclamation of freedom to the Slaves of rebels.

His quarrel with Frank P. Blair.

The change in command.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: MISSOURI).

MISSOURI: A. D. 1862 (January-March).

Price and the Rebel forces driven into Arkansas.

Battle of Pea Ridge.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

MISSOURI: A. D. 1862 (July-September).

Organization of the loyal Militia of the state.

Warfare with Rebel guerrillas.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

MISSOURI: A. D. 1862 (September-December).

Social effects of the Civil War.

The Battle of Prairie Grove.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

MISSOURI: A. D. 1863 (August).

Quantrell's guerrilla raid to Lawrence, Kansas.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (AUGUST: MISSOURI-KANSAS).

MISSOURI: A. D. 1863 (October).

Cabell's invasion.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

MISSOURI: A. D. 1864 (September-October).

Price's raid.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

----------MISSOURI: End--------

MISSOURI COMPROMISE, The.

Its Repeal, and the decision of the Supreme Court against it.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1818-1821; 1854; and 1857.

{2192}

MISSOURI RIVER:

Called the River St. Philip by the French (1712).

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

MISSOURIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

MITCHELL, General Ormsby M.:

Expedition into Alabama.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862(APRIL-MAY: ALABAMA);

and (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

MITHRIDATIC WARS, The.

A somewhat vaguely defined part of eastern Asia Minor, between

Armenia, Phrygia, Cilicia and the Euxine, was called

Cappadocia in times anterior to 363 B. C. Like its neighbors,

it had fallen under the rule of the Persians and formed a

province of their empire, ruled by hereditary satraps. In the

year above named, the then reigning satrap, Ariobarzanes,

rebelled and made himself king of the northern coast district

of Cappadocia, while the southern and inland part was retained

under Persian rule. The kingdom founded by Ariobarzanes took

the name of Pontus, from the sea on which it bordered. It was

reduced to submission by Alexander the Great, but regained

independence during the wars between Alexander's successors

(see MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301; and SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 281-224),

and extended its limits towards the west and south. The

kingdom of Pontus, however, only rose to importance in history

under the powerful sovereignty of Mithridates V. who took the

title of Eupator and is often called Mithridates the Great. He

ascended the throne while a child, B. C. 120, but received,

notwithstanding, a wonderful education and training. At the

age of twenty (B. C. 112) he entered upon a career of

conquest, which was intended to strengthen his power for the

struggle with Rome, which he saw to be inevitable. Within a

period of about seven years he extended his dominions around

the nearly complete circuit of the Euxine, through Armenia,

Colchis, and along the northern coasts westward to the Crimea

and the Dniester; while at the same time he formed alliances

with the barbarous tribes on the Danube, with which he hoped

to threaten Italy.

G. Rawlinson,

Manual of Ancient History,

book 4, period 3, part 4.

"He [Mithridates] rivalled Hannibal in his unquenchable hatred

to Rome. This hatred had its origin in the revocation of a

district of Phrygia which the Senate had granted to his

father. … To his banner clustered a quarter of a million of

the fierce warriors of the Caucasus and the Scythian steppes

and of his own Hellenized Pontic soldiers; Greek captains, in

whom he had a confidence unshaken by disaster—Archelaus,

Neoptolemus, Dorilaus—gave tactical strength to his forces.

He was allied, too, with the Armenian king, Tigranes; and he

now turned his thoughts to Numidia, Syria, and Egypt with the

intention of forming a coalition against his foe on the Tiber.

A coin has been found which commemorated an alliance proposed

between the Pontic king and the Italian rebels. … The

imperious folly of M'. Aquillius, the Roman envoy in the East,

precipitated the intentions of the king; instead of contending

for the princedom of Bithynia and Cappadocia, he suddenly

appealed to the disaffected in the Roman province. The fierce

white fire of Asiatic hate shot out simultaneously through the

length and breadth of the country [B. C. 88]; and the awful

news came to distracted Rome that 80,000 Italians had fallen

victims to the vengeance of the provincials. Terror-stricken

publicani were chased from Adramyttium and Ephesus into the

sea, their only refuge, and there cut down by their pursuers;

the Mæander was rolling along the corpses of the Italians of

Tralles; in Caria the refined cruelty of the oppressed people

was butchering the children before the eyes of father and

mother, then the mother before the eyes of her husband, and

giving to the man death as the crown and the relief of his

torture. … Asia was lost to Rome; only Rhodes, which had

retained her independence, remained faithful to her great

ally. The Pontic fleet, under Archelaus, appeared at Delos,

and carried thence 2,000 talents to Athens, offering to that

imperial city the government of her ancient tributary. This

politic measure awaked hopes of independence in Greece.

Aristion, an Epicurean philosopher, seized the reins of power

in Athens, and Archelaus repaired the crumbling battlements of

the Piræus. The wave of eastern conquest was rolling on

towards Italy itself. The proconsul Sulla marched to

Brundisium, and, undeterred by the ominous news that his

consular colleague, Q. Rufus, had been murdered in Picenum, or

by the sinister attitude of the new consul Cinna, he crossed

over to Greece with five legions to stem the advancing wave.

History knows no more magnificent illustration of cool,

self-restrained determination than the action of Sulla during

these three years." He left Rome to his enemies, the fierce

faction of Marius, who were prompt to seize the city and to

fill it with "wailing for the dead, or with the more terrible

silence which followed a complete massacre" [see ROME: B. C.

88-78]. "The news of this carnival of democracy reached the

camp of Sulla along with innumerable noble fugitives who had

escaped the Marian terror. The proconsul was unmoved; with

unexampled self-confidence he began to assume that he and his

constituted Rome, while the Forum and Curia were filled with

lawless anarchists, who would soon have to be dealt with. He

carried Athens by assault, and slew the whole population, with

their tyrant Aristion [see ATHENS: B. C. 87-86], but he

counted it among the favours of the goddess of Fortune that

he, man of culture as he was, was able to save the immemorial

buildings of the city from the fate of Syracuse or Corinth.

Archelaus, in Piræus, offered the most heroic resistance. …

With the spring Sulla heard of the approach of the main army

from Pontus, under the command of Taxiles. 120,000 men, and

ninety scythed chariots, were pouring over Mount Œta to

overwhelm him. With wonderful rapidity he marched northwards

through friendly Thebes, and drew up his little army on a

slope near Chæronea, digging trenches on his left and right to

save his flank from being turned. He showed himself every inch

a general, he compelled the enemy to meet him on this ground

of his own choice, and the day did not close before 110,000 of

the enemy were captured or slain, and the camp of Archelaus,

who had hastened from Athens to take the command, was carried

by assault. We have before us still, in the pages of Plutarch,

Sulla's own memoirs. If we may believe him, he lost only

fifteen men in the battle. By this brilliant engagement he had

restored Greece to her allegiance, and, what was even better,

the disaster aroused an the savagery of Mithradates, the Greek

vanished in the oriental despot.

{2193}

Suspicious and ruthless, he ordered his nearest friends to be

assassinated; he transported all the population of Chios to

the mainland, and by his violence and exaction stirred

Ephesus, Sardes, Tralles, and many other cities, to renounce

his control, and to return to the Roman government. Still, he

did not suspect Archelaus, but appointed him, together with

Dorilaus, to lead a new army into Greece. The new army

appeared in Bœotia, and encamped by the Copaic Lake, near

Orchomenos. Before the raw levies could become familiar with

the sight of the legions, Sulla assaulted the camp [B. C. 85],

and rallied his wavering men by leading them in person with

the cry, 'Go, tell them in Rome that you left your general in

the trenches of Orchomenos;' the self-consciousness was

sublime, for nothing would have pleased the people in Rome

better; his victory was complete, and Archelaus escaped alone

in a boat to Calchis. As the conqueror returned from the

battle-field to reorganize Greece, he learnt that the Senate

had deposed him from command, declared him an outlaw, and

appointed as his successor the consul L. Valerius Flaccus. The

disorganization of the republic seemed to have reached a

climax. Flaccus conducted his army straight to the Bosphorus

without venturing to approach the rebel proconsul Sulla; while

Mithradates, who began to wish for peace, preferred to

negotiate with his conqueror rather than with the consul of

the republic. To complete this complication of anarchy,

Flaccus was murdered, and superseded in the command by his own

legate, C. Flavius Fimbria; this choice of their general by

the legions themselves might seem significant if anything

could be significant or connected in such a chaos. But Sulla

now crossed into Asia, and concluded peace with Mithradates on

these conditions: The king was to relinquish all his

conquests, surrender deserters, restore the people of Chios,

pay 2,000 talents, and give up seventy of his ships. Fimbria

… remained to be dealt with. It was not a difficult matter:

the two Roman armies confronted one another at Thyatira, and

the Fimbrians streamed over to Sulla. After all, the

legionaries, who had long ceased to be citizens, were soldiers

first and politicians after; they worshipped the felicity of

the great general; and the democratic general had not yet

appeared who could bind his men to him by a spell stronger

than Sulla's. Fimbria persuaded a slave to thrust him through

with his sword. His enemies were vanquished in Asia, but in

Rome Cinna was again consul (85 B. C.), and his colleague, Cn.

Papirius Carbo, out-Cinnaed Cinna. Yet Sulla was in no hurry.

He spent more than a year in reorganizing the disordered

province. … He even allowed Cinna and Carbo, who began to

prepare for war with him (84 B. C.), to be re-elected to the

consulship; but when the more cautious party in the Senate

entered into negotiations with him, and offered him a safe

conduct to Italy, he showed in a word what he took to be the

nature of the situation by saying that he was not in need of

their safe conduct, but he was coming to secure them."

R. F. Horton,

History of the Romans,

chapter 26.

Plutarch,

Sulla.

After a second and a third war with Rome (see ROME: B. C.

78-68, and 69-63), Mithridates was finally (B. C. 65) driven

from his old dominions into the Crimean kingdom of Bosporus,

where he ended his life in despair two years later. The

kingdom of Pontus was absorbed in the Roman empire. The

southern part of Cappadocia held some rank as an independent

kingdom until A. D. 17, when it was likewise reduced to the

state of a Roman province.

MITLA, The Ruins of.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

----------MITYLENE: Start--------

MITYLENE.

The chief city in ancient times of the island of Lesbos, to

which it ultimately gave its name.

See LESBOS.

MITYLENE: B. C. 428-427.

Revolt from Athenian rule.

Siege and surrender.

The tender mercies of Athens.

See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

MITYLENE: B. C. 406.

Blockade of the Athenian fleet.

Battle of Arginusæ.

See GREECE: B. C. 406.

----------MITYLENE: End--------

MIXES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

MIXTECS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

MIZRAIM.

See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

MOABITES, The.

The Moabite Stone.

As related in the Bible (Genesis xix. 37), Moab was the son of

Lot's eldest daughter and the ancient people called Moabites

were descended from him. They occupied at an early time the

rich tableland or highlands on the east side of the Dead Sea;

but the Amorites drove them out of the richer northern part of

this territory into its southern half, where they occupied a

very narrow domain, but one easily defended. This occurred

shortly before the coming of the Israelites into Canaan.

Between the Moabites and the Israelites, after the settlement

of the latter, there was frequent war, but sometimes relations

both peaceful and friendly. David finally subjugated their

nation, in a war of peculiar atrocity. After the division of

the kingdoms, Moab was subject to Israel, but revolted on the

death of Ahab and was nearly destroyed in the horrible war

which followed. The Biblical account of this war is given in 2

Kings III. It is strangely supplemented and filled out by a

Moabite record—the famous Moabite Stone—found and deciphered

within quite recent times, under the following circumstance.

Dr. Klein, a German missionary, travelling in 1869 in what was

formerly the "Land of Moab," discovered a stone of black

basalt bearing a long inscription in Phœnician characters. He

copied a small part of it and made his discovery known. The

Prussian government opened negotiations for the purchase of

the stone, and M. Clermont-Ganneau, of the French consulate at

Jerusalem, made efforts likewise to secure it for his own

country. Meantime, very fortunately, the latter sent men to

take impressions—squeezes, as they are called—of the

inscription, which was imperfectly done. But these imperfect

squeezes proved invaluable; for the Arabs, finding the stone

to be a covetable thing, and fearing that it was to be taken

from them, crumbled it into fragments with the aid of fire and

water. Most of the pieces were subsequently recovered, and

were put together by the help of M. Clermont-Ganneau's

squeezes, so that an important part of the inscription was

deciphered in the end. It was found to be a record by Mesha,

king of Moab, of the war with Israel referred to above.

A. H. Sayce,

Fresh Light from the

Ancient Monuments,

chapter 4.

{2194}

The Moabites appear to have recovered from the blow, but not

much of their subsequent history is known.

G. Grove,

Dictionary of the Bible.

ALSO IN:

J. King,

Moab's Patriarchal Stone.

See, also, JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY,

and JEWS: UNDER THE JUDGES.

MOAWIYAH,

Caliph (founder of the Omeyyad dynasty), A. D. 661-679.

Moawiyah II., Caliph, A. D. 683.

----------MOBILE: Start--------

MOBILE: A. D. 1702-1711.

The founding of the city by the French.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

MOBILE: A. D. 1763.

Surrendered to the English.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1763 (JULY).

MOBILE: A. D. 1781.

Retaken by the Spaniards.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.

MOBILE: A. D. 1813.

Possession taken from the Spaniards by the United States.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

MOBILE: A. D. 1864.

The Battle in the Bay.

Farragut's naval victory.

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

MOBILE: A. D. 1865 (March-April).

Siege and capture by the National forces.

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

----------MOBILE: End--------

MOBILIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

MOCOVIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

----------MODENA: Start--------

MODENA, Founding of.

See MUTINA.

MODENA: A. D. 1288-1453.

Acquired by the Marquess of Este.

Created a Duchy.

See ESTE, THE HOUSE OF.

MODENA: A. D. 1767.

Expulsion of the Jesuits.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

MODENA: A. D. 1796.

Dethronement of the Duke by Bonaparte.

Formation of the Cispadane Republic.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

MODENA: A. D. 1801.

Annexation to the Cisalpine Republic.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

MODENA: A. D. 1803.

The duchy acquired by the House of Austria.

See ESTE, HOUSE OF.

MODENA: A. D. 1815.

Given to an Austrian Prince.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

MODENA: A. D. 1831.

Revolt and expulsion of the Duke.

His restoration by Austrian troops.

See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

MODENA: A. D. 1848-1849.

Abortive revolution.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

MODENA: A. D. 1859-1861.

End of the dukedom.

Absorption in the new Kingdom of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

----------MODENA: End--------

MODIUS, The.

See AMPHORA.

MODOCS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS.

MOERIS, Lake.

"On the west of Egypt there is an oasis of cultivable land,

the Fayum, buried in the midst of the desert, and attached by

a sort of isthmus to the country watered by the Nile. In the

centre of this oasis is a large plateau about the same level

as the valley of the Nile; to the west, however, a

considerable depression of the land produces a valley occupied

by a natural lake more than ten leagues in length, the 'Birket

Kerun.' In the centre of this plateau Amenemhe [twelfth

dynasty] undertook the formation of an artificial lake with an

area of ten millions of square metres. If the rise of the Nile

was insufficient, the water was led into the lake and stored

up for use, not only in the Fayum, but over the whole of the

left bank of the Nile as far as the sea. If too large an

inundation threatened the dykes, the vast reservoir of the

artificial lake remained open, and when the lake itself

overflowed, the surplus waters were led by a canal into the

Birket Kerun. The two names given in Egypt to this admirable

work of Amenemhe III. deserve to be recorded. Of one, Meri,

that is 'the Lake,' par excellence, the Greeks have made

Moeris, a name erroneously applied by them to a king; whilst

the other, P-iom, 'the Sea,' has become, in the mouth of the

Arabs, the name of the entire province,

Fayum."

M. Mariette,

quoted in Lenormant's

Manual of Ancient History of the East,

book 3, chapter 2.

MŒSIA,

MÆSIA.

"After the Danube had received the waters of the Teyss

[Theiss] and the Save, it acquired, at least among the Greeks,

the name of Ister. It formerly divided Mœsia and Dacia, the

latter of which, as we have already seen, was a conquest of

Trajan, and the only province beyond the river. … On the

right hand of the Danube, Mœsia, … during the middle ages,

was broken into the barbarian kingdoms of Servia and

Bulgaria."

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 1.

Mœsia was occupied by the Goths in the 4th century.

See GOTHS: A. D. 341-381; and 376.

MOESKIRCH, Battle of (1800).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

MŒSO-GOTHIC.

See GOTHS: A. D. 341-381.

MOGONTIACUM.

"The two headquarters of the [Roman] army of the Rhine were

always Vetera, near Wesel, and Mogontiacum, the modern Mentz.

… Mogontiacum or Mentz, [was] from the time of Drusus down

to the end of Rome the stronghold out of which the Romans

sallied to attack Germany from Gaul, as it is at the present

day the true barrier of Germany against France. Here the

Romans, even after they had abandoned their rule in the region

of the upper Rhine generally, retained not merely the

tête-de-pont on the other bank, the 'castellum Mogontiacense'

(Castel), but also that plain of the Main itself, in their

possession; and in this region a Roman civilisation might

establish itself. The land originally belonged to the Chatti,

and a Chattan tribe, the Mattiaci, remained settled here even

under Roman rule."

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 8, chapter 4 (The Provinces, volume 1).

MOGUL EMPIRE.

THE GREAT MOGUL.

See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.

MOHACS, Battle of (1526).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.

MOHACS, Second Battle of (1687).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

MOHAMMED, The Prophet of Islam.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.

Mohammed, Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1104-1116.

Mohammed I., Turkish Sultan, 1413-1421.

Mohammed II., Turkish Sultan, 1451-1481.

Mohammed III., Turkish Sultan, 1595-1603.

Mohammed IV., Turkish Sultan, 1649-1687.

Mohammed Mirza, Shah of Persia, 1577-1582.

Mohammed Shah, sovereign of Persia, 1834-1848.

MOHARRAM FESTIVAL, The.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 680.

MOHAVES,

MOJAVES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APACHE GROUP.

{2195}

MOHAWKS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

MOHAWKS, The, of Boston and New York.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1773;

and NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774.

MOHAWKS,

MOHOCKS, of London.

See MOHOCKS. [Third item below.]

MOHEGANS,

MAHICANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,

HORIKANS, and STOCKBRIDGE INDIANS;

also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

MOHILEF, Battle of.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

MOHOCKS, The.

"This nocturnal fraternity met in the days of Queen Anne:

[1707] but it had been for many previous years the favourite

amusement of dissolute young men to form themselves into Clubs

and Associations for committing all sorts of excesses in the

public streets, and alike attacking orderly pedestrians, and

even defenceless women. These Clubs took various slang

designations. At the Restoration they were 'Mums,' and

'Tityre-tus.' They were succeeded by the 'Hectors' and

'Scourers,' when, says Shadwell, 'a man could not go from the

Rose Tavern to the Piazza once, but he must venture his life

twice.' Then came the 'Nickers,' whose delight it was to smash

windows with showers of halfpence; next were the 'Hawkabites';

and lastly the 'Mohocks.' These last are described in the

'Spectator,' No. 324, as a set of men who have borrowed their

name from a sort of cannibals, in India, who subsist by

plundering and devouring all the nations about them. … Their

avowed design was mischief, and upon this foundation all their

rules and orders were framed. They took care to drink

themselves to a pitch beyond reason or humanity, and then made

a general sally, and attacked all who were in the streets.

Some were knocked down, others stabbed, and others cut and

carbonadoed. … They had special barbarities which they

executed upon their prisoners. 'Tipping the lion' was

squeezing the nose flat to the face and boring out the eyes

with their fingers. 'Dancing-masters' were those who taught

their scholars to cut capers by running swords through their

legs. The 'Tumblers' set women on their heads. The 'Sweaters'

worked in parties of half-a-dozen, surrounding their victims

with the points of their swords. … Another savage diversion

of the Mohocks was their thrusting women into barrels, and

rolling them down Snow or Ludgate Hill. … At length the

villanies of the Mohocks were attempted to be put down by a

Royal proclamation, issued on the 18th of March, 1712: this,

however, had very little effect, for we soon find Swift

exclaiming: 'They go on still and cut people's faces every

night!' … The Mohocks held together until nearly the end of

the reign of George I." [1727]

J. Timbs,

Clubs and Club Life in London,

pages 33-38.

MOIRA, Lord (Marquis of Hastings), The Indian administration of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

MOJOS,

MOXOS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS;

also, BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

MÖKERN, Battle of (1813).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.

MOLAI, Jacques de, and the fall of the Templars.

See TEMPLARS: A. D. 1307-1314;

and FRANCE: A. D. 1285-1314.

MOLASSES ACT, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.

MOLDAVIA.

MOLDO-WALLACHIA.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

MOLEMES, The Abbey of.

See CISTERCIAN ORDER.

MOLINISTS, The.

See MYSTICISM.

MOLINO DEL REY, Battle of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

MOLINOS DEL REY, Battle of (1808).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

MOLLWITZ, Battle of (1741).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

MOLOSSIANS, The.

See HELLAS;

and EPIRUS.

MOLTKE'S CAMPAIGNS.

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840;

GERMANY: A. D. 1866;

FRANCE: A. D. 1870, and 1870-1871.

MOLUCCAS: Secured by Spain (1524).

See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

MONA.

The ancient name of the island of Anglesea. It was the final

seat of the Druidical religion in Britain. Taken by the Romans

under Suetonius, A. D. 61, the priests were slain, the sacred

groves destroyed and Druidism practically exterminated.

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 51.

See MONAPIA.

MONACANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: POWHATAN CONFEDERACY,

and IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

MONAPIA.

"The name of Monapia first occurs in Pliny, and must be

unquestionably identified with the Isle of Man; though the

name of the latter would dispose us at first to consider it as

representing Mona. But the Mona of the Romans, which was

attacked by Suetonius Paulinus and Agricola, was certainly

Anglesea."

E. H. Bunbury,

History of Ancient Geography.,

chapter 24, section 2, foot-note.

MONASTERY.

MONASTICISM.

CONVENT.

ABBEY.

PRIORY.

"Monasticism was not the product of Christianity; it was the

inheritance of the Church, not its invention; not the

offspring, but the adopted child. The old antagonism between

mind and matter, flesh and spirit, self and the world has

asserted itself in all ages, especially among the nations of

the East. The Essenes, the Therapeutæ, and other Oriental

mystics, were as truly the precursors of Christian asceticism

in the desert or in the cloister, as Elijah and St. John the

Baptist. The Neoplatonism of Alexandria, extolling the

passionless man above him who regulates his passions,

sanctioned and systematized this craving after a life of utter

abstraction from external things, this abhorrence of all

contact with what is material as a defilement. Doubtless the

cherished remembrance of the martyrs and confessors, who in

the preceding centuries of the Christian era had triumphed

over many a sanguinary persecution, gave a fresh impulse in

the fourth century to this propensity to asceticism,

stimulating the devout to vie with their forefathers in the

faith by their voluntary endurance of self-inflicted

austerities. … The terms monastery, originally the cell or

eave of a solitary, laura, an irregular cluster of cells, and

cœnobium, an association of monks, few or many, under one roof

and under one control, mark the three earliest stages in the

development of monasticism.

{2196}

In Syria and Palestine each monk originally had a separate

cell; in Lower Egypt two were together in one cell, whence the

term 'syncellita,' or sharer of the cell, came to express this

sort of comradeship; in the Thebaid, under Pachomius of

Tabenna, each cell contained three monks. At a later period

the monks arrogated to themselves by general consent the title

of 'the religious,' and admission into a monastery was termed

'conversion' to God. … The history of monasticism, like the

history of states and institutions in general, divides itself

broadly into three great periods, of growth, of glory, and of

decay. … From the beginning of the fourth century to the

close of the fifth, from Antony the hermit to Benedict of

Monte Casino, is the age of undisciplined impulse of

enthusiasm not as yet regulated by experience. … Everything

is on a scale of illogical exaggeration, is wanting in

balance, in proportion, in symmetry. Because purity,

unworldliness, charity, are virtues, therefore a woman is to

be regarded as a venomous reptile, gold as a worthless pebble;

the deadliest foe and the dearest friend are to be esteemed

just alike. Because it is right to be humble, therefore the

monk cuts off hand, ear, or tongue, to avoid being made

bishop, and feigns idiocy, in order not to be accounted wise.

Because it is well to teach people to be patient, therefore a

sick monk never speaks a kind word for years to the brother

monk who nursed him. Because it is right to keep the lips from

idle words, therefore a monk holds a large stone in his mouth

for three years. Every precept is to be taken literally, and

obeyed unreasoningly. Therefore monks who have been plundered

by a robber run after him to give him a something which has

escaped his notice. Self-denial is enjoined in the gospel.

Therefore the austerities of asceticism are to be simply

endless. One ascetic makes his dwelling in a hollow tree,

another in a cave, another in a tomb, another on the top of a

pillar, another has so lost the very appearance of a man, that

he is shot at by shepherds, who mistake him for a wolf. The

natural instincts, instead of being trained and cultivated,

are to be killed outright, in this abhorrence of things

material. … The period which follows, from the first

Benedict to Charlemagne, exhibits monasticism in a more mature

stage of activity. The social intercourse of the monastery,

duly harmonized by a traditional routine, with its

subordination of rank and offices, its division of duties, its

mutual dependence of all on each other, and on their head,

civilized the monastic life; and, as the monk himself became

subject to the refining influences of civilization, he went

forth into the world to civilize others. … Had it not been

for monks and monasteries, the barbarian deluge might have

swept away utterly the traces of Roman civilization. The

Benedictine monk was the pioneer of civilization and

Christianity in England, Germany, Poland, Bohemia, Sweden,

Denmark. The schools attached to the Lerinensian monasteries

were the precursors of the Benedictine seminaries in France

and of the professional chairs filled by learned Benedictines

in the universities of mediæval Christendom. With the

incessant din of arms around him, it was the monk in his

cloister, even in regions beyond the immediate sphere of

Benedict's legislation, even in the remote fastnesses, for

instance of Mount Athos, who, by preserving and transcribing

ancient manuscripts, both Christian and pagan, as well as by

recording his observations of contemporaneous events, was

handing down the torch of knowledge unquenched to future

generations, and hoarding up stores of erudition for the

researches of a more enlightened age. The first musicians,

painters, farmers, statesmen, in Europe, after the downfall of

Imperial Rome under the onslaught of the barbarians, were

monks."

I. Gregory Smith,

Christian Monasticism,

introduction.

"The monastic stream, which had been born in the deserts of

Egypt, divided itself into two great arms. The one spread in

the East, at first inundated everything, then concentrated and

lost itself there. The other escaped into the West, and spread

itself by a thousand channels over an entire world which had

to be covered and fertilised." Athanasius, who was driven

twice by persecution to take refuge among the hermits in the

Thebaid, Egypt, and who was three times exiled by an imperial

order to the West, "became thus the natural link between the

Fathers of the desert and those vast regions which their

successors were to conquer and transform. … It was in 340

that he came for the first time to Rome, in order to escape

the violence of the Arians, and invoke the protection of Pope

Julius. … He spread in Rome the first report of the life led

by the monks in the Thebaid, of the marvellous exploits of

Anthony, who was still alive, of the immense foundations which

Pacome was at that time forming upon the banks of the higher

Nile. He had brought with him two of the most austere of these

monks. … The narratives of Athanasius … roused the hearts

and imaginations of the Romans, and especially of the Roman

women. The name of monk, to which popular prejudice seems

already to have attached a kind of ignominy, became

immediately an honoured and envied title. The impression

produced at first by the exhortations of the illustrious

exile, was extended and strengthened during the two other

visits which he made to the Eternal City. Some time

afterwards, on the death of St. Anthony, Athanasius, at the

request of his disciples, wrote the life of the patriarch of

the Thebaid; and this biography, circulating through all the

West, immediately acquired there the popularity of a legend,

and the authority of a confession of faith. … Under this

narrative form, says St. Gregory of Nazianzus, he promulgated

the laws of monastic life. The town and environs of Rome were

soon full of monasteries, rapidly occupied by men

distinguished alike by birth, fortune and knowledge, who lived

there in charity, sanctity, and freedom. From Rome the new

institution, already distinguished by the name of religion, or

religious life, par excellence, extended itself over all

Italy. It was planted at the foot of the Alps by the influence

of a great bishop, Eusebius of Vercelli. … From the

continent the new institution rapidly gained the isles of the

Mediterranean, and even the rugged rocks of the Gargon and of

Capraja, where the monks, voluntarily exiled from the world,

went to take the place of the criminals and political victims

whom the emperors had been accustomed to banish thither. …

Most of the great leaders of the cenobitical institution had,

since St. Pacome, made out, under the name of Rule,

instructions and constitutions for the use of their immediate

disciples; but none of these works had acquired an extensive

or lasting sway. In the East, it is true, the rule of St.

Basil had prevailed in a multitude of monasteries, yet

notwithstanding Cassianus, in visiting Egypt, Palestine, and

Mesopotamia, found there almost as many different rules as

there were monasteries.

{2197}

In the West the diversity was still more strange. Each man

made for himself his own rule and discipline, taking his

authority from the writings or example of the Eastern Fathers.

The Gauls especially exclaimed against the extreme rigour of

the fasts and abstinences, which might be suitable under a

fervid sky like that of Egypt or Syria, but which could not be

endured by what they already called Gallican weakness; and

even in the initial fervour of the monasteries of the Jura,

they had succeeded in imposing a necessary medium upon their

chiefs. Here it was the changing will of an abbot; there a

written rule; elsewhere, the traditions of the elders, which

determined the order of conventual life. In some houses

various rules were practised at the same time, according to

the inclination of the inhabitants of each cell, and were

changed according to the times and places. They passed thus

from excessive austerity to laxness, and conversely, according

to the liking of each. Uncertainty and instability were

everywhere. … A general arrangement was precisely what was

most wanting in monastic life. There were an immense number of

monks; there had been among them saints and illustrious men;

but to speak truly, the monastic order had still no existence.

Even where the rule of St. Basil had acquired the necessary

degree of establishment and authority—that is to say, in a

considerable portion of the East—the gift of fertility was

denied to it. … In the West also, towards the end of the

fifth century, the cenobitical institution seemed to have

fallen into the torpor and sterility of the East. After St.

Jerome, who died in 420, and St. Augustine, who died in 430,

after the Fathers of Lerins, whose splendour paled towards

450, there was a kind of eclipse. … Except in Ireland and

Gaul, where, in most of the provinces, some new foundations

rose, a general interruption was observable in the extension

of the institution. … If this eclipse had lasted, the

history of the monks of the West would only have been, like

that of the Eastern monks, a sublime but brief passage in the

annals of the Church, instead of being their longest and

best-filled page. This was not to be: but to keep the promises

which the monastic order had made to the Church and to the

new-born Christendom, it needed, at the beginning of the sixth

century, a new and energetic impulse, such as would

concentrate and discipline so many scattered, irregular, and

intermittent forces; a uniform and universally accepted rule;

a legislator inspired by the fertile and glorious past, to

establish and govern the future. God provided for that

necessity by sending St. Benedict into the world."

Count de Montalembert,

The Monks of the West,

volume 1, pages 381-387 and 512-515.

"The very word monastery is a misnomer: the word is a Greek

word, and means the dwelling-place of a solitary person,

living in seclusion. … In the 13th century … a monastery

meant what we now understand it to mean—viz., the abode of a

society of men or women who lived together in common—who were

supposed to partake of common meals; to sleep together in one

common dormitory; to attend certain services together in their

common church; to transact certain business or pursue certain

employments in the sight and hearing of each other in the

common cloister; and, when the end came, to be laid side by

side in the common graveyard, where in theory none but members

of the order could find a resting-place for their bones. When

I say 'societies of men and women' I am again reminded that

the other term, 'convent,' has somehow got to be used commonly

in a mistaken sense. People use the word as if it signified a

religious house tenanted exclusively by women. The truth is

that a convent is nothing more than a Latin name for an

association of persons who have come together with a view to

live for a common object and to submit to certain rules in the

ordering of their daily lives. The monastery was the common

dwelling-place; the convent was the society of persons

inhabiting it; and the ordinary formula used when a body of

monks or nuns execute any corporate act—such as buying or

selling land—by any legal instrument is, 'The Prior and

Convent of the Monastery of the Holy Trinity at Norwich;' 'the

Abbot and Convent of the Monastery of St. Peter's,

Westminster;' 'the Abbess and Convent of the Monastery of St.

Mary and St. Bernard at Lacock,' and so on. … A monastery in

theory then was, as it was called, a Religious House. It was

supposed to be the home of people whose lives were passed in

the worship of God, and in taking care of their own souls, and

making themselves fit for a better world than this hereafter.

… The church of a monastery was the heart of the place. It

was not that the church was built for the monastery, but the

monastery existed for the church. … Almost as essential to

the idea of a monastery as the church was the cloister or

great quadrangle, inclosed on all sides by the high walls of

the monastic buildings. … All round this quadrangle ran a

covered arcade, whose roof, leaning against the high walls,

was supported on the inner side by an open trellis work in

stone—often exhibiting great beauty of design and

workmanship—through which light and air was admitted into

the arcade. … The cloister was really the living place of

the monks. Here they pursued their daily avocations, here they

taught their school. … 'But surely a monk always lived in a

cell, didn't he?' The sooner we get rid of that delusion the

better. Be it understood that until Henry II. founded the

Carthusian Abbey of Witham, in 1178, there was no such thing

known in England as a monk's cell, as we understand the term.

It was a peculiarity of the Carthusian order, and when it was

first introduced it was regarded as a startling novelty for

any privacy or anything approaching solitude to be tolerated

in a monastery. The Carthusian system never found much favour

in England. … At the time of the Norman Conquest it may be

said that all English monks were professedly under one and the

same Rule—the famous Benedictine Rule. The Rule of a

monastery was the constitution or code of laws, which

regulated the discipline of the house, and the Rule of St.

Benedict dates back as far as the 6th century, though it was

not introduced into England for more than 100 years after it

had been adopted elsewhere. … About 150 years before the

Conquest, a great reformation had been attempted of the French

monasteries, … the reformers breaking away from the old

Benedictines and subjecting themselves to a new and improved

Rule.

{2198}

These first reformers were called Cluniac monks, from the

great Abbey of Clugni, in Burgundy, in which the new order of

things had begun. The first English house of reformed or

Cluniac monks was founded at Lewes, in Sussex, 11 years after

the Conquest. … The constitution of every convent, great or

small, was monarchical. The head of the house was almost an

absolute sovereign, and was called the Abbot. His dominions

often extended, even in England, over a very wide tract of

country, and sometimes over several minor monasteries which

were called Cells. … The heads of these cells or subject

houses were called Priors. An Abbey was a monastery which was

independent. A priory was a monastery which in theory or in

fact was subject to an abbey. All the Cluniac monasteries in

England were thus said to be alien priories, because they were

mere cells of the great Abbey of Clugni in France, to which

each priory paid heavy tribute."

A. Jessopp,

The Coming of the Friars,

chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

E. L. Cutts,

Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,

chapter 6.

J. Bingham,

Antiquity of the Christ. Ch.,

book 7, chapter 3, sections 11-14.

I. G. Smith,

Christian Monasticism, 4-9th Centuries.

See, also,

CŒNOBIUM;

LAURAS;

MENDICANT ORDERS;

BENEDICTINE;

CISTERCIAN;

CARMELITE,

and AUSTIN CANONS.

MONASTERIES, The English, Suppression of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1535-1539.

MONASTIC LIBRARIES.

See LIBRARIES, MEDIÆVAL.

MONASTIC ORDERS.

See AUSTIN CANONS;

BENEDICTINE ORDERS;

CAPUCHINS;

CARMELITE FRIARS;

CARTHUSIAN;

CISTERCIAN;

CLAIRVAUX;

CLUGNY;

MENDICANT ORDERS;

RECOLLECTS;

SERVITES;

THEATINES;

TRAPPISTS.

MONÇON,

MONZON, Treaty of (1626).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

MONCONTOUR, Battle of (1569).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

----------MONEY AND BANKING: Start--------

MONEY AND BANKING:

Nature and Origin of Money.

"When the division of labour has been once thoroughly

established, it is but a very small part of a man's wants

which the produce of his own labour can supply. He supplies

the far greater part of them by exchanging that surplus part

of the produce of his own labour, which is over and above his

own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men's

labour us he has occasion for. Every man thus lives by

exchanging, or becomes in some measure a merchant, and the

society itself grows to be what is properly a commercial

society. But when the division of labour first began to take

place, this power of exchanging must frequently have been very

much clogged and embarrassed in its operations. One man, we

shall suppose, has more of a certain commodity than he himself

has occasion for, while another has less. The former

consequently would be glad to dispose of, and the latter to

purchase, a part of this superfluity. But if this latter

should chance to have nothing that the former stands in need

of, no exchange can be made between them. The butcher has more

meat in his shop than he himself can consume, and the brewer

and the baker would each of them be willing to purchase a part

of it. But they have nothing to offer in exchange, except the

different productions of their respective trades, and the

butcher is already provided with all the bread and beer which

he has immediate occasion for. No exchange can, in this case,

be made between them. … In order to avoid the inconveniency

of such situations, every prudent man in every period of

society, after the first establishment of the division of

labour, must naturally have endeavoured to manage his affairs

in such a manner, as to have at all times by him, besides the

peculiar produce of his own industry, a certain quantity of

some one commodity or other, such as he imagined few people

would be likely to refuse in exchange for the produce of their

industry. Many different commodities, it is probable, were

successively both thought of and employed for this purpose. In

the rude ages of society, cattle are said to have been the

common instrument of commerce; and, though they must have been

a most inconvenient one, yet in old times we find things were

frequently valued according to the number of cattle which had

been given in exchange for them. The armour of Diomede, says

Homer, cost only nine oxen; but that of Glaucus cost an

hundred oxen. Salt is said to be the common instrument of

commerce and exchange in Abyssinia; a species of shells in

some parts of the coasts of India; dried cod at Newfoundland;

tobacco in Virginia; sugar in some of our West India colonies;

hides or dressed leather in some other countries; and there is

at this day [1775] a village in Scotland where it is not

uncommon, I am told, for a workman to carry nails instead of

money to the baker's shop or the alehouse. In all countries,

however, men seem at last to have been determined by

irresistible reasons to give the preference, for this

employment, to metals above every other commodity."

Adam Smith,

Wealth of Nations,

chapter 4, book 1 (volume 1).

"There is … no machine which has saved as much labor as

money. … The invention of money has been rightly compared to

the invention of writing with letters. We may, however, call

the introduction of money as the universal medium of exchange

… one of the greatest and most beneficent of advances ever

made by the race. … Very different kinds of commodities

have, according to circumstances, been used as money; but

uniformly only such as possess a universally recognized

economic value. On the whole, people in a low stage of

civilization are wont to employ, mainly, only ordinary

commodities, such as are calculated to satisfy a vulgar and

urgent want, as an instrument of exchange. As they advance in

civilization, they, at each step, choose a more and more

costly object, for this purpose, and one which ministers to

the more elevated wants. Races of hunters, at least in

non-tropical countries, usually use skins as money; that is

the almost exclusive product of their labor, one which can be

preserved for a long period of time, which constitutes their

principal article of clothing and their principal export in

the more highly developed regions. Nomadic races and the lower

agricultural races, pass, by a natural gradation, to the use of

cattle as money; which supposes rich pasturages at the

disposal of all.

{2199}

If it were otherwise, there would be a great many to whom

payments of this kind had been made, who would not know what

to do with the cattle given them, on account of the charges

for their maintenance. … That metals were used for the

purpose of money much later than the commodities above

mentioned, and the precious metals in turn later than the

non-precious metals, cannot by any means be shown to be

universally true. Rather is gold in some countries to be

obtained by the exercise of so little skill, and both gold and

silver satisfy a want so live and general, and one so early

felt, that they are to be met with as an instrument of

exchange in very early times. In the case of isolated races,

much depends on the nature of the metals with which the

geologic constitution of the country has furnished them. In

general, however, the above law is found to prevail here. The

higher the development of a people becomes, the more frequent

is the occurrence of large payments; and to effect these, the

more costly a metal is, the better, of course, it is adapted

to effect such payments. Besides, only rich nations are able

to possess the costly metals in a quantity absolutely great.

Among the Jews, gold as money dates only from the time of

David. King Pheidon, of Argos, it is said, introduced silver

money into Greece, about the middle of the eighth century

before Christ. Gold came into use at a much later period. The

Romans struck silver money, for the first time, in 209 before

Christ, and, in 207, the first gold coins. Among modern

nations, Venice (1285) and Florence seem to have been the

first to have coined gold in any quantity."

W. Roscher,

Principles of Political Economy,

book 2, chapter 3, sections 117-119 (volume 1).

MONEY AND BANKING:

Ancient Egypt and Babylonia.

"Money seems to us now so obvious a convenience, and so much a

necessity of commerce, that it appears almost inconceivable

that a people who created the Sphinx and the Pyramids, the

temples of Ipsamboul and Karnac, should have been entirely

ignorant of coins. Yet it appears from the statements of

Herodotus, and the evidence of the monuments themselves, that

this was really the case. As regards the commercial and

banking systems of ancient Egypt, we are almost entirely

without information. Their standard of value seems to have

been the 'outen' or 'ten' of copper (94-96 grammes), which

circulated like the æs rude of the Romans by weight, and in

the form of bricks, being measured by the balance. It was

obtained from the mines of Mount Sinai, which were worked as

early as the fourth dynasty. Gold and silver appear to have

been also used, though less frequently. Like copper, they were

sometimes in the form of bricks, but generally in rings,

resembling the ring money of the ancient Celts, which is said

to have been employed in Ireland down to the 12th century, and

still holds its own in the interior of Africa. This

approximated very nearly to the possession of money, but it

wanted what the Roman lawyers called 'the law' and 'the form.'

Neither the weight nor the pureness was guaranteed by any

public authority. Such a state of things seems to us very

inconvenient, but after all It is not very different from that

which prevails in China even at the present day. The first

money struck in Egypt, and that for the use rather of the

Greek and Phœnician merchants than of the natives, was by the

Satrap Aryandes. In ancient Babylonia and Assyria, as in

Egypt, the precious metals, and especially silver, circulated

as uncoined ingots. They were readily taken indeed, but taken

by weight and verified by the balance like any other

merchandise. The excavations in Assyria and Babylon, which

have thrown so much light upon ancient history, have afforded

us some interesting information as to the commercial

arrangements of these countries, and we now possess a

considerable number of receipts, contracts, and other records

relating to loans of silver on personal securities at fixed

rates of interest; loans on landed or house property; sales of

land, in one case with a plan; sales of slaves, &c. These were

engraved on tablets of clay, which were then burnt. M.

Lenormant divides these most interesting documents into five

principal types:

1. Simple obligations.

2. Obligations with a penal clause in case of non-fulfilment.

One he gives which had 79 days to run.

3. Obligations with the guarantee of a third party.

4. Obligations payable to a third person.

5. Drafts drawn upon one place, payable in another. …

These Assyrian drafts were negotiable, but from the nature of

things could not pass by endorsement, because, when the clay

was once baked, nothing new could be added, and under these

circumstances the name of the payee was frequently omitted. It

seems to follow that they must have been regularly advised. It

is certainly remarkable that such instruments, and especially

letters of credit, should have preceded the use of coins. The

earliest banking firm of which we have any account is said to

be that of Egibi and Company, for our knowledge of whom we are

indebted to Mr. Boscawen, Mr. Pinches, and Mr. Hilton Price.

Several documents and records belonging to this family are in

the British Museum. They are on clay tablets, and were

discovered in an earthenware jar found in the neighbourhood of

Hillah, a few miles from Babylon. The house is said to have

acted as a sort of national bank of Babylon: the founder of

the house, Egibi, probably lived in the reign of Sennacherib,

about 700 B. C. This family has been traced during a century

and a half, and through five generations, down to the reign of

Darius. At the same time, the tablets hitherto translated

scarcely seem to me to prove that the firm acted as bankers,

in our sense of the word."

Sir J. Lubbock,

The History of Money

(Nineteenth Century, November, 1879).

"We have an enormous number of the documents of this firm,

beginning with Nebuchadnezzar the Great, and going on for some

five generations or so to the time of Darius. The tablets are

dated month after month and year after year, and thus they

afford us a sure method of fixing the chronology of that very

uncertain period of history. There is a small contract tablet

in the Museum at Zürich, discovered by Dr. Oppert, dated in

the 5th year of Pacorus, king of Persia, who reigned about the

time of Domitian. There is a little doubt about the reading of

one of the characters in the name, but if it is correct, it

will prove that the use of cuneiform did not fall into disuse

until after the Christian Era. … Some have tried to show

that Egibi is the Babylonian form of Jacob, which would lead

one to suspect the family to have been Jews; but this is not

certain at present."

E. A. W. Budge,

Babylonian Life and History,

page 115.

{2200}

"It is in the development of trade, and especially of banking,

rather than in manufactures, that Babylonia and Chaldæa were

in advance of all the rest of the world. The most cautious

Assyriologists are the least confident in their renderings of

the numerous contract tablets from which, if they were

accurately interpreted, we should certainly be able to

reconstruct the laws and usages of the world's first great

market place. … The following account of Babylonian usages

is derived from the text of M. Revillout's work. … It is

confirmed in essentials by the later work of Meissner, who has

translated over one hundred deeds of the age of Hammurabi and

his successors. In Chaldæa every kind of commodity, from land

to money, circulated with a freedom that is unknown to modern

commerce; every value was negotiable, and there was no limit

to the number and variety of the agreements that might be

entered into. … Brick tablets did not lend themselves

readily to 'bookkeeping,' as no further entry could be made

after baking, while the first entry was not secure unless

baked at once. Each brick recorded one transaction, and was

kept by the party interested till the contract was completed,

and the destruction of the tablet was equivalent to a receipt.

Babylonian law allowed debts to be paid by assigning another

person's debt to the creditor; a debt was property, and could

be assigned without reference to the debtor, so that any

formal acknowledgment of indebtedness could be treated like a

negotiable bill—a fact which speaks volumes for the

commercial honesty of the people. A separate tablet was, of

course, required to record the original debt, or rather to say

that So-and-so's debt to Such-an-one has been by him sold to a

third party. Such third party could again either assign his

claim to a bank for a consideration, or if the last debtor had

a credit at the bank, the creditor could be paid out of that,

a sort of forecast of the modern clearing-house system. The

debtor who pays before the term agreed on has to receive a

formal surrender of the creditor's claim, or a transfer of it

to himself. The Babylonian regarded money and credit as

synonymous, and the phrase, 'Money of Such-an-one upon

So-and-so,' is used as equivalent to A's credit with B. … In

ancient Babylonia, as in modern China, the normal effect of a

loan was supposed to be beneficial to the borrower. In Egypt,

judging from the form of the deeds, the idea was that the

creditor asserted a claim upon the debtor, or the debtor

acknowledged a liability to the man from whom he had borrowed.

In Babylonia the personal question is scarcely considered; one

person owes money to another—that is the commonest thing in

the world—such loans are in a chronic state of being incurred

and paid off; one man's debt is another man's credit, and

credit being the soul of commerce, the loan is considered

rather as a part of the floating negotiable capital of the

country than as a burden on the shoulders of one particular

debtor."

E. J. Simcox,

Primitive Civilizations,

volume 1, pages 320-322.

MONEY AND BANKING:

China.

"Not only did the Chinese possess coins at a very early

period, but they were also the inventors of bank notes. Some

writers regard bank notes as having originated about 119 B.

C., in the reign of the Emperor Ou-ti. At this time the Court

was in want of money, and to raise it Klaproth tells us that

the prime minister hit upon the following device. When any

princess or courtiers entered the imperial presence, it was

customary to cover the face with a piece of skin. It was first

decreed then, that for this purpose the skin of certain white

deer kept in one of the royal parks should alone be permitted,

and then these pieces of skin were sold for a high price. But

although they appear to have passed from one noble to another,

they do not seem ever to have entered into general

circulation. It was therefore very different from the Russian

skin money. In this case the notes were 'used instead of the

skins from which they were cut, the skins themselves being too

bulky and heavy to be constantly carried backward and forward.

Only a little piece was cut off to figure as a token of

possession of the whole skin. The ownership was proved when

the piece fitted in the hole.' True bank notes are said to

have been invented about 800 A. D., in the reign of

Hiantsoung, of the dynasty of Thang, and were called

'feytsien,' or flying money. It is curious, however, though

not surprising, to find that the temptation to over-issue led

to the same results in China as in the West. The value of the

notes fell, until at length it took 11,000 min, or £3,000, to

buy a cake of rice, and the use of notes appears to have been

abandoned. Subsequently the issue was revived, and Tchang-yang

(960-990 A. D.) seems to have been the first private person

who issued notes. Somewhat later, under the Emperor

'Tching-tsong (997-1022), this invention was largely extended.

Sixteen of the richest firms united to form a bank of issue

which emitted paper money in series, some payable every three

years. The earliest mention, in European literature, of paper,

or rather cotton, money appears to be by Rubruquis, a monk,

who was sent by St. Louis, in the year 1252, to the Court of

the Mongol Prince Mangu-Khan, but he merely mentions the fact

of its existence. Marco Polo, who resided from 1275 to 1284 at

the court of Kublai-Khan, … gives us a longer and

interesting account of the note system, which he greatly

admired, and he concludes by saying, 'Now you have heard the

ways and means whereby the great Khan may have, and, in fact,

has, more treasure than all the kings in the world. You know

all about it, and the reason why.' But this apparent facility

of creating money led, in the East, as it has elsewhere, to

great abuses. Sir John Mandeville, who was in Tartary shortly

afterwards, in 1322, tells us that the 'Emperour may dispenden

als moehe as he wile with outen estymacioum. For he despendeth

not, ne maketh no money, but of lether emprented, or of

papyre. … For there and beyonde hem thei make no money,

nouther of gold nor of sylver. And therefore he may despende

ynow and outrageously.' The great Khan seems to have been

himself of the same opinion. He appears to have 'despent

outrageously,' and the value of the paper money again fell to

a very small fraction of its nominal amount, causing great

discontent and misery, until about the middle of the sixteenth

century, under the Mandchu dynasty, it was abolished, and

appears to have been so completely forgotten, that the Jesuit

father, Gabriel de Magaillans, who resided at Pekin about

1668, observes that there is no recollection of paper money

having ever existed in the manner described by Marco Polo;

though two centuries later it was again in use. It must be

observed, however, that these Chinese bank notes differed from

ours in one essential—namely, they were not payable at sight.

{2201}

Western notes, even when not payable at all, have generally

purported to be exchangeable at the will of the holder, but

this principle the Chinese did not adopt, and their notes were

only payable at certain specified periods."

Sir J. Lubbock,

The History of Money

(Nineteenth Century, November, 1879).

ALSO IN:

W. Vissering,

On Chinese Currency.

MONEY AND BANKING:

Coinage in its Beginnings.

"Many centuries before the invention of the art of coining,

gold and silver in the East, and bronze in the West, in

bullion form, had already supplanted barter, the most

primitive of all methods of buying and selling, when among

pastoral peoples the ox and the sheep were the ordinary

mediums of exchange. The very word 'pecunia' is an evidence of

this practice in Italy at a period which is probably recent in

comparison with the time when values were estimated in cattle

in Greece and the East. 'So far as we have any knowledge,'

says Herodotus, 'the Lydians were the first nation to

introduce the use of gold and silver coin.' This statement of

the father of history must not, however, be accepted as

finally settling the vexed question as to who were the

inventors of coined money, for Strabo, Aelian, and the Parian

Chronicle, all agree in adopting the more commonly received

tradition, that Pheidon, King of Argos, first struck silver

coins in the island of Aegina. These two apparently

contradictory assertions modern research tends to reconcile

with one another. The one embodies the Asiatic, the other the

European tradition; and the truth of the matter is that gold

was first coined by the Lydians in Asia Minor, in the seventh

century before our era; and that silver was first struck in

European Greece about the same time. The earliest coins are

simply bullets of metal, oval or bean-shaped, bearing on one

side the signet of the state or of the community responsible

for the purity of the metal and the exactness of the weight.

Coins were at first stamped on one side only, the reverse

showing merely the impress of the square-headed spike or anvil

on which, after being weighed, the bullet of hot metal was

placed with a pair of tongs and there held while a second

workman adjusted upon it the engraved die. This done, a third

man with a heavy hammer would come down upon it with all his

might, and the coin would be produced, bearing on its face or

obverse the seal of the issuer, and on the reverse only the

mark of the anvil spike, an incuse square. This simple process

was after a time improved upon by adding a second engraved die

beneath the metal bullet, so that a single blow of the

sledge-hammer would provide the coin with a type, as it is

called, in relief on both sides. The presence of the

unengraved incuse square may therefore be accepted as an

indication of high antiquity, and nearly all Greek coins which

are later than the age of the Persian wars bear a type on both

sides. … Greek coin-types may be divided into two distinct

classes:

(a) Mythological or religious representations, and

(b) portraits of historical persons.

From the earliest times down to the age of Alexander the Great

the types of Greek coins are almost exclusively religious.

However strange this may seem at first, it is not difficult to

explain. It must be borne in mind that when the enterprising

and commercial Lydians first lighted upon the happy idea of

stamping metal for general circulation, a guarantee of just

weight and purity of metal would be the one condition

required. … What more binding guarantee could be found than

the invocation of one or other of those divinities most

honoured and most dreaded in the district in which the coin

was intended to circulate. There is even good reason to think

that the earliest coins were actually struck within the

precincts of the temples, and under the direct auspices of the

priests; for in times of general insecurity by sea and land,

the temples alone remained sacred and inviolate."

B. V. Head,

Greek Coins

Coins and Medals, edited by S. Lane-Poole, chapter 2.

MONEY AND BANKING:

Early Banking.

"The banker's calling is both new and old. As a distinct

branch of commerce, and a separate agent in the advancement of

civilisation, its history hardly extends over 300 years; but,

in a rude and undeveloped sort of way, it has existed during

some dozens of centuries. It began almost with the beginning

of society. No sooner had men learnt to adopt a portable and

artificial equivalent for their commodities, and thus to buy

and sell and get gain more easily, than the more careful of

them began to gather up their money in little heaps, or in

great heaps, if they were fortunate enough. These heaps were,

by the Romans, called montes—mounds, or banks,—and

henceforth every money-maker was a primitive banker. The

prudent farmers and shopkeepers in the out-of-the-way

villages, who now lock up their savings in strong boxes, or

conceal them in places where they are least likely to be found

by thieves, show us how the richest and most enterprising men

of far-off times, whether in Anglo-Saxon or mediæval Britain,

ancient Greece and Rome, China or Judæa, made banks for

themselves before the great advantages of joint-stock heaping

up of money were discovered. When and in what precise way that

discovery was made antiquarians have yet to decide. …

Perhaps Jews and Greeks set the example to the modern world.

Every rich Athenian had his treasurer or money-keeper, and

whenever any particular treasurer proved himself a good

accountant and safe banker, it is easy to understand how, from

having one master, he came to have several, until he was able

to change his condition of slavery for the humble rank of a

freedman, and then to use his freedom to such good purpose

that he became an influential member of the community. Having

many people's money, entrusted to his care, he received good

payment for his responsible duty, and he quickly learned to

increase his wealth by lending out his own savings, if not his

employers' capital, at the highest rate of interest that he

could obtain. The Greek bankers were chiefly famous as

money-lenders, and interest at thirty-six per cent. per annum

was not considered unusually exorbitant among them. For their

charges they were often blamed by spendthrifts, satirists, and

others. 'It is said,' complains Plutarch, 'that hares bring

forth and nourish their young at the same time that they

conceive again; but the debts of these scoundrels and savages

bring forth before they conceive, for they give and

immediately demand again; they take away their money at the

same time as they put it out; they place at interest what they

receive as interest. The Messenians have a proverb: "There is

a Pylos before Pylos, and yet another Pylos still."

{2202}

So of the usurers it may be said, "There is a profit before

profit, and yet another profit still;" and then, forsooth,

they laugh at philosophers, who say that nothing can come out

of nothing!' The Greek bankers and money-lenders, those of

Delos and Delphi especially, are reported to have used the

temples as treasure-houses, and to have taken the priests into

partnership in their money-making. Some arrangement of that

sort seems to have existed among the Jews, and to have aroused

the anger of Jesus when he went into the Temple of Jerusalem,

'and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and said unto

them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of

prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.' Bankers' or

money-changers' tables were famous institutions all over the

civilised world of the ancients. Livy tells how, in 308 B. C.,

if not before, they were to be found in the Roman Forum, and

later Latin authors make frequent allusions to banking

transactions of all sorts. They talk of deposits and

securities, bills of exchange and drafts to order, cheques and

bankers' books, as glibly as a modern merchant. But these

things were nearly forgotten during the dark ages, until the

Jews, true to the money-making propensities that characterised

them while they still had a country of their own, set the

fashion of money-making and of banking in all the countries of

Europe through which they were dispersed."

H. R. Fox Bourne,

Romance of Trade,

chapter 4.

MONEY AND BANKING:

Ancient Greece.

"Oriental contact first stirred the 'auri sacra fames' in the

Greek mind. That this was so the Greek language itself tells

plainly. For 'chrusos,' gold, is a Semitic loan-word, closely

related to the Hebrew 'charuz,' but taken immediately, there

can be no reasonable doubt, from the Phœnician. The restless

treasure-seekers from Tyre were, indeed, as the Græco-Semitic

term metal intimates, the original subterranean explorers of

the Balkan peninsula. As early, probably, as the 15th century

B. C. they 'digged out ribs of gold' on the islands of Thasos

and Siphnos, and on the Thracian mainland at Mount Pangæum;

and the fables of the Golden Fleece, and of Arimaspian wars

with gold-guarding griffins, prove the hold won by the

'precious bane' over the popular imagination. Asia Minor was,

however, the chief source of prehistoric supply, the native

mines lying long neglected after the Phœnicians had been

driven from the scene. Midas was a typical king in a land

where the mountains were gold-granulated, and the rivers ran

over sands of gold. And it was in fact from Phrygia that

Pelops was traditionally reported to have brought the

treasures which made Mycenæ the golden city of the Achæan

world. The Epic affluence in gold was not wholly fictitious.

From the sepulchres of Mycenæ alone about one hundred pounds

Troy weight of the metal have been disinterred; freely at

command even in the lowest stratum of the successive

habitations at Hissarlik, it was lavishly stored, and highly

wrought in the picturesquely-named 'treasure of Priam'; and

has been found, in plates and pearls, beneath twenty metres of

volcanic debris, in the Cyclatic islands Thera and Therapia.

This plentifulness contrasts strangely with the extreme

scarcity of gold in historic Greece. It persisted, however,

mainly owing to the vicinity of the auriferous Ural Mountains,

in the Milesian colony of Panticapæum, near Kertch, where

graves have been opened containing corpses shining 'like

images' in a complete clothing of gold-leaf, and equipped with

ample supplies of golden vessels and ornaments. Silver was, at

the outset, a still rarer substance than gold. Not that there

is really less of it. … But it occurs less obviously, and is

less easy to obtain pure. Accordingly, in some very early

Egyptian inscriptions, silver, by heading the list of metals,

claims a supremacy over them which proved short-lived. It

terminated for ever with the scarcity that had produced it,

when the Phœnicians began to pour the flood of Spanish silver

into the markets and treasure-chambers of the East. Armenia

constituted another tolerably copious source of supply; and it

was in this quarter that Homer located the 'birth-place of

silver.'"

A. M. Clerke,

Familiar Studies in Homer,

chapter 10.

"Taken as a whole the Greek money is excellent; pure in metal

and exact in weight, its real corresponding to its nominal

value. Nothing better has been done in this way among the most

civilized and best governed nations of modern times. There is,

indeed, always a certain recognized limit, which keeps the

actual weight of the money slightly below its theoretical

weight; and this fact recurs with such regularity that it may

be regarded as a rule. We must conclude, therefore, that it

was under this form that Greek civilization allowed to the

coiner of money the right of seigniorage, or the benefit

legitimately due to him to cover the expenses of the coinage,

and in exchange for the service rendered by him to the public

in providing them with money, by which they were saved the

trouble of perpetual weighing. This allowance, however, is

always kept within very narrow limits, and is never more than

the excess of the natural value of the coined money over that

of the metal in ingots. … Of course, the general and

predominant fact of the excellence of the Greek money in the

time of Hellenic independence is subject, like all human

things, to some exceptions. There were a few cities which

yielded to the delusive bait of an unlawful advantage,

debasing the quality of their coins without foreseeing that

the consequences of this unfair operation would react against

themselves. But these exceptions are very rare."

F. Lenormant,

Money in Ancient Greece and Rome

(Contemporary Review, February; 1879).

"The quantity, particularly of gold, … was, in the earlier

historical periods, according to unexceptionable testimony,

extremely small. In the time of Crœsus, according to

Theopompus, gold was not to be found for sale in any of the

Greek States. The Spartans, needing some for a votive

offering, wished to purchase a quantity from Crœsus;

manifestly because he was the nearest person from whom it

could be obtained. … Even during the period from the

seventieth to the eightieth Olympiads, (B. C. 500-460,) pure

gold was a rarity. When Hiero of Syracuse wished to send a

tripod and a statue of the Goddess of Victory, made of pure

gold, to the Delphian Apollo, he could not procure the

requisite quantity of metal until his agents applied to the

Corinthian Architiles, who, as was related by the

above-mentioned Theopompus and Phanias of Eresus, had long

been in the practice of purchasing gold in small quantities,

and hoarding it. Greece proper itself did not possess many

mines of precious metals. The most important of the few which

it possessed were the Attic silver mines of Laurion.

{2203}

These were at first very productive. … Asia and Africa

furnished incomparably a larger quantity of the precious

metals than was procured in Greece and the other European

countries. … Colchis, Lydia, and Phrygia, were distinguished

for their abundance of gold. Some derive the tradition of the

golden fleece from the gold washings in Colchis. Who has not

heard of the riches of Midas, and Gyges, and Crœsus, the gold

mines of the mountains Tmolus and Sipylus, the gold-sand of

the Pactolus? … From the very productive gold mines of

India, together with its rivers flowing with gold, among which

in particular the Ganges may be classed, arose the fable of

the gold-digging ants. From these annual revenues the royal

treasure was formed. By this a great quantity of precious

metal was kept from circulation. It was manifestly their

principle to coin only as much gold and silver as was

necessary for the purposes of trade, and for the expenditures

of the State. In Greece, also, great quantities were kept from

circulation, and accumulated in treasuries. There were locked

up in the citadel of Athens 9,700 talents of coined silver,

besides the gold and silver vessels and utensils. The Delphian

god possessed a great number of the most valuable articles.

… The magnificent expenditures of Pericles upon public

edifices and structures, for works of the plastic arts, for

theatrical exhibitions, and in carrying on wars, distributed

what Athens had collected, into many hands. The temple-robbing

Phocians coined from the treasures at Delphi ten thousand

talents in gold and silver; and this large sum was consumed by

war. Philip of Macedonia, in fine, carried on his wars as much

with gold as with arms. Thus a large amount of money came into

circulation in the period between the commencement of the

Persian wars and the age of Demosthenes. The precious metals,

therefore, must of necessity have depreciated in value, as

they did at a later period, when Constantine the Great caused

money to be coined from the precious articles found in the

heathen temples. But what a quantity of gold and silver flowed

through Alexander's conquest of Asia into the western

countries! Allowing that his historians exaggerate, the main

point, however, remains certain. … Alexander's successors

not only collected immense sums, but by their wars again put

them into circulation. … The enormous taxes which were

raised in the Macedonian kingdoms, the revelry and extravagant

liberality of the kings, which passed all bounds, indicate the

existence of an immense amount of ready money."

A. Boeckh,

The Public Economy of the Athenians,

book 1, chapter 3.

MONEY AND BANKING:

Phœnicia.

"Nearly all the silver in common use for trade throughout the

East was brought into the market by the Phœnicians. The silver

mines were few and distant; the trade was thus a monopoly,

worth keeping so by the most savage treatment of suspected

rivals, and, as a monopoly, so lucrative that, but for the

long and costly voyage between Spain and Syria, the merchant

would have seemed to get his profit for nothing. … The use

of silver money, though it did not originate with the

Phœnicians, was no doubt promoted by their widespread

dealings. The coins were always of known weight, and standing

in a well-known relation to the bars used for large

transactions."

E. J. Simcox,

Primitive Civilizations,

volume 1, page 400.

"It is a curious fact that coinage in Phoenicia, one of the

most commercial of ancient countries, should have been late in

origin, and apparently not very plentiful. There are, in fact,

no coins of earlier period than the third century which we can

with certainty attribute to the great cities of Tyre and

Sidon. Some modern writers, however, consider that many of the

coins generally classed under Persia—notably those bearing

the types of a chariot, a galley, and an owl respectively—

were issued by those cities in the 5th and 4th centuries B. C.

But it is certain, in any case, that the Phoenicians were far

behind the Greeks in the art of moneying. With the invasion of

Persia by Alexander the Great came a great change; and all the

ancient landmarks of Asiatic government and order were swept

away. During the life of Alexander the Great the coins bearing

his name and his types circulated throughout Asia; and after

his death the same range of currency was attained by the money

of the early Seleucid Kings of Syria—Seleucis I., Antiochus

I., and Antiochus II., who virtually succeeded to the

dominions of the Persian Kings, and tried in many respects to

carry on their policy. Of these monarchs we possess a splendid

series of coins."

S. Lane-Poole,

Coins and Medals,

chapter 6.

MONEY AND BANKING:

The Jews.

"It would seem that, until the middle of the second century B.

C., the Jews either weighed out gold and silver for the 'Price

of goods, or else used the money usually current in Syria,

that of Persia, Phoenicia, Athens, and the Seleucidae. Simon

the Maccabee was the first to issue the Jewish shekel as a

coin, and we learn from the Book of Maccabees that the

privilege of striking was expressly granted him by King

Antiochus VII. of Syria. We possess shekels of years 1-5 of

the deliverance of Zion; the types are a chalice and a triple

flower. The kings who succeeded Simon, down to Antigonus,

confined themselves to the issue of copper money, with Hebrew

legends and with types calculated not to shock the susceptible

feelings of their people, to whom the representation of a

living thing was abominable—such types as a lily, a palm, a

star, or an anchor. When the Herodian family came in, several

violations of this rule appear."

S. Lane-Poole,

Coins and Medals,

chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

G. C. Williamson,

The Money of the Bible.

MONEY AND BANKING:

Rome.

"In Rome the generic terms for money seem to have been

successively, pecunia, As, nummns, and moneta. … Moneta …

is derived from the name of the temple in which, or in a

building to or next to which the money of Rome was coined

after the defeat of Pyrrhus, B. a. 275, more probably after

the capture of Tarentum by the Romans, B. C. 272. It probably

did not come into use until after the era of Scipio, and then

was only used occasionally until the period of the Empire,

when it and its derivatives became more common. Nummus,

nevertheless, continued to hold its ground until towards the

decline of the Empire, when it went entirely out of use, and

moneta and its derivatives usurped its place, which it has

continued to hold ever since. Moneta is therefore

substantially a term of the Dark Ages. … The idea associated

with moneta is coins, whose value was derived mainly from that

of the material of which they were composed; whilst the idea

associated with nummus is a system of symbols whose value was

derived from legal limitation.

{2204}

From the fact that our language sprang from the Dark Ages, we

have no generic word for money other than moneta, which only

relates to one kind of money. For a similar reason, the

comparative newness of the English tongue, we have no word for

a piece of money except coin, which, properly speaking, only

relates to one kind of piece, namely, that which is struck by

the cuneus."

A. Del Mar,

History of Money in Ancient Countries,

chapter 28.

The extent and energy of the Roman traffic, in the great age

of the Republic, during the third and second centuries before

Christ, "may be traced most distinctly by means of coins and

monetary relations. The Roman denarius kept pace with the

Roman legions. … The Sicilian mints—last of all that of

Syracuse in 542—were closed or at any rate restricted to

small money in consequence of the Roman conquest, and … in

Sicily and Sardinia the denarius obtained legal circulation at

least side by side with the older silver currency and probably

very soon became the exclusive legal tender. With equal if not

greater rapidity the Roman silver coinage penetrated into

Spain, where the great silver-mines existed and there was

virtually no earlier national coinage; at a very early period

the Spanish towns even began to coin after the Roman standard.

On the whole, as Carthage coined only to a very limited

extent, there existed not a single important mint in addition

to that of Rome in the region of the western Mediterranean,

with the exception of the mint of Massilia and perhaps also of

those of the Illyrian Greeks at Apollonia and Epidamnus.

Accordingly, when the Romans began to establish themselves in

the region of the Po, these mints were about 225 subjected to

the Roman standard in such a way, that, while they retained

the right of coining silver, they uniformly—and the

Massiliots in particular—were led to adjust their drachma to

the weight of the Roman three-quarter denarius, which the

Roman government on its part began to coin, primarily for the

use of upper Italy, under the name of the 'piece of Victory'

(victoriatus). This new system, based on the Roman, prevailed

throughout the Massiliot, Upper Italian, and Illyrian

territories; and these coins even penetrated into the

barbarian lands on the north, those of Massilia, for instance,

into the Alpine districts along the whole basin of the Rhone,

and those of Illyria as far as the modern Transylvania. The

eastern half of the Mediterranean was not yet reached by the

Roman money, as it had not yet fallen under the direct

sovereignty of Rome; but its place was filled by gold, the

true and natural medium for international and transmarine

commerce. It is true that the Roman government, in conformity

with its strictly conservative character, adhered—with the

exception of a temporary coinage of gold occasioned by the

financial embarrassment during the Hannibalic war—steadfastly

to the rule of coining silver only in addition to the

national-Italian copper; but commerce had already assumed such

dimensions, that it was able in the absence of money to

conduct its transactions with gold by weight. Of the sum in

cash, which lay in the Roman treasury in 597, scarcely a sixth

was coined or uncoined silver, five-sixths consisted of gold

in bars, and beyond doubt the precious metals were found in

all the chests of the larger Roman capitalists in

substantially similar proportions. Already therefore gold held

the first place in great transactions; and, as may be inferred

from this fact, the preponderance of traffic was maintained

with foreign lands, and particularly with the East, which

since the times of Philip and Alexander the Great had adopted

a gold currency. The whole gain from these immense

transactions of the Roman capitalists flowed in the long run

to Rome. … The moneyed superiority of Rome as compared with

the rest of the civilized world was, accordingly, quite as

decided as its political and military ascendancy. Rome in this

respect stood towards other countries somewhat as the England

of the present day stands towards the continent."

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 3, chapter 12 (volume 2).

In the later years of the Roman Republic the coinage became

debased and uncertain. "Cæsar restored the public credit by

issuing good money, such as had not been seen in Rome for a

length of time, money of pure metal and exact weight; with

scarcely any admixture of plated pieces, money which could

circulate for its real value, and this measure became one of

the principal sources of his popularity. Augustus followed his

example, but at the same time took away from the Senate the

right of coining gold and silver, reserving this exclusively

to the imperial authority, which was to exercise it absolutely

without control. From this time we find the theory that the

value of money is arbitrary, and depends solely on the will of

the sovereign who issues it, more and more widely and

tenaciously held. … The faith placed in the official impress

fostered the temptation to abuse it. … In less than a

century the change of the money of the State into imperial

money, and the theory that its value arose from its bearing

the effigy of the sovereign, produced a system of adulteration

of specie, which went on growing to the very close of the

Empire, and which the successors of Augustus utilized largely

for the indulgence of their passions and their prodigality."

F. Lenormant,

Money in Ancient Greece and Rome

(Contemporary Review, February, 1879).

MONEY AND BANKING:

Mediæval Money and Banking.

As regards the monetary system of the Middle Ages, the

precious metals, when uncoined, were weighed by the pound and

half pound or mark, for which different standards were in use,

the most generally recognised being those of Troyes and

Cologne. Of coined money there existed a perplexing variety,

which made it almost impossible to ascertain the relative

value, not only of different coins, but of the same coin of

different issues. This resulted from the emperor or king

conferring the right of coinage upon various lords spiritual

and temporal, from whom it was ultimately acquired by

individual towns. The management was in most cases entrusted

to a company, temporary or permanent, inspected by an

official, the coin-tester, originally appointed by the

sovereign, but afterwards by the company, and confirmed by the

king or bishop. The house where the process of coining was

performed was called the mint, and the company who held the

rights of coinage in fee was known as the Mint House Company,

or simply the House Company. Very generally the office was

held by the Corporation of Goldsmiths. The want of perfect

supervision led to great debasement of the currency,

especially in Germany and France; but in England and Italy the

standard was tolerably well maintained.

{2205}

Payments in silver were much more common than in gold. Before

the Crusades the only gold coins known in Europe were the

Byzantine solides, the Italian tari, and Moorish maurabotini.

The solidi, which were originally of 23 to 23½ carat gold, but

subsequently very much deteriorated, were reckoned as equal to

twelve silver denars. They passed current in Southern and

Eastern Europe, Hungary, Germany, Poland, and Prussia. …

Solde, sol, and sou are only repeated transformations of the

name of the coin, which have been accompanied by still greater

changes in its value. The tari or tarentini derived its name

from the Italian town where it was originally struck. It was

less generally known than the solides, and was equal to

one-fourth the latter in value. The maurabotini or sarazens

were only of 15 carats gold. The name survives in the Spanish

maravedi, which, however, like the sou, is now made of copper

instead of gold. In the thirteenth century augustals,

florentines, and ducats, or zecchins (sequins), were coined in

Italy. The first-mentioned, the weight of which was half an

ounce, were named in honour of Frederick II., who was Roman

Cæsar and Augustus in 1252. The florentines, also known as

gigliati, or lilies, from the arms of Florence, which they

bore on one side, with the effigy of John the Baptist on the

reverse, were of fine gold and lighter than the solidi, about

64 being reckoned equal to the mark. The ducats or zecchins

were of Venetian origin, receiving their first name from the

Duca or Doge, and the other from the Zecca or Mint House. They

were somewhat less in value than the florentines, 66 or 67

being counted to the fine mark. Nearly equivalent in value to

these Italian coins were the gold guilders coined in the

fourteenth century in Hungary and the Rhine regions. The

Rhenish guilder was of 22½ or 23 carats fine, and in weight

1/66; of a mark of Cologne. The silver guilder was of later

production, and the name is now used as equivalent to florin.

… In silver payments, the metal being usually nearly pure,

it was common to compute by weight, coins and uncoined bullion

being alike put into the scale, as is still the case in some

Eastern countries. Hence the origin of the pound, livre, or

mark. The most widely diffused silver coin was the denarius,

which was, as in ancient Roman times, the 11/240 of a pound.

The name pending or pennig, by which the denarius was known

among the old Teutonic nations, seems to be connected with

pendere, to weigh out or pay; as the other ancient Teutonic

coin, the sceat, was with sceoton, to pay, a word which is

preserved in the modern phrases 'scot free,' 'pay your scot.'

… Half-pennies and farthings were not known in the earliest

times, but the penny was deeply indented by two cross lines,

which enabled it to be broken into quarters or farthings

(feordings or fourthings). From the indented cross the

denarius was known in Germany as the kreutzer. … With such a

diversity of coinage, it was necessary to settle any

mercantile transaction in the currency of the place. Not only

would sellers have refused to accept money whose value was

unknown to them, but in many places they were forbidden to do

so by law. Merchants attending foreign markets therefore

brought with them a quantity of fine silver and gold in bars,

which they exchanged on the spot for the current coin of the

place, to be used in settling their transactions; the balance

remaining on hand they re-exchanged for bullion before

leaving. The business of money-changing, which thus arose, was

a very lucrative one, and was originally mostly in the hands

of Italian merchants, chiefly Lombards and Florentines. In

Italy the money-changers formed a guild, members of which

settled in the Netherlands, England, Cologne, and the

Mediterranean ports. In these different towns and countries

they kept up a close connection with each other and with

Italy, and at an early period (before the thirteenth century)

commenced the practice of assignments, i. e., receiving money

in one place, to be paid by an order upon their correspondents

in another, thus saving the merchant who travelled from

country to country the expense and risk of transporting

specie. In the thirteenth century this branch of business was

in extensive use at Barcelona, and in 1307 the tribute of

'Peter's pence' was sent from England to the Pope through the

Lombard exchangers. From 5 to 6 per cent., or more, was

charged upon the transaction, and the profitable nature of the

business soon led many wealthy and even noble Italian families

to employ their money in this way. They established a member

of their firm in each of the great centres of trade to receive

and pay on their account. In Florence alone (about 1350) there

are said to have been eighty such houses. Among these the

Frescobaldi, Bardi, and Peruzzi are well-known names; but the

chief place was taken by the famous Florentine house of the

Medici, who had banking houses established in sixteen of the

chief cities of Europe and the Levant. In the north of Europe,

before long, similar arrangements were established by the

merchants of the Hanseatic League. … Assignments of this

kind were drawn out in the form of letters, requesting the

person by whom the money was due to pay it over to another

party, named in the bill, on account of the writer, specifying

also the time within which and the form in which the payment

was to be made. They were thus known as letters, billets, or

bills of exchange, and appear in Italy as early as the

thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Among the earliest

examples in existence are a letter of exchange, dated at Milan

in 1325, payable within five months at Lucca; one dated at

Bruges, 1304, and payable at Barcelona; and another, dated at

Bologna, 1381, payable in Venice. … 'The first writers who

treat of bills are Italians: the Italian language furnishes

the technical terms for drafts, remittances, currency, sight,

usance, and discount, used in most of the languages of

Europe.' … Of other branches of banking the germs also

appeared in the Middle Ages. Venice seems to have been the

first city to possess something answering to a deposit bank.

The merchants here united in forming a common treasury, where

they deposited sums of money, upon which they gave assignments

or orders for payment to their creditors, and to which similar

assignments due to themselves were paid and added on to the

amount at their credit. The taula di cambi (exchange counter)

of Barcelona was a similar institution, as also the bank of

St. George, at Genoa."

J. Yeats,

Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,

appendix F.

The name "Lombards" was frequently given, during the Middle

Ages, to all the Italian merchants and money-lenders—from

Florence, Venice, Genoa, and elsewhere—who were engaged

throughout Europe in banking and trade.

{2206}

MONEY AND BANKING:

Florentine Banking.

"The business of money-changing seemed thoroughly at home

here, and it is not surprising that the invention of bills of

exchange, which we first meet with in 1199 in the relations

between England and Italy, should be ascribed to Florence. The

money trade seems to have flourished as early as the twelfth

century, towards the end of which a Marquis of Ferrara raised

money on his lands from the Florentines. In 1204 we find the

money-changers as one of the corporations. In 1228, and

probably from the beginning of the century, several

Florentines were settled in London as changers to King Henry

III.; and here, as in France, they conducted the money

transactions of the Papal chair in conjunction with the

Sienese. Their oldest known statute, which established rules

for the whole conduct of trade (Statuto dell' Università della

Mercatanzia) drawn up by a commission consisting of five

members of the great guilds, is dated 1280. Their guild-hall

was in the Via Calimaruzza, opposite that of the Calimala, and

was litter included in the buildings of the post-office, on

the site of which, after the post-office had been removed to

what was formerly the mint, a building was lately erected,

similar in architecture to the Palazzo of the Signoria, which

stands opposite. Their coat of arms displayed gold coins laid

one beside another on a red field. At the end of the

thirteenth century their activity, especially in France and

England, was extraordinarily great. But if wealth surpassing

all previous conception was attained, it not seldom involved

loss of repute, and those who pursued the calling ran the risk

of immense losses from fiscal measures to the carrying out of

which they themselves contributed, as well as those which were

caused by insolvency or dishonesty. … The names of Tuscans

and Lombards, and that of Cahorsiens in France, no longer

indicated the origin, but the trade of the money-changers, who

drew down the ancient hatred upon themselves. … France

possessed at this time the greatest attraction for the

Florentine money-makers, although they were sometimes severely

oppressed, which is sufficient proof that their winnings were

still greater than their occasional losses. … The Florentine

money market suffered the severest blow from England. At the

end of the twelfth century there were already Florentine

houses of exchange in London, and if Pisans, Genoese, and

Venetians managed the trade by sea in the times of the

Crusades, it was the Florentines mostly who looked after

financial affairs in connection with the Papal chair, as we

have seen. Numerous banks appeared about the middle of the

thirteenth century, among which the Frescobaldi, a family of

ancient nobility, and as such attainted by the prosecutions

against it, took the lead, and were referred to the

custom-house of the country for re-imbursement of the loans

made to the kings Edward I. and II. Later, the two great

trading companies of the Bardi and Peruzzi came into notice,

and with their money Edward III. began the French war against

Philip of Valois. But even in the first year of this war,

which began with an unsuccessful attack upon Flanders, the

king suspended the payments to the creditors of the State by a

decree of May 6, 1339. The advances made by the Bardi amounted

to 180,000 marks sterling, those of the Peruzzi to above

135,000, according to Giovanni Villani, who knew only too well

about these things, since he was ruined by them himself to the

extent of 'a sum of more than 1,355,000 gold florins,

equivalent to the value of a kingdom.' Bonifazio Peruzzi, the

head of the house, hastened to London, where he died of grief

in the following year. The blow fell on the whole city. …

Both houses began at once to liquidate, and the prevailing

disturbance contributed not a little to the early success of

the ambitious plans of the Duke of Athens. The real bankruptcy

ensued, however, in January 1346, when new losses had occurred

in Sicily. … The banks of the Acciaiuoli, Bonuccorsi,

Cocchi, Antellesi, Corsini, da Uzzano, Perendoli, and many

smaller ones, as well as numerous private persons, were

involved in the ruin. 'The immense loans to foreign

sovereigns,' adds Villani, 'drew down ruin upon our city, the

like of which it had never known.' There was a complete lack

of cash. Estates in the city found no purchasers at a third of

their former value. … The famine and pestilence of 1347 and

1348, the oppressions of the mercenary bands and the heavy

expenses caused by them, the cost of the war against Pope

Gregory XI., and finally the tumult of the Ciompi, left

Florence no peace for a long time. … At the beginning of the

fifteenth century industry was again flourishing in all its

branches in Florence, financial operations were extended, and

foreign countries filled with Florentine banks and mercantile

houses. … In London the most important firms had their

representatives, Bruges was the chief place for Flanders, and

we shall see how these connections lasted to the time of the

greatest splendour of the Medici. France is frequently

mentioned. The official representatives of the Florentine

nation resided in the capital, while numerous houses

established themselves in Lyons, in Avignon (since the removal

of the Papal chair to this town), in Nismes, Narbonne,

Carcassonne, Marseilles, &c. … The house of the Peruzzi

alone had sixteen counting-houses in the fourteenth century,

from London to Cyprus."

A. van Reumont,

Lorenzo de' Medici,

book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1).

"The three principal branches of industry which enriched the

Florentines were—banking, the manufacture of cloth, and the

dyeing of it, and the manufacture of silk. The three most

important guilds of the seven 'arti maggiori' were those which

represented these three industries. Perhaps the most important

in the amount of its gains, as well as that which first rose

to a high degree of importance, was the 'Arte del Cambio,' or

banking. The earliest banking operations seem to have arisen

from the need of the Roman court to find some means of causing

the dues to which it laid claim in distant parts of Europe to

be collected and transmitted to Rome. When the Papal Court was

removed to Avignon, its residence there occasioned a greatly

increased sending backwards and forwards of money between

Italy and that city. And of all this banking business, the

largest and most profitable portion was in the hands of

Florentine citizens, whether resident in Florence or in the

various commercial cities of Europe. We find Florentines

engaged in lending money at interest to sovereign princes as

early as the first quarter of the twelfth century."

T. A. Trollope,

History of the Commonwealth of Florence,

book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2).

{2207}

MONEY AND BANKING:

Genoa.

The Bank of St. George.

"The Bank of St. George, its constitution, its building, and

its history, forms one of the most interesting relies of

mediæval commercial activity. Those old grey walls, as seen

still in Genoa, begrimed with dirt and fast falling into

decay, are the cradle of modern commerce, modern banking

schemes, and modern wealth. … This Bank of St. George is

indeed a most singular political phenomenon. Elsewhere than in

Genoa we search in vain for a parallel for the existence of a

body of citizens distinct from the government—with their own

laws, magistrates, and independent authority—a state within a

state, a republic within a republic. All dealings with the

government were voluntary on the part of the bank. … But,

far from working without harmony, we always find the greatest

unanimity of feeling between these two forms of republics

within the same city walls. The government of Genoa always

respected the liberties of the bank, and the bank always did

its best to assist the government when in pecuniary distress.

… To define an exact origin for the bank is difficult; it

owed its existence to the natural development of commercial

enterprise rather than to the genius of anyone man, or the

shrewdness of any particular period in Genoese history. The

Crusades, and the necessary preparation of galleys, brought

into Genoa the idea of advancing capital for a term of years

as a loan to the government on the security of the taxes and

public revenues; but in those cases the profits were quickly

realized, and the debts soon cancelled by the monarchs who

incurred them. However, the expeditions against the Saracens

and the Moors were otherwise, and were undertaken at some risk

to Genoa herself. … Now large sums of money were advanced,

the profits on which were not spontaneous; it was more an

investment of capital for a longer term of years, which was

secured by the public revenues, but the profits of which

depended on the success of the expedition. In 1148 was the

first formal debt incurred by the government, and to meet the

occasion the same system was adopted which continued in vogue,

subject only to regulations and improvements which were found

necessary as time went on, until the days of the French

Revolution. The creditors nominated from amongst themselves a

council of administration to watch over the common interests,

and to them the government conceded a certain number of the

custom duties for a term of years until the debt should be

extinguished. This council of administration elected their own

consuls, after the fashion of the Republic governors. Every

hundred francs was termed a share (luogo) and every creditor a

shareholder (luogatorio). … Each separate loan was termed a

'compera,' and these loans were collectively known as the

'compere of St. George,' which in later years became the

celebrated bank. Each loan generally took the name of the

object for which it was raised, or the name of the saint on

whose day the contract was signed; and when an advance of

money was required, it was done by public auction in the

streets, when the auctioneer sold the investment to the ever

ready merchants, who collected outside the 'loggia,' or other

prominent position chosen for the sale. In a loud voice was

proclaimed the name and object of the loan, and the tax which

was to be handed over to the purchasers to secure its

repayment. So numerous did these loans become by 1252, that it

was found necessary to unite them under one head, with a

chancellor and other minor officials to watch over them. And

as time went on, so great was the credit of Genoa, and so easy

was this system found for raising money, that the people began

to grow alarmed at the extent of the liabilities. So, in 1302,

commissioners were appointed at a great assembly, two hundred

and seventy-one articles and regulations were drown up to give

additional security to investors, and henceforth no future

loan could be effected without the sanction of the consuls and

the confirmation of the greater council of the shareholders.

… During the days of the first doge, Simone Boccanegra,

great changes were to be effected in the working system of the

'compere of St. George.' To this date many have assigned the

origin of the Bank of St. George, but it will be seen only to

be a further consolidation of the same system, which had

already been at work two centuries. … In 1339, … at the

popular revolution, all the old books were burnt, and a new

commission appointed to regulate the 'compere.' … Instead

… of being the origin of the bank, it was only another step

in the growing wish for consolidation, which the expanding

tendency of the 'compere' rendered necessary; which

consolidation took final effect in 1407, when the Bank was

thoroughly organized on the same footing which lasted till the

end. Every year and every event tended towards this system of

blending the loans together, to which fact is due the

extensive power which the directors of the bank eventually

wielded, when all interests and all petty disputes were merged

together in one. … As time went on, and the French governor,

Boucicault, weighed on the treasury the burden of fresh

fortifications, and an expensive war; when Corsican troubles,

and the Turks in the East, caused the advance of money to be

frequent, an assembly of all the shareholders in all the loans

decided that an entire reorganization of the public debts

should take place. Nine men were elected to draw up a new

scheme, in 1407, and by their instrumentality all the shares

were united; the interest for all was to be seven per cent.,

and fresh officials were appointed to superintend the now

thoroughly constituted and re-named 'Bank of St. George.' And

at length we behold this celebrated bank. Its credit never

failed, and no anxiety was ever felt by any shareholder about

his annual income, until the days of the French Revolution.

… This Bank of St. George was essentially one of the times,

and not one which could have existed on modern ideas of

credit; for it was a bank which would only issue paper for the

coin in its actual possession, and would hardly suit the

dictates of modern commerce. It was not a bank for borrowers

but for capitalists, who required enormous security for

immense sums until they could employ them themselves. … One

of the most interesting features in connection with the

dealings of the bank with the Genoese government, and a

conclusive proof of the perfect accord which existed between

them, was the cession from time to time of various colonies

and provinces to the directors of the bank when the government

felt itself too weak and too poor to maintain them. In this

manner were the colonies in the Black Sea made over to the

bank when the Turkish difficulties arose.

{2208}

Corsica and Cyprus, also towns on the Riviera, such as

Sarzana, Ventimiglia, Levanto, found themselves at various

times under the direct sovereignty of the bank. … It is

melancholy to have to draw a veil over the career of this

illustrious bank with the Revolution of 1798. The new order of

things which Genoa had learnt from France deemed it

inconsistent with liberty that the taxes, the property of the

Republic, should remain in the hands of the directors of St.

George; it was voted a tyranny on a small scale, and the

directors were compelled to surrender them; and inasmuch as

the taxes represented the sole source from which their income

was derived, they soon discovered that their bank notes were

useless, and the building was closed shortly afterwards. In

1804 and 1814 attempts were made to resuscitate the fallen

fortunes of St. George, but without avail; and so this bank,

the origin of which was shrouded in the mysteries of bygone

centuries, fell under the sweeping scythe of the French

Revolution."

J. T. Bent,

Genoa,

chapter 11.

See, also, GENOA: A. D. 1407-1448.

MONEY AND BANKING: 16-17th Centuries.

Monetary effects of the Discovery of America.

"From 1492, the year of the discovery of the New World, to

1500, it is doubtful whether [the mines of Mexico and Peru]

… yielded on an average a prey of more than 1,500,000 francs

(£60,000) a year. From 1500 to 1545, if we add to the treasure

produced from the mines the amount of plunder found in the

capital of the Montezumas, Ténochtitlan (now the city of

Mexico), as well as in the temples and palaces of the kingdom

of the Incas, the gold and silver drawn from America did not

exceed an average of sixteen million francs (£640,000) a year.

From 1545, the scene changes. In one of the gloomiest deserts

on the face of the globe, in the midst of the rugged and

inhospitable mountain scenery of Upper Peru, chance revealed

to a poor Indian, who was guarding a flock of llamas, a mine

of silver of incomparable richness. A crowd of miners was

instantly attracted by the report of the rich deposits of ore

spread over the sides of this mountain of Potocchi—a name

which for euphony the European nations have since changed to

Potosi. The exportation of the precious metals from America to

Europe now rose rapidly to an amount which equalled, weight

for weight, sixty millions of francs (£2,400,000) of our day,

and it afterwards rose even to upwards of eighty millions. At

that time such a mass of gold and silver represented a far

greater amount of riches than at present. Under the influence

of so extraordinary a supply, the value of these precious

metals declined in Europe, in comparison with every other

production of human industry, just as would be the case with

iron or lead, if mines were discovered which yielded those

metals in superabundance, as compared with their present

consumption, and at a much less cost of labour than

previously, just in fact as occurs in the case of manufactures

of every kind, whenever, by improved processes, or from

natural causes of a novel kind, they can be produced in

unusual quantities, and at a great reduction of cost. This

fall in the value of gold and silver, in comparison with all

other productions, revealed itself by the increased quantity

of coined metal which it was necessary to give in exchange for

the generality of other articles. And it was thus that the

working of the mines of America had necessarily for effect a

general rise of prices, in other words, it made all other

commodities dearer. The fall in the value of the precious

metals, or that which means the same thing, the general rise

of prices, does not appear to have been very great, out of

Spain, till after the middle of the 16th century. Shortly

after the commencement of the 17th century, the effects of the

productiveness of the new mines and of the diminished cost of

working them were realised in all parts of Europe. For the

silver, which had been extracted in greater proportion than

the gold, and on more favourable terms, the fall in value had

been in the proportion of 1 to 3. In transactions where

previously one pound of silver, or a coin containing a given

quantity of this metal, had sufficed, henceforth three were

required. … After having been arrested for awhile in this

downward course, and even after having witnessed for a time a

tendency to an upward movement, the fall in the value of the

precious metals, and the corresponding rise in prices, resumed

their course, under the influence of the same causes, until

towards the end of the 18th century, without however

manifesting their influence so widely or intensely as had been

witnessed after the first development of the great American

mines. We find, as the result, that during the first half of

the 19th century, the value of silver fell to about the sixth

of what it was before the discovery of America, when compared

with the price of corn."

M. Chevalier,

On the Probable Fall in the Value of Gold

(translated by Cobden),

section 1, chapter 1.

MONEY AND BANKING: 17th Century.

The Bank of Amsterdam.

"In 1609, the great Bank of Amsterdam was founded, and its

foundation not only testifies to the wealth of the republic,

but marks an epoch in the commercial history of Northern

Europe. Long before this period, banks had been established in

the Italian cities, but, until late in the history of the Bank

of England, which was not founded until nearly a century

later, nothing was known on such a scale as this. It was

established to meet the inconvenience arising from the

circulation of currency from all quarters of the globe, and to

accommodate merchants in their dealings. Anyone making a

deposit of gold or silver received notes for the amount, less

a small commission, and these notes commanded a premium in all

countries. Before the end of the century its deposits of this

character amounted to one hundred and eighty million dollars,

an amount of treasure which bewildered financiers in every

other part of Europe."

D. Campbell,

The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,

volume 2, pages 323-324.

MONEY AND BANKING: 17th Century.

Indian Money used in the American Colonies.

Sea shells, strung or embroidered on belts and garments,

formed the "wampum" which was the money of the North American

Indians (see WAMPUM). "Tradition gives to the Narragansetts

the honor of inventing these valued articles, valuable both

for use and exchange. This tribe was one of the most powerful,

and it is asserted that their commercial use of wampum gave

them their best opportunities of wealth. The Long Island

Indians manufactured the beads in large quantities and then

were forced to pay them away in tribute to the Mohawks and the

fiercer tribes of the interior.

{2209}

Furs were readily exchanged for these trinkets, which carried

a permanent value, through the constancy of the Indian desire

for them. The holder of wampum always compelled trade to come

to him. After the use of wampum was established in colonial

life, contracts were made payable at will in wampum, beaver,

or silver. … The use began in New England in 1627. It was a

legal tender until 1661, and for more than three quarters of a

century the wampum was current in small transactions. For more

than a century, indeed; this currency entered into the

intercourse of Indian and colonist. … Labor is a chief

factor in civilized society and the labor of the Indian was

made available through wampum. As Winthrop shows, 10,000

beaver skins annually came to the Dutch from the Great Lake.

The chase was the primitive form of Indian industry and furs

were the most conspicuous feature of foreign trade, as gold is

to-day, but wampum played a much larger part in the vital

trade of the time. Wampum, or the things it represented,

carried deer meat and Indian corn to the New England men. Corn

and pork went for fish; fish went for West India rum,

molasses, and the silver which Europe coveted. West India

products, or the direct exchange of fish with the Catholic

countries of Europe, brought back the goods needed to

replenish and extend colonial industries and trade. … As

long as the natives were active and furs were plenty, there

appears to have been no difficulty in passing any quantity of

wampum in common with other currencies. The Bay annulled its

statutes, making the beads a legal tender in 1661. Rhode

Island and Connecticut followed this example soon after. …

New York continued the beads in circulation longer than the

regular use prevailed in New England. In 1693 they were

recognized in the definite rates of the Brooklyn ferry. They

continued to be circulated in the more remote districts of New

England through the century, and even into the beginning of

the eighteenth."

W. B. Weeden,

Indian Money as a Factor in New England Civilization,

pages 5-30.

MONEY AND BANKING: 17th Century.

Colonial Coinage in America.

"The earliest coinage for America is said to have been

executed in 1612, when the Virginia Company was endeavoring to

establish a Colony on the Summer Islands (the Bermudas). This

coin was of the denomination of a shilling, and was struck in

brass." The "pine-tree" money of Massachusetts" was instituted

by the Colonial Assembly in 1652, after the fall of Charles I.

… This coinage was not discontinued until 1686; yet they

appear to have continued the use of the same date, the

shillings, sixpences, and threepences all bearing the date

1652, while the twopenny pieces are all dated 1662. … After

the suppression of their mint, the Colony of Massachusetts

issued no more coins until after the establishment of the

Confederacy. … The silver coins of Lord Baltimore, Lord

Proprietor of Maryland, were the shilling, sixpence, and

fourpence, or groat."

J. R. Snowden,

Description of Ancient and Modern Coins,

pages 85-87.

See PINE TREE MONEY.

MONEY AND BANKING: 17-18th Centuries.

Banking in Great Britain.

Origin and influence of the Bank of England.

"In the reign of William old men were still living who could

remember the days when there was not a single banking house in

the city of London. So late as the time of the Restoration

every trader had his own strong box in his own house, and,

when an acceptance was presented to him, told down the crowns

and Caroluses on his own counter. But the increase of wealth

had produced its natural effect, the subdivision of labour.

Before the end of the reign of Charles II. a new mode of

paying and receiving money had come into fashion among the

merchants of the capital. A class of agents arose, whose

office was to keep the cash of the commercial houses. This new

branch of business naturally fell into the hands of the

goldsmiths, who were accustomed to traffic largely in the

precious metals, and who had vaults in which great masses of

bullion could lie secure from fire and from robbers. It was at

the shops of the goldsmiths of Lombard Street that all the

payments in coin were made. Other traders gave and received

nothing but paper. This great change did not take place

without much opposition and clamour. … No sooner had banking

become a separate and important trade, than men began to

discuss with earnestness the question whether it would be

expedient to erect a national bank. … Two public banks had

long been renowned throughout Europe, the Bank of Saint George

at Genoa, and the Bank of Amsterdam. … Why should not the

Bank of London be as great and as durable as the Banks of

Genoa and Amsterdam? Before the end of the reign of Charles

II. several plans were proposed, examined, attacked and

defended. Some pamphleteers maintained that a national bank

ought to be under the direction of the King. Others thought

that the management ought to be entrusted to the Lord Mayor,

Alderman and Common Council of the capital. After the

Revolution the subject was discussed with an animation before

unknown. … A crowd of plans, some of which resemble the

fancies of a child or the dreams of a man in a fever, were

pressed on the government. Pre-eminently conspicuous among the

political mountebanks, whose busy faces were seen every day in

the lobby of the House of Commons, were John Briscoe and Hugh

Chamberlayne, two projectors worthy to have been members of

that Academy which Gulliver found at Lagado. These men

affirmed that the one cure for every distemper of the State

was a Land Bank. A Land Bank would work for England miracles

such as had never been wrought for Israel. … These blessed

effects the Land Bank was to produce simply by issuing

enormous quantities of notes on landed security. The doctrine

of the projectors was that every person who had real property

ought to have, besides that property, paper money to the full

value of that property. Thus, if his estate was worth two

thousand pounds, he ought to have his estate and two thousand

pounds in paper money. Both Briscoe and Chamberlayne

treated with the greatest contempt the notion that there could

be an over-issue of paper as long as there was, for every ten

pound note, a piece of land in the country worth ten pounds.

… All the projectors of this busy time, however, were not so

absurd as Chamberlayne. One among them, William Paterson, was

an ingenious, though not always a judicious speculator. Of his

early life little is known except that he was a native of

Scotland, and that he had been in the West Indies. … This

man submitted to the government, in 1691, a plan of a national

bank; and his plan was favourably received both by statesmen

and by merchants.

{2210}

But years passed away; and nothing was done, till, in the

spring of 1694, it became absolutely necessary to find some

new mode of defraying the charges of the war. Then at length

the scheme devised by the poor and obscure Scottish adventurer

was taken up in earnest by Montague [Charles Montague, then

one of the lords of the treasury and subsequently Chancellor

of the Exchequer]. With Montague was closely allied Michael

Godfrey. … Michael was one of the ablest, most upright and

most opulent of the merchant princes of London. … By these

two distinguished men Paterson's scheme was fathered. Montague

undertook to manage the House of Commons, Godfrey to manage

the City. An approving vote was obtained from the Committee of

Ways and Means; and a bill, the title of which gave occasion

to many sarcasms, was laid on the table. It was indeed not

easy to guess that a bill, which purported only to impose a

new duty on tonnage for the benefit of such persons as should

advance money towards carrying on the war, was really a bill

creating the greatest commercial institution that the world

had ever seen. The plan was that £1,200,000 should be borrowed

by the government on what was then considered as the moderate

interest of eight per cent. In order to induce capitalists to

advance the money promptly on terms so favourable to the

public, the subscribers were to be incorporated by the name of

the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The

corporation was to have no exclusive privilege, and was to be

restricted from trading in any thing but bills of exchange,

bullion and forfeited pledges. As soon as the plan became

generally known, a paper war broke out. … All the goldsmiths

and pawnbrokers set up a howl of rage. Some discontented

Tories predicted ruin to the monarchy. … Some discontented

Whigs, on the other hand, predicted ruin to our liberties. …

The power of the purse, the one great security for all the

rights of Englishmen, will be transferred from the House of

Commons to the Governor and Directors of the new Company. This

last consideration was really of some weight, and was allowed

to be so by the authors of the bill. A clause was therefore

most properly inserted which inhibited the Bank from advancing

money to the Crown without authority from Parliament. Every

infraction of this salutary rule was to be punished by

forfeiture of three times the sum advanced; and it was

provided that the King should not have power to remit any part

of the penalty. The plan, thus amended, received the sanction

of the Commons more easily than might have been expected from

the violence of the adverse clamour. In truth, the Parliament

was under duress. Money must be had, and could in no other way

be had so easily. … The bill, however, was not safe when it

had reached the Upper House," but it was passed, and received

the royal assent. "In the City the success of Montague's plan

was complete. It was then at least as difficult to raise a

million at eight per cent. as it would now be to raise forty

millions at four per cent. It had been supposed that

contributions would drop in very slowly: and a considerable

time had therefore been allowed by the Act. This indulgence

was not needed. So popular was the new investment that on the

day on which the books were opened £300,000 were subscribed;

300,000 more were subscribed during the next 48 hours; and, in

ten days, to the delight of all the friends of the government,

it was announced that the list was full. The whole sum which

the Corporation was bound to lend to the State was paid into

the Exchequer before the first instalment was due. Somers

gladly put the Great Seal to a charter framed in conformity

with the terms prescribed by Parliament; and the Bank of

England commenced its operations in the house of the Company

of Grocers. … It soon appeared that Montague had, by

skilfully availing himself of the financial difficulties of

the country, rendered an inestimable service to his party.

During several generations the Bank of England was

emphatically a Whig body. It was Whig, not accidentally, but

necessarily. It must have instantly stopped payment if it had

ceased to receive the interest on the sum which it had

advanced to the government; and of that, interest James would

not have paid one farthing."

Lord Macaulay,

History of England,

chapter 20.

"For a long time the Bank of England was the focus of London

Liberalism, and in that capacity rendered to the State

inestimable services. In return for these substantial benefits

the Bank of England received from the Government, either at

first or afterwards, three most important privileges. First.

The Bank of England had the exclusive possession of the

Government balances. In its first period … the Bank gave

credit to the Government, but afterwards it derived credit

from the Government. There is a natural tendency in men to

follow the example of the Government under which they live.

The Government is the largest, most important, and most

conspicuous entity with which the mass of any people are

acquainted; its range of knowledge must always lie infinitely

greater than the average of their knowledge, and therefore,

unless there is a conspicuous warning to the contrary, most

men are inclined to think their Government right, and, when

they can, to do what it does. Especially in money matters a

man might fairly reason—'If the Government is right in

trusting the Bank of England with the great balance of the

nation, I cannot be wrong in trusting it with my little

balance.' Second, The Bank of England had, till lately, the

monopoly of limited liability in England. The common law of

England knows nothing of any such principle. It is only

possible by Royal Charter or Statute Law. And by neither of

these was any real bank … permitted with limited liability

in England till within these few years. … Thirdly. The Bank

of England had the privilege of being the sole joint stock

company permitted to issue bank notes in England. Private

London bankers did indeed issue notes down to the middle of

the last century, but no joint stock company could do so. The

explanatory clause of the Act of 1742 sounds most curiously to

our modern ears. … 'It is the true intent and meaning of the

said Act that no other bank shall be created, established, or

allowed by Parliament, and that it shall not be lawful for any

body politic or corporate whatsoever created or to be created,

or for any other persons whatsoever united or to be united in

covenants or partnership exceeding the number of six persons

in that part of Great Britain called England, to borrow, owe,

or take up any sum or sums of money on their bills or notes

payable on demand or at any less time than six months from the

borrowing thereof during the continuance of such said

privilege to the said governor and company, who are hereby

declared to be and remain a corporation with the privilege of

exclusive banking, as before recited.'

{2211}

To our modern ears these words seem to mean more than they

did. The term banking was then applied only to the issue of

notes and the taking up of money on bills on demand. Our

present system of deposit banking, in which no bills or

promissory notes are issued, was not then known on a great

scale, and was not called banking. But its effect was very

important. It in time gave the Bank of England the monopoly of

the note issue of the Metropolis. It had at that time no

branches, and so it did not compete for the country

circulation. But in the Metropolis, where it did compete, it

was completely victorious. No company but the Bank of England

could issue notes, and unincorporated individuals gradually

gave way, and ceased to do so. Up to 1844 London private

bankers might have issued notes if they pleased, but almost a

hundred years ago they were forced out of the field. The Bank

of England had so long had a practical monopoly of the

circulation, that it is commonly believed always to have had a

legal monopoly. And the practical effect of the clause went

further: it was believed to make the Bank of England the only

joint stock company that could receive deposits, as well as

the only company that could issue notes. The gift of

'exclusive banking' to the Bank of England was read in its

most natural modern sense: it was thought to prohibit any

other banking company from carrying on our present system of

banking. After joint stock banking was permitted in the

country, people began to inquire why it should not exist in

the Metropolis too? And then it was seen that the words I have

quoted only forbid the issue of negotiable instruments, and

not the receiving of money when no such instrument is given.

Upon this construction, the London and Westminster Bank and

all our older joint stock banks were founded. But till they

began, the Bank of England had among companies not only the

exclusive privilege of note issue, but that of deposit banking

too. It was in every sense the only banking company in London.

With so many advantages over all competitors, it is quite

natural that the Bank of England should have far outstripped

them all. … All the other bankers grouped themselves round

it, and lodged their reserve with it. Thus our one-reserve

system of banking was not deliberately founded upon definite

reasons; it was the gradual consequence of many singular

events, and of an accumulation of legal privileges on a single

bank which has now been altered, and which no one would now

defend. … For more than a century after its creation

(notwithstanding occasional errors) the Bank of England, in

the main, acted with judgment and with caution. Its business

was but small as we should now reckon, but for the most part

it conducted that business with prudence and discretion. In

1696, it had been involved in the most serious difficulties,

and had been obliged to refuse to pay some of its notes. For a

long period it was in wholesome dread of public opinion, and

the necessity of retaining public confidence made it cautious.

But the English Government removed that necessity. In 1797,

Mr. Pitt feared that he might not be able to obtain sufficient

specie for foreign payments, in consequence of the low state

of the Bank reserve, and he therefore required the Bank not to

pay in cash. He removed the preservative apprehension which is

the best security of all Banks. For this reason the period

under which the Bank of England did not pay gold for its

notes—the period from 1797 to 1819—is always called the

period of the Bank 'restriction.' As the Bank during that

period did not perform, and was not compelled by law to

perform, its contract of paying its notes in cash, it might

apparently have been well called the period of Bank license.

But the word 'restriction' was quite right, and was the only

proper word as a description of the policy of 1797. Mr. Pitt

did not say that the Bank of England need not pay its notes in

specie; he 'restricted' them from doing so; he said that they

must not. In consequence, from 1797 to 1844 (when a new era

begins), there never was a proper caution on the part of the

Bank directors. At heart they considered that the Bank of

England had a kind of charmed life, and that it was above the

ordinary banking anxiety to pay its way. And this feeling was

very natural."

W. Bagehot,

Lombard Street,

chapters 3-4.

ALSO IN:

J. W. Gilbart,

History and Principles of Banking.

H. May,

The Bank of England

(Fortnightly Review, March, 1885).

MONEY AND BANKING: 17-18th Centuries.

Early Paper issues and Banks in the American Colonies.

"Previous to the Revolutionary War paper money was issued to a

greater or less extent by each one of the thirteen colonies.

The first issue was by Massachusetts in 1690, to aid in

fitting out the expedition against Canada. Similar issues had

been made by New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New

York, and New Jersey, previous to the year 1711. South

Carolina began to emit bills in 1712, Pennsylvania in 1723,

Maryland in 1734, Delaware in 1739, Virginia in 1755, and

Georgia in 1760. Originally the issues were authorized to meet

the necessities of the colonial treasuries. In Massachusetts,

in 1715, as a remedy for the prevailing embarrassment of

trade, a land bank was proposed with the right to issue

circulating notes secured by land. … The plan for the land

bank was defeated, but the issue of paper money by the

treasury was authorized to the extent of £50,000, to be loaned

on good mortgages in sums of not more than £500, nor less than

£50, to one person. The rate of interest was five per cent.,

payable with one-fifth of the principal annually. … In 1733

an issue of bills to the amount of £110,000 was made by the

merchants of Boston, which were to be redeemed at the end of

ten years, in silver, at the rate of 19 shillings per ounce.

In 1739, the commercial and financial embarrassment still

continuing, another land bank was started in Massachusetts.

… A specie bank was also formed in 1739, by Edward

Hutchinson and others, which issued bills to the amount of

£120,000, redeemable in fifteen years in silver, at 20

shillings per ounce, or gold pro rata. The payment of these

notes was guaranteed by wealthy and responsible merchants.

These notes, and those of a similar issue in 1733, were

largely hoarded and did not pass generally into circulation.

In 1740 Parliament passed a bill to extend the act of 1720,

known as the bubble act, to the American colonies, with the

intention of breaking up all companies formed for the purpose

of issuing paper money.

{2212}

Under this act both the land bank and the specie bank were

forced to liquidate their affairs, though not without some

resistance on the part of the former. … The paper money of

the colonies, whether issued by them or by the loan banks,

depreciated almost without exception as the amounts in

circulation increased. … The emission of bills by the

colonies and the banks was not regarded with favor by the

mother country, and the provincial governors were as a general

thing opposed to these issues. They were consequently

frequently embroiled with their legislatures."

J. J. Knox,

United States Notes,

pages 1-5.

MONEY AND BANKING: 17-19th Centuries.

Creation of the principal European Banks.

"The Bank of Vienna was founded as a bank of deposit in 1703,

and as a bank of issue in 1793; the Banks of Berlin and

Breslau in 1765 with state sanction; the Austrian National

Bank in 1816. In St. Petersburg three banks were set up; the

Loan Bank in 1772, advancing loans on deposits of bullion and

jewels; the Assignation Bank in 1768 (and in Moscow, 1770),

issuing government paper money; the Aid Bank in 1797, to

relieve estates from mortgage and advance money for

improvements. The Commercial Bank of Russia was founded in

1818. The Bank of Stockholm was founded in 1688. The Bank of

France was founded first in 1803 and reorganised in 1806, when

its capital was raised to 90,000,000 francs, held in 90,000

shares of 1,000 francs. It is the only authorised source of

paper money in France, and is intimately associated with the

government."

H. de B. Gibbins,

History of Commerce in Europe,

book 3, chapter 4.

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1775-1780.

The Continental Currency of the American Revolution.

"The colonies … went into the Revolutionary War, many of

them with paper already in circulation, all of them making

issues for the expenses of military preparations. The

Continental Congress, having no power to tax, and its members

being accustomed to paper issues as the ordinary form of

public finance, began to issue bills on the faith of the

'Continent,' Franklin earnestly approving. The first issue was

for 300,000 Spanish dollars, redeemable in gold or silver, in

three years, ordered in May and issued in August, 1775. Paper

for nine million dollars was issued before any depreciation

began. The issues of the separate colonies must have affected

it, but the popular enthusiasm went for something. Pelatiah

Webster, almost alone as it seems, insisted on taxation, but a

member of Congress indignantly asked if he was to help tax the

people when they could go to the printing-office and get a

cartload of money. In 1776, when the depreciation began,

Congress took harsh measures to try to sustain the bills.

Committees of safety also took measures to punish those who

'forestalled' or 'engrossed,' these being the terms for

speculators who bought up for a rise."

W. G. Sumner,

History of American Currency,

pages 43-44.

"During the summer of 1780 this wretched 'Continental'

currency fell into contempt. As Washington said, it took a

wagon-load of money to buy a wagon-load of provisions. At the

end of the year 1778, the paper dollar was worth sixteen cents

in the northern states and twelve cents in the south. Early in

1780 its value had fallen to two cents, and before the end of

the year it took ten paper dollars to make a cent. In October,

Indian corn sold wholesale in Boston for $150 a bushel, butter

was $12 a pound, tea $90, sugar $10, beef $8, coffee $12, and

a barrel of flour cost $1,575. Samuel Adams paid $2,000 for a

hat and suit of clothes. The money soon ceased to circulate,

debts could not be collected, and there was a general

prostration of credit. To say that a thing was 'worth a

Continental' became the strongest possible expression of

contempt."

J. Fiske,

The American Revolution,

chapter 13 (volume 2).

Before the close of the year 1780, the Continental Currency

had ceased to circulate. Attempts were subsequently made to

have it funded or redeemed, but without success.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1780 (JANUARY-APRIL).

ALSO IN:

H. Phillips, Jr.,

Historical Sketches of American Paper Currency,

2d Series.

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1780-1784.

The Pennsylvania Bank and the Bank of North America.

"The Pennsylvania Bank, which was organized in Philadelphia

during the Revolutionary War, was founded for the purpose of

facilitating the operations of the Government in transporting

supplies for the army. It began its useful work in 1780, and

continued in existence until after the close of the war;

finally closing its affairs toward the end of the year 1784.

But the need was felt of a national bank which should not only

aid the Government on a large scale by its money and credit,

but should extend facilities to individuals, and thereby

benefit the community as well as the state. Through the

influence and exertion of Robert Morris, then Superintendent

of Finance for the United States, the Bank of North America,

at Philadelphia, was organized with a capital of $400,000. It

was incorporated by Congress in December, 1781, and by the

State of Pennsylvania a few months afterward. Its success was

immediate and complete. It not only rendered valuable and

timely aid to the United States Government and to the State of

Pennsylvania, but it greatly assisted in restoring confidence

and credit to the commercial community, and afforded

facilities to private enterprise that were especially welcome.

… The success of the Bank of North America, and the

advantages which the citizens of Philadelphia enjoyed from the

facilities it offered them, naturally suggested the founding

of a similar enterprise in the city of New York." The Bank of

New York was accordingly founded in 1784.

H. W. Domett,

History of the Bank of New York,

chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

W. G. Sumner,

The Financier and the Finances of

the American Revolution,

chapter 17 (volume 2).

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1789-1796.

The Assignats of the French Revolution.

"The financial embarrassments of the government in 1789 were

extreme. Many taxes had ceased to be productive; the

confiscated estates not only yielded no revenue but caused a

large expense, and, as a measure of resource, the finance

committee of the Assembly reported in favor of issues based

upon the confiscated lands. But the bitter experience of

France through the Mississippi schemes of John Law, 1719-21,

made the Assembly and the nation hesitate. … Necker, the

Minister, stood firm in his opposition to the issue of paper

money, even as a measure of resource; but the steady pressure

of fiscal exigencies, together with the influence of the

fervid orators of the Assembly, gained a continually

increasing support to the proposition of the committee. …

{2213}

The leaders of the Assembly were secretly actuated by a

political purpose, viz., by widely distributing the titles to

the confiscated lands (for such the paper money in effect was)

to commit the thrifty middle class of France to the principles

and measures of the revolution. … Oratory, the force of

fiscal necessities, the half-confessed political design,

prevailed at last over the warnings of experience; and a

decree passed the Assembly authorizing an issue of notes to

the value of four hundred million francs, on the security of

the public lands. To emphasize this security the title of

'assignats' was applied to the paper. … The issue was made;

the assignats went into circulation; and soon came the

inevitable demand for more. … The decree for a further issue

of eight hundred millions passed, September, 1790. Though the

opponents of the issue had lost heart and voice, they still

polled 423 votes against 508. To conciliate a minority still

so large, contraction was provided for by requiring that the

paper when paid into the Treasury should be burned, and the

decree contained a solemn declaration that in no case should

the amount exceed twelve hundred millions. June 19, 1791, the

Assembly, against feeble resistance, violated this pledge and

authorized a further issue of six hundred millions. Under the

operation of Gresham's Law, specie now began to disappear from

circulation. … And now came the collapse of French industry.

… 'Everything that tariffs and custom-houses could do was

done. Still the great manufactories of Normandy were closed;

those of the rest of the kingdom speedily followed, and vast

numbers of workmen, in all parts of the country, were thrown

out of employment. … In the spring of 1791 no one knew

whether a piece of paper money, representing 100 francs,

would, a month later, have a purchasing power of 100 francs,

or 90 francs, or 80, or 60. The result was that capitalists

declined to embark their means in business. Enterprise

received a mortal blow. Demand for labor was still further

diminished. The business of France dwindled into a mere living

from hand to mouth.' … Towards the end of 1794 there had

been issued 7,000 millions in assignats; by May, 1795, 10,000

millions; by the end of July, 16,000 millions; by the

beginning of 1796, 45,000 millions, of which 36,000 millions

were in actual circulation. M. Bresson gives the following

table of depreciation: 24 livres in coin were worth in

assignats

April 1, 1795,  238;

May 1,          299;

June 1,         439;

July 1,         808;

Aug. 1,         807;

Sept. 1,      1,101;

Oct. 1,       1,205;

Nov. 1,       2,588;

Dec. 1,       3,575;

Jan. 1, 1796, 4,658;

Feb. 1,       5,337.

At the last 'an assignat professing to be worth 100 francs was

commonly exchanged for 5 sous 6 deniers: in other words, a

paper note professing to be worth £4 sterling passed current

for less than 3d. in money.' The downward course of the

assignats had unquestionably been accelerated by the extensive

counterfeiting of the paper in Belgium, Switzerland, and

England. … Now appears that last resort of finance under a

depreciating paper: an issue under new names and new devices.

… Territorial Mandates were ordered to be issued for

assignats at 30:1, the mandates to be directly exchangeable

for land, at the will of the holder, on demand. … For a

brief time after the first limited emission, the mandates rose

as high as 80 per cent. of their nominal value; but soon

additional issues sent them down even more rapidly than the

assignats had fallen."

F. A. Walker,

Money,

part 2, chapter 16.

ALSO IN:

Andrew D. White,

Paper-money Inflation in France.

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1791-1816.

The First Bank of the United States.

On the organization of the government of the United States,

under its federal constitution, in 1789 and 1790, the lead in

constructive statesmanship was taken, as is well known, by

Alexander Hamilton. His plan "included a financial institution

to develop the national resources, strengthen the public

credit, aid the Treasury Department in its administration, and

provide a secure and sound circulating medium for the people.

On December 13, 1790, he sent into Congress a report on the

subject of a national bank. The Republican party, then in the

minority, opposed the plan as unconstitutional, on the ground

that the power of creating banks or any corporate body had not

been expressly delegated to Congress, and was therefore not

possessed by it. Washington's cabinet was divided; Jefferson

opposing the measure as not within the implied powers, because

it was an expediency and not a paramount necessity. Later he

used stronger language, and denounced the institution as 'one

of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles

and form of our Constitution,' nor did he ever abandon these

views. There is the authority of Mr. Gallatin for saying that

Jefferson 'died a decided enemy to our banking system

generally, and specially to a bank of the United States.' But

Hamilton's views prevailed. Washington, who in the weary years

of war had seen the imperative necessity of some national

organization of the finances, after mature deliberation

approved the plan, and on February 25, 1791, the Bank of the

United States was incorporated. The capital stock was limited

to twenty-five thousand shares of four hundred dollars each,

or ten millions of dollars, payable one fourth in gold and

silver, and three fourths in public securities bearing an

interest of six and three per cent. The stock was immediately

subscribed for, the government taking five thousand shares,

two millions of dollars, under the right reserved in the

charter. The subscription of the United States was paid in ten

equal annual instalments. A large proportion of the stock was

held abroad, and the shares soon rose above par. … Authority

was given the bank to establish offices of discount and

deposit within the United States. The chief bank was placed in

Philadelphia and branches were established in eight cities,

with capitals in proportion to their commercial importance. In

1809 the stockholders of the Bank of the United States

memorialized the government for a renewal of their charter,

which would expire on March 4, 1811; and on March 9, 1809, Mr.

Gallatin sent in a report in which he reviewed the operations

of the bank from its organization. Of the government shares,

five million dollars at par, two thousand four hundred and

ninety-three shares were sold in 1796 and 1797 at an advance

of 25 per cent., two hundred and eighty-seven in 1797 at an

advance of twenty per cent., and the remaining 2,220 shares in

1802, at an advance of 45 per cent., making together,

exclusive of the dividends, a profit of $671,680 to the United

States. Eighteen thousand shares of the bank stock were held

abroad, and seven thousand shares, or a little more than one

fourth part of the capital, in the United States.

{2214}

A table of all the dividends made by the bank showed that they

had on the average been at the rate of 8 3/8 (precisely 8

13/34) per cent. a year, which proved that the bank had not in

any considerable degree used the public deposits for the

purpose of extending its discounts. From a general view of the

debits and credits, as presented, it appeared that the affairs

of the Bank of the United States, considered as a moneyed

institution, had been wisely and skilfully managed. The

advantages derived by the government Mr. Gallatin stated to

be,

1, safe-keeping of the public moneys;

2, transmission of the public moneys;

3, collection of the revenue;

4, loans.

The strongest objection to the renewal of the charter lay in

the great portion of the bank stock held by foreigners. Not on

account of any influence over the institution, since they had

no vote; but because of the high rate of interest payable by

America to foreign countries. … Congress refused to prolong

its existence and the institution was dissolved. Fortunately

for the country, it wound up its affairs with such

deliberation and prudence as to allow of the interposition of

other bank credits in lieu of those withdrawn, and thus

prevented a serious shock to the interests of the community.

In the twenty years of its existence from 1791 to 1811 its

management was irreproachable. The immediate effect of the

refusal of Congress to recharter the Bank of the United States

was to bring the Treasury to the verge of bankruptcy. The

interference of Parish, Girard, and Astor alone saved the

credit of the government. … Another immediate effect of the

dissolution of the bank was the withdrawal from the country of

the foreign capital invested in the bank, more than seven

millions of dollars. This amount was remitted, in the twelve

months preceding the war, in specie. Specie was at that time a

product foreign to the United States, and by no means easy to

obtain. … The notes of the Bank of the United States,

payable on demand in gold and silver at the counters of the

bank, or any of its branches, were, by its charter, receivable

in all payments to the United States; but this quality was

also stripped from them on March 19, 1812, by a repeal of the

act according it. To these disturbances of the financial

equilibrium of the country was added the necessary withdrawal

of fifteen millions of bank credit and its transfer to other

institutions. This gave an extraordinary impulse to the

establishment of local banks, each eager for a share of the

profits. The capital of the country, instead of being

concentrated, was dissipated. Between January 1, 1811, and

1815, one hundred and twenty new banks were chartered, and

forty millions of dollars were added to the banking capital.

To realize profits, the issues of paper were pushed to the

extreme of possible circulation. Meanwhile New England kept

aloof from the nation. The specie in the vaults of the banks

of Massachusetts rose from $1,706,000 on June 1, 1811, to

$7,326,000 on June 1, 1814. … The suspension of the banks

was precipitated by the capture of Washington. It began in

Baltimore, which was threatened by the British, and was at

once followed in Philadelphia and New York. Before the end of

September all the banks south and west of New England had

suspended specie payment. … The depression of the local

currencies ranged from seven to twenty-five per cent. … In

November the Treasury Department found itself involved in the

common disaster. The refusal of the banks, in which the public

moneys were deposited, to pay their notes or the drafts upon

them in specie deprived the government of its gold and silver;

and their refusal, likewise, of credit and circulation to the

issues of banks in other States deprived the government also

of the only means it possessed for transferring its funds to

pay the dividends on the debt and discharge the treasury

notes. … On October 14, 1814, Alexander J. Dallas, Mr.

Gallatin's old friend, who had been appointed Secretary of the

Treasury on the 6th of the same month, in a report of a plan

to support the public credit, proposed the incorporation of a

national bank. A bill was passed by Congress, but returned to

it by Madison with his veto on January 15, 1815. … Mr.

Dallas again, as a last resort, insisted on a bank as the only

means by which the currency of the country could be restored

to a sound condition. In December, 1815, Dallas reported to

the Committee of the House of Representatives on the national

currency, of which John C. Calhoun was chairman, a plan for a

national bank, and on March 3, 1816, the second Bank of the

United States was chartered by Congress. The capital was

thirty-five millions, of which the government held seven

millions in seventy thousand shares of one hundred dollars

each. Mr. Madison approved the bill. … The second national

bank of the United States was located at Philadelphia, and

chartered for twenty years."

J. A. Stevens,

Albert Gallatin,

chapter 6.

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1817-1833.

The Second Bank of the United States

and the war upon it.

"On the 1st of January, 1817, the bank opened for business,

with the country on the brink of a great monetary crisis, but

'too late to prevent the crash which followed.' The management

of the bank during the first two years of its existence was

far from satisfactory. It aggravated the troubles of the

financial situation instead of relieving them. Specie payments

were nominally resumed in 1817, but the insidious canker of

inflation had eaten its way into the arteries of business, and

in the crisis of 1819 came another suspension that lasted for

two years. … It was only by a desperate effort that the bank

finally weathered the storm brought on by its own

mismanagement and that of the State Banks. After the recovery,

a period of several years of prosperity followed, and the

management of the bank was thoroughly reorganized and sound.

From this time on until the great 'Bank War' its affairs seem

to have been conducted with a view to performing its duty to

the government as well as to its individual stockholders, and

it rendered such aid to the public, directly, and indirectly,

as entitled it to respect and fair treatment on the part of

the servants of the people. … But the bank controversy was

not yet over. It was about to be revived, and to become a

prominent issue in a period of our national politics more

distinguished for the bitterness of its personal animosities

than perhaps any other in our annals. … As already said, the

ten years following the revulsion of 1819-25 were years of

almost unbroken prosperity. … The question of the

continuance of the bank was not under discussion. In fact,

scarcely any mention of the subject was made until President

Jackson referred to it in his message of December, 1829.

{2215}

In this message he reopened the question of the

constitutionality of the bank, but the committee to which this

portion of the message was referred in the House of

Representatives made a report favorable to the institution.

There seems no reason to doubt the honesty of Jackson's

opinion that the bank was unconstitutional, and at first he

probably had no feeling in the matter except that which sprang

from his convictions on this point. Certain events, however,

increased his hostility to the bank, and strengthened his

resolution to destroy it. … When President Jackson first

attacked the bank, the weapon he chiefly relied on was the

alleged unconstitutionality of the charter."

D. Kinley,

The Independent Treasury of the United States,

chapter 1.

The question of the rechartering of the Bank was made an issue

in the presidential campaign of 1832, by Henry Clay. "Its

disinterested friends in both parties strongly dissuaded

Biddle [president of the Bank] from allowing the question of

recharter to be brought into the campaign. Clay's advisers

tried to dissuade him. The bank, however, could not oppose the

public man on whom it depended most, and the party leaders

deferred at last to their chief. Jackson never was more

dictatorial and obstinate than Clay was at this juncture."

Pending the election, a bill to renew the charter of the Bank

was passed through both houses of Congress. The President

promptly vetoed it. "The national republican convention met at

Baltimore, December 12, 1831. It … issued an address, in

which the bank question was put forward. It was declared that

the President 'is fully and three times over pledged to the

people to negative any bill that may be passed for

rechartering the bank, and there is little doubt that the

additional influence which he would acquire by a reelection

would be employed to carry through Congress the extraordinary

substitute which he has repeatedly proposed.' The appeal,

therefore, was to defeat Jackson in order to save the bank.

… Such a challenge as that could have but one effect on

Jackson. It called every faculty he possessed into activity to

compass the destruction of the bank. Instead of retiring from

the position he had taken, the moment there was a fight to be

fought, he did what he did at New Orleans. He moved his lines

up to the last point he could command on the side towards the

enemy. … The proceedings seemed to prove just what the

anti-bank men had asserted: that the bank was a great monster,

which aimed to control elections, and to set up and put down

Presidents. The campaign of 1832 was a struggle between the

popularity of the bank and the popularity of Jackson."

W. G. Sumner,

Andrew Jackson,

chapter 11.

Jackson was overwhelmingly elected, and feeling convinced that

his war upon the Bank had received the approval of the people,

he determined to remove the public deposits from its keeping

on his own responsibility. "With this view he removed (in the

spring of 1833) the Secretary of the Treasury, who would not

consent to remove the deposits, and appointed William J.

Duane, of Pennsylvania, in his place. He proved to be no more

compliant than his predecessor. After many attempts to

persuade him, the President announced to the Cabinet his final

decision that the deposits must be removed. The Reasons given

were that the law gave the Secretary, not Congress, control of

the deposits, that it was improper to leave them longer in a

bank whose charter would so soon expire, that the Bank's funds

had been largely used for political purposes, that its

inability to pay all its depositors had been shown by its

efforts to procure an extension of time from its creditors in

Europe, and that its four government directors had been

systematically kept from knowledge of its management.

Secretary Duane refused either to remove the deposits or to

resign his office, and pronounced the proposed removal

unnecessary, unwise, vindictive, arbitrary, and unjust. He was

at once removed from office, and Roger B. Taney, of Maryland,

appointed in his place. The necessary Orders for Removal were

given by Secretary Taney. It was not strictly a removal, for

all previous deposits were left in the Bank, to be drawn upon

until exhausted. It was rather a cessation. The deposits were

afterwards made in various State banks, and the Bank of the

United States was compelled to call in its loans. The

commercial distress which followed in consequence probably

strengthened the President in the end by giving a convincing

proof of the Bank's power as an antagonist to the Government."

A. Johnston,

History of American Politics,

chapter 13.

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1837-1841.

The Wild Cat Banks of Michigan.

"Michigan became a State in January, 1837. Almost the first

act of her State legislature was the passage of a general

banking law under which any ten or more freeholders of any

county might organize themselves into a corporation for the

transaction of banking business. Of the nominal capital of a

bank only ten per cent. in specie was required to be paid when

subscriptions to the stock were made, and twenty per cent.

additional in specie when the bank began business. For the

further security of the notes which were to be issued as

currency, the stockholders were to give first mortgages upon

real estate, to be estimated at its cash value by at least

three county officers, the mortgages to be filed with the

auditor-general of the State. A bank commissioner was

appointed to superintend the organization of the banks, and to

attest the legality of their proceedings to the

auditor-general, who, upon receiving such attestation, was to

deliver to the banks circulating notes amounting to two and a

half times the capital certified to as having been paid in.

This law was passed in obedience to a popular cry that the

banking business had become an 'odious monopoly' that ought to

be broken up. Its design was to 'introduce free competition

into what was considered a profitable branch of business

heretofore monopolized by a few favored corporations.' Anybody

was to be given fair opportunities for entering the business

on equal terms with everybody else. The act was passed in

March, 1837, and the legislature adjourned till November 9

following. Before the latter date arrived, in fact before any

banks had been organized under the law, a financial panic

seized the whole country. An era of wild speculation reached a

climax, the banks in all the principal cities of the country

suspended specie payments, and State legislatures were called

together to devise remedies to meet the situation. That of

Michigan was convened in special session in June, and its

remedy for the case of Michigan was to leave the general

banking law in force, and to add to it full authority for

banks organized under it to begin the business of issuing

bills in a state of suspension—that is, to flood the State

with an irredeemable currency, based upon thirty per cent. of

specie and seventy per cent. of land mortgage bonds."

Cheap-Money Experiments

(from the Century Magazine),

pages 75-77.

{2216}

"Wild lands that had been recently bought of the government at

one dollar and twenty-five cents an acre were now valued at

ten or twenty times that amount, and lots in villages that

still existed only on paper had a worth for banking purposes

only limited by the conscience of the officer who was to take

the securities. Any ten freeholders of a county must be poor

indeed if they could not give sufficient security to answer

the purpose of the general banking law. The requirement of the

payment of thirty per cent. of the capital stock in specie was

more difficult to be complied with. But as the payment was to

be made to the bank itself, the difficulty was gotten over in

various ingenious ways, which the author of the general

banking law could hardly have anticipated. In some cases,

stock notes in terms payable in specie, or the certificates of

individuals which stated—untruly—that the maker held a

specified sum of specie for the bank, were counted as specie

itself; in others, a small sum of specie was paid in and taken

out, and the process repeated over and over until the

aggregate of payments equaled the sum required; in still

others, the specie with which one bank was organized was

passed from town to town and made to answer the purposes of

several. By the first day of January, 1838, articles of

association for twenty-one banks had been filed, making, with

the banks before in existence, an average of one to less than

five thousand people. Some of them were absolutely without

capital, and some were organized by scheming men in New York

and elsewhere, who took the bills away with them to circulate

abroad, putting out none at home. For some, locations as

inaccessible as possible were selected, that the bills might

not come back to plague the managers. The bank commissioners

say in their report for 1838, of their journey for inspection:

'The singular spectacle was presented of the officers of the

State seeking for banks in situations the most inaccessible

and remote from trade, and finding at every step an increase

of labor by the discovery of new and unknown organizations.

Before they could be arrested the mischief was done: large

issues were in circulation and no adequate remedy for the

evil.' One bank was found housed in a saw-mill, and it was

said with pardonable exaggeration in one of the public papers.

'Every village plat with a house, or even without a house, if

it had a hollow stump to serve as a vault, was the site of a

bank.' … The governor, when he delivered his annual message

in January, 1838, still had confidence in the general banking

law, which he said 'offered to all persons the privilege of

banking under certain guards and restrictions,' and he

declared that 'the principles upon which this law is based are

certainly correct, destroying as they do the odious feature of

a banking monopoly, and giving equal rights to all classes of

the community.' … The aggregate amount of private

indebtedness had by this time become enormous, and the

pressure for payment was serious and disquieting. … The

people must have relief; and what relief could be so certain

or so speedy as more banks and more money? More banks

therefore continued to be organized, and the paper current

flowed out among the people in increasing volume. … At the

beginning of 1839 the bank commissioners estimated that there

were a million dollars of bills of insolvent banks in the

hands of individuals and unavailable. Yet the governor, in his

annual message delivered in January, found it a 'source of

unfeigned gratification to be able to congratulate [the

legislature] on the prosperous condition to which our rising

commonwealth has attained.' … Then came stay laws, and laws

to compel creditors to take lands at a valuation. They were

doubtful in point of utility, and more than doubtful in point

of morality and constitutionality. The federal bankrupt act of

1841 first brought substantial relief: it brought almost no

dividends to creditors, but it relieved debtors from their

crushing burdens and permitted them, sobered and in their

right minds, to enter once more the fields of industry and

activity. The extraordinary history of the attempt to break up

an 'odious monopoly' in banking by making everybody a banker,

and to create prosperity by unlimited issues of paper

currency, was brought at length to a fit conclusion."

T. M. Cooley,

Michigan,

chapter 13.

See WILD CAT BANKS.

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1838.

Free Banking Law of New York.

"On April 18th, 1838, the monopoly of banking under special

charters, was brought to a close in the State of New York, by

the passage of the act 'to authorize the business of Banking.'

Under this law Associations for Banking purposes and

Individual Bankers, were authorized to carry on the business

of Banking, by establishing offices of deposit, discount and

circulation. Subsequently a separate Department was organized

at Albany, called 'The Bank Department,' with a

Superintendent, who was charged with the supervision of all

the banks in the State. Under this law institutions could be

organized simply as banks of 'discount and deposit,' and might

also add the issuing of a paper currency to circulate as

money. At first the law provided that State and United States

stocks for one-half, and bonds and mortgages for the other

half, might be deposited as security for the circulating notes

to be issued by Banks and individual Bankers. Upon a fair

trial, however, it was found that when a bank failed, and the

Bank Department was called upon to redeem the circulating

notes of such bank, the mortgages could not be made available

in time to meet the demand. … By an amendment of the law the

receiving of mortgages as security for circulating notes was

discontinued."

E. G. Spaulding,

One Hundred Years of Progress

in the Business of Banking,

page 48.

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1844.

The English Bank Charter Act.

"By an act of parliament passed in 1838, conferring certain

privileges on the Bank of England, it was provided that the

charter granted to that body should expire in 1855, but the

power was reserved to the legislature, on giving six months'

notice, to revise the charter ten years earlier. Availing

themselves of this option, the government proposed a measure

for regulating the entire monetary system of the country."

W. C. Taylor,

Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,

volume 3, chapter 7.

{2217}

"The growth of commerce, and in particular the establishment

of numerous joint-stock banks had given a dangerous impulse to

issues of paper money, which were not then restricted by law.

Even the Bank of England did not observe any fixed proportion

between the amount of notes which it issued and the amount of

bullion which it kept in reserve. When introducing this

subject to the House of Commons, Peel remarked that within the

last twenty years there had been four periods when a

contraction of issues had been necessary in order to maintain

the convertibility of paper, and that in none of these had the

Bank of England acted with vigour equal to the emergency. In

the latest of these periods, from June of 1838 to June of

1839, the amount of bullion in the Bank had fallen to little

more than £4,000,000, whilst the total of paper in circulation

had risen to little less than £30,000,000. … Peel was not

the first to devise the methods which he adopted. Mr. Jones

Loyd, afterwards Lord Overstone, who impressed the learned

with his tracts and the vulgar with his riches, had advised

the principal changes in the law relating to the issue of

paper money which Peel effected by the Bank Charter Act. These

changes were three in number. The first was to separate

totally the two departments of the Bank of England, the

banking department and the issue department. The banking

department was left to be managed as best the wisdom of the

directors could devise for the profit of the shareholders. The

issue department was placed under regulations which deprived

the Bank of any discretion in its management, and may almost

be said to have made it a department of the State. The second

innovation was to limit the issue of paper by the Bank of

England to an amount proportioned to the value of its assets.

The Bank was allowed to issue notes to the amount of

£14,000,000 against Government securities in its possession.

The Government owed the Bank a debt of £11,000,000, besides

which the Bank held Exchequer Bills. But the amount over

£14,000,000 which the Bank could issue was not, henceforwards,

to be more than the equivalent of the bullion in its

possession. By this means it was made certain that the Bank

would be able to give coin for any of its notes which might be

presented to it. The third innovation was to limit the issues

of the country banks. The power of issuing notes was denied to

any private or joint-stock banks founded after the date of the

Act. It was recognized in those banks which already possessed

it, but limited to a total sum of £8,500,000, the average

quantity of such notes which had been in circulation during

the years immediately preceding. It was provided that if any

of the banks which retained this privilege should cease to

exist or to issue notes, the Bank of England should be

entitled to increase its note circulation by a sum equal to

two-thirds of the amount of the former issues of the bank

which ceased to issue paper. The Bank of England was required

in this contingency to augment the reserve fund. By Acts

passed in the succeeding year, the principles of the English

Bank Charter Act were applied to Scotland and Ireland, with

such modifications as the peculiar circumstances of those

kingdoms required. The Bank Charter Act has ever since been

the subject of voluminous and contradictory criticism, both by

political economists and by men of business."

F. C. Montague,

Life of Sir Robert Peel,

chapter 8.

ALSO IN:

Bonamy Price,

The Bank Charter Act of 1844

(Fraser's Magazine, June, 1865).

W. C. Taylor,

Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,

volume 3, chapter 7.

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893.

Production of the Precious Metals

in the last half-century.

The Silver Question in the United States.

"The total (estimated) stock of gold in the world in 1848, was

£560,000,000. As for the annual production, it had varied

considerably since the beginning of the century [from

£3,000,000 to £8,000,000]. Such was the state of things

immediately preceding 1848. In that year the Californian

discoveries took place, and these were followed by the

discoveries in Australia in 1851.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848-1849;

and AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1839-1855.

For these three years the annual average production is set

down by the Economist at £9,000,000, but from this date the

production suddenly rose to, for 1852, £27,000.000, and

continued to rise till 1856, when it attained its maximum of

£32,250,000. At this stage a decline in the returns occurred,

the lowest point reached being in 1860, when they fell to

£18,683,000, but from this they rose again, and for the last

ten years [before 1873] have maintained an average of about

£20,500,000; the returns for the year 1871 being £20,811,000.

The total amount of gold added to the world's stock by this

twenty years' production has been about £500,000,000, an

amount nearly equal to that existing in the world at the date

of the discoveries: in other words, the stock of gold in the

world has been nearly doubled since that time."

J. E. Cairnes,

Essays in Political Economy,

pages 160-161.

"The yearly average of gold production in the twenty-five

years from 1851-75 was $127,000,000. The yearly average

product of silver for the same period was $51,000,000. The

average annual product of gold for the fifteen years from

1876 to 1890 declined to $108,000,000; a minus of 15 per

cent. The average annual product of silver for the same

period increased to $116,000,000; a plus of 127 per cent.

There is the whole silver question."

L. R. Ehrich,

The Question of Silver,

page 21.

"From 1793—the date of the first issue of silver coin by the

United States—to 1834 the silver and the gold dollar were

alike authorized to be received as legal tender in payment of

debt, but silver alone circulated. Subsequently, however,

silver was not used, except in fractional payments, or, since

1853, as a subsidiary coin. The silver coin, as a coin of

circulation, had become obsolete. The reason why, prior to

1834, payments were made exclusively in silver, and

subsequently to that date in gold, is found in the fact that

prior to the legislation of 1834 … the standard silver coins

were relatively the cheaper, and consequently circulated to

the exclusion of the gold; while during the later period the

standard gold coins were the cheaper, circulating to the

exclusion of the silver. The Coinage Act of 1873, by which the

coinage of the silver dollar was discontinued, became a law on

February 12th of that year. The act of February 28, 1878,

which passed Congress by a two-thirds vote over the veto of

President Hayes, again provided for the coinage of a silver

dollar of 412.5 grains, the silver bullion to be purchased at

the market price by the Government, and the amount so

purchased and coined not to be less than two millions of

dollars per month. During the debate on this bill the charge

was repeatedly made, in and out of Congress, that the previous

act of 1873, discontinuing the free coinage of the silver

dollar, was passed surreptitiously.

{2218}

This statement has no foundation in fact. The report of the

writer, who was then Deputy Comptroller of the Currency,

transmitted to Congress in 1870 by the Secretary, three times

distinctly stated that the bill accompanying it proposed to

discontinue the issue of the silver dollar-piece. Various

experts, to whom it had been submitted, approved this feature

of the bill, and their opinions were printed by order of

Congress."

J. J. Knox,

United States Notes,

chapter 10.

"The bill of 1878, generally spoken of as the 'Bland' bill,

directed the secretary of the treasury to purchase not less

than two million nor more than four million dollars' worth of

silver bullion per month, to coin it into silver dollars, said

silver dollars to be full legal tender at 'their nominal

value.' Also, that the holder of ten or more of these silver

dollars could exchange them for silver certificates, said

certificates being 'receivable for customs, taxes, and all

public dues.' The bill was pushed and passed by the efforts,

principally, of the greenback inflationists and the

representatives of the silver States. … Since 1878 [to

1891], 405,000,000 silver dollars have been coined. Of these

348,000,000 are still lying in the treasury vaults. No comment

is needed. The Bland-Allison act did not hold up silver. In

1870 it was worth $1.12 an ounce, in 1880 $1.14, '81 $1.13,

'82 $1.13, '83 $1.11, '86 99 cents, until in '89 it reached

93½ cents an ounce. That is, in 1880 the commercial ratio was

22:1 and the coin value of the Bland-Allison silver dollar was

72 cents. In March, 1800, a bill was reported to the House by

the committee of 'coinage, weights and measures,' based on a

plan proposed by Secretary Windom. … The bill passed the

House. The Senate passed it with an amendment making provision

for free and unlimited coinage. It finally went to a

conference committee which reported the bill that became a

law, July 14, 1890. This bill directs the secretary of the

treasury to purchase four and one-half million ounces of

silver a month at the market price, to give legal tender

treasury notes therefor, said notes being redeemable in gold

or silver coin at the option of the government, 'it being the

established policy of the United States to maintain the two

metals on a parity with each other upon the present legal

ratio.' It was believed that this bill would raise the price

of silver. … To-day [December 8, 1891] the silver in our

dollar is actually worth 73 cents."

L. R. Ehrich,

The Question of Silver,

pages 21-25.

See, also,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1873, 1878, and 1890-1893.

In the summer of 1893, a financial crisis, produced in the

judgment of the best informed by the operation of the

silver-purchase law of 1890 (known commonly as the Sherman

Act) became so serious that President Cleveland called a

special session of Congress to deal with it. In his Message to

Congress, at the opening of its session, the President said:

"With plenteous crops, with abundant promise of remunerative

production and manufacture, with unusual invitation to safe

investment, and with satisfactory assurance to business

enterprise, suddenly financial fear and distrust have sprung

up on every side. Numerous moneyed institutions have suspended

because abundant assets were not immediately available to meet

the demands of the frightened depositors. Surviving

corporations and individuals are content to keep in hand the

money they are usually anxious to loan, and those engaged in

legitimate business are surprised to find that the securities

they offer for loans, though heretofore satisfactory, are no

longer accepted. Values supposed to be fixed are fast becoming

conjectural, and loss and failure have involved every branch

of business. I believe these things are principally chargeable

to congressional legislation touching the purchase and coinage

of silver by the General Government. This legislation is

embodied in a statute passed on the 14th day of July, 1890,

which was the culmination of much agitation on the subject

involved, and which may be considered a truce, after a long

struggle between the advocates of free silver coinage and

those intending to be more conservative." A bill to repeal the

act of July 14, 1890 (the Sherman law, so called), was passed

by both houses and received the President's signature, Nov. 1,

1893.

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1853-1874.

The Latin Union and the Silver Question.

"The gold discoveries of California and Australia were

directly the cause of the Latin Union. … In 1853, when the

subsidiary silver of the United States had disappeared before

the cheapened gold, we reduced the quantity of silver in the

small coins sufficiently to keep them dollar for dollar below

the value of gold. Switzerland followed this example of the

United States in her law of January 31, 1860; but, instead of

distinctly reducing the weight of pure silver in her small

coins, she accomplished the same end by lowering the fineness

of standard for these coins to 800 thousandths fine. …

Meanwhile France and Italy had a higher standard for their

coins than Switzerland, and as the neighboring states, which

had the franc system of coinage in common, found each other's

coins in circulation within their own limits, it was clear

that the cheaper Swiss coins, according to Gresham's law, must

drive out the dearer French and Italian coins, which contained

more pure silver, but which passed current at the same nominal

value. The Swiss coins of 800 thousandths fine began to pass

the French frontier and to displace the French coins of a

similar denomination; and the French coins were exported,

melted, and recoined in Switzerland at a profit. This, of

course, brought forth a decree in France (April 14, 1864),

which prohibited the receipt of these Swiss coins at the

public offices of France, the customs-offices, etc., and they

were consequently refused in common trade among individuals.

Belgium also, as well as Switzerland, began to think it

necessary to deal with the questions affecting her silver

small coins, which were leaving that country for the same

reason that they were leaving Switzerland. Belgium then

undertook to make overtures to France, in order that some

concerted action might be undertaken by the four countries

using the franc system—Italy, Belgium, France, and

Switzerland—to remedy the evil to which all were exposed by

the disappearance of their silver coin needed in every-day

transactions. The discoveries of gold had forced a

reconsideration of their coinage systems. In consequence of

these overtures, a conference of delegates representing the

Latin states just mentioned assembled in Paris, November

20, 1865. … The Conference, fully realizing the effects of

the fall of gold in driving out their silver coins, agreed to

establish a uniform coinage in the four countries, on the

essential principles adopted by the United States in 1853.

{2219}

They lowered the silver pieces of two francs, one franc, fifty

centimes, and twenty centimes from a standard of 900

thousandths fine to a uniform fineness of 835 thousandths,

reducing these coins to the position of a subsidiary currency.

They retained for the countries of the Latin Union, however,

the system of bimetallism. Gold pieces of one hundred, fifty,

twenty, ten, and five francs were to be coined, together with

five-franc pieces of silver, and all at a standard of 900

thousandths fine. Free coinage at a ratio of 15½:1, was

thereby granted to any holder of either gold or silver bullion

who wanted silver coins of five francs, or gold coins from

five francs and upward. … The subsidiary silver coins (below

five francs) were made a legal tender between individuals of

the state which coined them to the amount of fifty francs. …

The treaty was ratified, and went into effect August 1, 1866,

to continue until January 1, 1880, or about fifteen years. …

The downward tendency of silver in 1873 led the Latin Union to

fear that the demonetized silver of Germany would flood their

own mints if they continued the free coinage of five-franc

silver pieces at a legal ratio of 15½:1. … This condition of

things led to the meeting of delegates from the countries of

the Latin Union at Paris, January 30, 1874, who there agreed

to a treaty supplementary to that originally formed in 1865,

and determined on withdrawing from individuals the full power

of free coinage by limiting to a moderate sum the amount of

silver five-franc pieces which should be coined by each state

of the Union during the year 1874. The date of this suspension

of coinage by the Latin Union is regarded by all authorities

as of great import in regard to the value of silver."

J. L. Laughlin,

The History of Bimetallism in the United States,

pages 146-155.

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1861-1878.

The Legal-tender notes, or Greenbacks, the

National Bank System, of the American Civil War.

"In January, 1861, the paper currency of the United States was

furnished by 1,600 private corporations, organized under

thirty-four different State laws. The circulation of the banks

amounted to $202,000,000, of which only about $50,000,000 were

issued in the States which in April, 1861, undertook to set up

an independent government. About $150,000,000 were in

circulation in the loyal States, including West Virginia. When

Congress met in extraordinary session on the 4th of July, the

three-months volunteers, who had hastened to the defence of

the capital, were confronting the rebel army on the line of

the Potomac, and the first great battle at Bull Run was

impending. President Lincoln called upon Congress to provide

for the enlistment of 400,000 men, and Secretary Chase

submitted estimates for probable expenditures amounting to

$318,000,000. The treasury was empty, and the expenses of the

government were rapidly approaching a million dollars a day.

The ordinary expenses of the government, during the year

ending on the 30th of June, 1861, had been $62,000,000, and

even this sum had not been supplied by the revenue, which

amounted to only $41,000,000. The rest had been borrowed. It

was now necessary to provide for an expenditure increased

fivefold, and amounting to eight times the income of the

country, Secretary Chase advised that $80,000,000 be provided

by taxation, and $240,000,000 by loans; and that, in

anticipation of revenue, provision be made for the issue of

$50,000,000 of treasury notes, redeemable on demand in coin.

'The greatest care will, however, be requisite,' he said, 'to

prevent the degradation of such issues into an irredeemable

paper currency, than which no more certainly fatal expedient

for impoverishing the masses and discrediting the government

of any country can well be devised.' The desired authority was

granted by Congress. The Secretary was authorized to borrow,

on the credit of the United States, not exceeding

$250,000,000, and, 'as a part of the above loan,' to issue an

exchange for coin, or pay for salaries or other dues from the

United States, not over $50,000,000 of treasury notes, bearing

no interest, but payable on demand at Philadelphia, New York,

or Boston. The act does not say, 'payable in coin,' for nobody

had then imagined that any other form of payment was possible.

Congress adjourned on the 6th of August, after passing an act

to provide an increased revenue from imports, and laying a

direct tax of $20,000,000 upon the States, and a tax of 3 per

cent. upon the excess of all private incomes above $800. The

Secretary immediately invited the banks of Philadelphia, New

York, and Boston to assist in the negotiation of the proposed

loans, and they loyally responded. On the 19th of August they

took $50,000,000 of three years 7-30 bonds at par; on the 1st

of October, $50,000,000 more of the same securities at par;

and on the 16th of November, $50,000,000 of twenty years 6 per

cents., at a rate making the interest equivalent to 7 per

cent. These advances relieved the temporary necessities of the

treasury, and, when Congress reassembled in December,

Secretary Chase was prepared to recommend a permanent

financial policy. The solid basis of this policy was to be

taxation. … It was estimated, a revenue of $90,000,000 would

be needed; and to secure that sum, the Secretary advised that

the duties on tea, coffee, and sugar be increased; that a

direct tax of $20,000,000 be assessed on the States; that the

income tax be modified so as to produce $10,000,000, and that

duties be laid on liquors, tobacco, carriages, legacies,

bank-notes, bills payable, and conveyances. For the

extraordinary expenses of the war it was necessary to depend

upon loans, and the authority to be granted for this purpose

the Secretary left 'to the better judgment of Congress,' only

suggesting that the rate of interest should be regulated by

law, and that the time had come when the government might

properly claim a part, at least, of the advantage of the paper

circulation, then constituting a loan without interest from

the people to the banks. There were two ways, Secretary Chase

said, in which this advantage might be secured: 1. By

increasing the issue of United States notes, and taxing the

bank-notes out of existence. 2. By providing a national

currency, to be issued by the banks but secured by the pledge

of United States bonds. The former plan the Secretary did not

recommend, regarding the hazard of a depreciating and finally

worthless currency as far outweighing the probable benefits of

the measure. … Congress had hardly begun to consider these

recommendations, when the situation was completely changed by

the suspension of specie payments, on the 28th of December, by

the banks of New York, followed by the suspension of the other

banks in the country, and compelling the treasury also to

suspend.

{2220}

This suspension was the result of a panic occasioned by the

shadow of war with England. … To provide for the pressing

wants of the treasury, Congress, on the 12th of February,

1862, authorized the issue of $10,000,000 more of demand

notes. Before the end of the session further issues were

provided for, making the aggregate of United States notes

$300,000,000, besides fractional currency. There was a long

debate upon the propriety of making these notes a legal tender

for private debts, and it seemed for a time that the measure

would be defeated by this dispute. [The bill authorizing the

issue of legal tender notes known afterwards as 'Greenbacks'

was prepared by the Hon. E. G. Spaulding, who subsequently

wrote the history of the measure.] Secretary Chase finally

advised the concession of this point; nevertheless, 55 votes

in the House of Representatives … were recorded against the

provision making the notes a tender for private debts.

Congress also empowered the Secretary to borrow $500,000,000

on 5-20 year 6 per cent. bonds, besides a temporary loan of

$100,000,000, and provided that the interest on the bonds

should be paid in coin, and that the customs should be

collected in coin for that purpose. Nothing was said about the

principal, for it was taken for granted that specie payments

would be resumed before the payment of the principal of the

debt would be undertaken. … Congress had thus adopted the

plan which the Secretary of the Treasury did not recommend,

and neglected the proposition which he preferred. … When

Congress met in December, 1862, the magnitude of the war had

become fully apparent. … The enormous demands upon the

treasury … had exhausted the resources provided by Congress.

The disbursements in November amounted to $59,847,077—two

millions a day. Unpaid requisitions had accumulated amounting

to $46,000,000. The total receipts for the year then current,

ending June 30, 1863, were estimated at $511,000,000; the

expenditures at $788,000,000; leaving $277,000,000 to be

provided for. There were only two ways to obtain this sum—by

a fresh issue of United States notes, or by new

interest-bearing loans. But the gold premium had advanced in

October to 34; the notes were already at a discount of 25 per

cent. The consequences of an addition of $277,000,000 to the

volume of currency, the Secretary said, would be 'inflation of

prices, increase of expenditures, augmentation of debt, and,

ultimately, disastrous defeat of the very purposes sought to

be obtained by it.' He therefore recommended an increase in

the amount authorized to be borrowed on the 5-20 bonds. … In

order to create a market for the bonds, he again recommended

the creation of banking associations under a national law

requiring them to secure their circulation by a deposit of

government bonds. The suggestion thus renewed was not received

with favor by Congress. … On the 7th of January Mr. Hooper

offered again his bill to provide a national currency, secured

by a pledge of United States bonds, but the next day Mr.

Stevens, of Pennsylvania, submitted the bill with an adverse

report from the committee on ways and means. On the 14th of

January Mr. Stevens reported a resolution authorizing the

Secretary of the Treasury to issue $100,000,000 more of United

States notes for the immediate payment of the army and navy.

The resolution passed the House at once, and the Senate the

next day. … On the 19th of January President Lincoln sent a

special message to the House, announcing that he had signed

the joint resolution authorizing a new issue of United States

notes, but adding that he considered it his duty to express

his sincere regret that it had been found necessary to add

such a sum to an already redundant currency, while the

suspended banks were still left free to increase their

circulation at will. He warned Congress that such a policy

must soon produce disastrous consequences, and the warning was

effective. On the 25th of January Senator Sherman offered a

bill to provide a national currency, differing in some

respects from Mr. Hooper's in the House. The bill passed the

Senate on the 12th of February, 23 to 21, and the House on the

20th, 78 to 64. … It was signed by the President on the 25th

of February, 1863."

H. W. Richardson,

The National Banks,

chapter 2.

"One immediate effect of the Legal Tender Act was to destroy

our credit abroad. Stocks were sent home for sale, and, as

Bagebot shows, Lombard Street was closed to a nation which had

adopted legal tender paper money. … By August all specie had

disappeared from circulation, and postage-stamps and private

note-issues took its place. In July a bill was passed for

issuing stamps as fractional currency, but in March 1863,

another act was passed providing for an issue of 50,000,000 in

notes for fractional parts of a dollar—not legal tender. For

many years the actual issue was only 30,000,000, the amount of

silver fractional coins in circulation in the North, east of

the Rocky Mountains, when the war broke out. … Gold rose to

200-220 or above, making the paper worth 45 or 50 cts., at

which point the 5 per cent. ten-forties floated. The amount

sold up to October 31st, 1865, was $172,770,100. Mr. Spaulding

reckons up the paper issues which acted more or less as

currency, on January 30th, 1864, at $1,125,877,034;

812,000,000 bore no interest."

W. G. Sumner,

History of American Currency,

pages 204-208.

The paper-money issues of the Civil War were not brought to

parity of value with gold until near the close of the year

1878. The 1st day of January, 1879, had been fixed for

resumption by an act passed in 1875; but that date was

generally anticipated in practical business by a few months.

A. S. Bolles,

Financial History of the United States, 1861-1885,

book 1, chapters 4, 5, 8, and 11,

and book 2, chapter 2.

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1871-1873.

Adoption of the Gold Standard by Germany.

"At the close of the Franco-Prussian war the new German Empire

found the opportunity … for the establishment of a uniform

coinage throughout its numerous small states, and was

essentially aided in its plan at this time by the receipt of

the enormous war-indemnity from France, of which $54,600,000

was paid to Germany in French gold coin. Besides this, Germany

received from France bills of exchange in payment of the

indemnity which gave Germany the title to gold in places, such

as London, on which the bills were drawn. Gold in this way

left London for Berlin. With a large stock of gold on hand,

Germany began a series of measures to change her circulation

from silver to gold.

{2221}

Her circulation in 1870, before the change was made, was

composed substantially of silver and paper money, with no more

than 4 per cent of the whole circulation in gold. … The

substitution of gold instead of silver in a country like

Germany which had a single silver medium was carried out by a

path which led first to temporary bimetallism and later to

gold monometallism. And for this purpose the preparatory

measures were passed December 4, 1871. … This law of 1871

created new gold coins, current equally with existing silver

coins, at rates of exchange which were based on a ratio

between the gold and silver coins of 1:15½. The silver coins

were not demonetized by this law; their coinage was for the

present only discontinued; but there was no doubt as to the

intention of the Government in the future. … The next and

decisive step toward a single gold standard was taken by the

act of July 9, 1873. … By this measure gold was established

as the monetary standard of the country, with the 'mark' as

the unit, and silver was used, as in the United States in

1853, in a subsidiary service. … Under the terms of this

legislation Germany began to withdraw her old silver coinage,

and to sell as bullion whatever silver was not recoined into

the new subsidiary currency."

J. L. Laughlin,

History of Bimetallism in the United States,

pages 136-140.

MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1893.

Stoppage of the free Coinage of Silver in India.

The free coinage of silver in India was stopped by the

Government in June, 1893, thus taking the first step toward

the establishment of the gold standard in that country.

----------MONEY AND BANKING: End----------

----------MONGOLS: Start--------

MONGOLS:

Origin and earliest history.

"The name Mongol (according to Schmidt) is derived from the

word Mong, meaning brave, daring, bold, an etymology which is

acquiesced in by Dr. Schott. Ssanang Setzen says it was first

given to the race in the time of Jingis Khan, but it is of

much older date than his time, as we know from the Chinese

accounts. … They point further, as the statements of Raschid

do, to the Mongols having at first been merely one tribe of a

great confederacy, whose name was probably extended to the

whole when the prowess of the Imperial House which governed it

gained the supremacy. We learn lastly from them that the

generic name by which the race was known in early times to the

Chinese was Shi wei, the Mongols having, in fact, been a tribe

of the Shi wei. … The Shi wei were known to the Chinese from

the 7th century; they then consisted of various detached

hordes, subject to the Thu kiu, or Turks. … After the fall

of the Yuan-Yuan, the Turks, by whom they were overthrown,

acquired the supreme control of Eastern Asia. They had, under

the name of Hiong nu, been masters of the Mongolian desert and

its border land from a very early period, and under their new

name of Turks they merely reconquered a position from which

they had been driven some centuries before. Everywhere in

Mongol history we find evidence of their presence, the titles

Khakan, Khan, Bigui or Beg, Terkhan, &c., are common to both

races, while the same names occur among Mongol and Turkish

chiefs. … This fact of the former predominance of Turkish

influence in further Asia supports the traditions collected by

Raschid, Abulghazi, &c., … which trace the race of Mongol

Khans up to the old royal race of the Turks."

H. H. Howorth,

History of the Mongols,

volume 1, pages 27-32.

"Here [in the eastern portion of Asia known as the desert of

Gobi], from time immemorial, the Mongols, a people nearly akin

to the Turks in language and physiognomy, had made their home,

leading a miserable nomadic life in the midst of a wild and

barren country, unrecognised by their neighbours, and their

very name unknown centuries after their kinsmen, the Turks,

had been exercising an all-powerful influence over the

destinies of Western Asia."

A. Vámbéry,

History of Bokhara,

chapter 8.

A. Vámbéry,

Travels in Central Asia

www.gutenberg.org #41751

See also, TARTARS.

MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

Conquests of Jingiz Khan.

"Jingiz-Khan [or Genghis, or Zingis], whose original name was

Tamujin, the son of a Tatar chief, was born in the year 1153

A. D. In 1202, at the age of 49, he had defeated or

propitiated all his enemies, and in 1205 was proclaimed, by a

great assembly, Khakan or Emperor of Tartary. His capital, a

vast assemblage of tents, was at Kara-Korum, in a distant part

of Chinese Tartary; and from thence he sent forth mighty

armies to conquer the world. This extraordinary man, who could

neither read nor write, established laws for the regulation of

social life and for the chase; and adopted a religion of pure

Theism. His army was divided into Tumans of 10,000 men,

Hazarehs of 1,000, Sedehs of 100, and Dehehs of 10, each under

a Tatar officer, and they were armed with bows and arrows,

swords, and iron maces. Having brought the whole of Tartary

under his sway, he conquered China, while his sons, Oktai and

Jagatai, were sent [A. D. 1218] with a vast army against

Khuwarizm [whose prince had provoked the attack by murdering a

large number of merchants who were under the protection of

Jingiz]. The country was conquered, though bravely defended by

the king's son, Jalalu-'d-Din; 100,000 people were put to the

sword, the rest sold as slaves. … The sons of Jingiz-Khan

then returned in triumph to their father; but the brave young

prince, Jalalu-'d-Din, still held out against the conquerors

of his country. This opposition roused Jingiz-Khan to fury;

Balk was attacked for having harboured the fugitive prince in

1221, and, having surrendered, the people were all put to

death. Nishapur shared the same fate, and a horrible massacre

of all the inhabitants took place." Jalalu-'d-Din, pursued to

the banks of the Indus and defeated in a desperate battle

fought there, swam the liver on horseback, in the face of the

enemy, and escaped into India. "The Mongol hordes then overran

Kandahar and Multan, Azerbaijan and 'Irak; Fars was only saved

by the submission of its Ata-beg, and two Mongol generals

marched round the Caspian Sea. Jingiz-Khan returned to Tartary

in A. D. 1222, but in these terrible campaigns he lost no less

than 200,000 men. As soon as the great conqueror had retired

out of Persia, the indefatigable Jalalu-'d-Din recrossed the

Indus with 4,000 followers, and passing through Shiraz and

Isfaham drove the Mongols out of Tubriz. But he was defeated

by them in 1226; and though he kept up the war in Azerbaijan

for a short time longer, he was at length utterly routed, and

flying into Kurdistan was killed in the house of a friend

there, four years afterwards. … Jingiz-Khan died in the year

1227."

C. R. Markham,

History of Persia,

chapter 7.

{2222}

In 1224 Jingiz "divided his gigantic empire amongst his sons

as follows: China and Mongolia were given to Oktai, whom he

nominated as his successor; Tchaghatai received a part of the

Uiguric passes as far as Khahrezm, including Turkestan and

Transoxania; Djudi had died in the meantime, so Batu was made

lord of Kharezm, Desht i-Kiptchak of the pass of Derbend and

Tuli was placed over Khorasan, Persia, and India."

A. Vámbéry,

History of Bokhara,

chapter 8.

"Popularly he [Jingis-Khan] is mentioned with Attila and with

Timur as one of the 'Scourges of God.' … But he was far more

than a conqueror. … In every detail of social and political

economy he was a creator; his laws and his administrative

rules are equally admirable and astounding to the student. …

He may fairly claim to have conquered the greatest area of the

world's surface that was ever subdued by one hand. … Jingis

organised a system of intelligence and espionage by which he

generally knew well the internal condition of the country he

was about to attack. He intrigued with the discontented and

seduced them by fair promises. … The Mongols ravaged and

laid waste the country all round the bigger towns, and they

generally tried to entice a portion of the garrison into an

ambuscade. They built regular siege-works armed with

catapults; the captives and peasants were forced to take part

in the assault; the attack never ceased night or day; relief

of troops keeping the garrison in perpetual terror. They

employed Chinese and Persians to make their war engines. …

They rarely abandoned the siege of a place altogether, and

would sometimes continue a blockade for years. They were bound

by no oath, and however solemn their promise to the

inhabitants who would surrender, it was broken, and a general

massacre ensued. It was their policy to leave behind them no

body of people, however submissive, who might inconvenience

their communications. … His [Jingis'] creed was to sweep

away all cities, as the haunts of slaves and of luxury; that

his herds might freely feed upon grass whose green was free

from dusty feet. It does make one hide one's face in terror to

read that from 1211 to 1223, 18,470,000 human beings perished

in China and Tangut alone, at the hands of Jingis and his

followers."

H. H. Howorth,

History of the Mongols,

volume 1, pages 49, 108-113.

"He [Jingiz-Khan] was … a military genius of the very first

order, and it may be questioned whether either Cæsar or

Napoleon can, as commanders, be placed on a par with him. The

manner in which he moved large bodies of men over vast

distances without an apparent effort, the judgment he showed

in the conduct of several wars in countries far apart from

each other, his strategy in unknown regions, always on the

alert yet never allowing hesitation or over-caution to

interfere with his enterprises, the sieges which he brought to

a successful termination, his brilliant victories … —all

combined, make up the picture of a career to which Europe can

offer nothing that will surpass, if indeed she has anything to

bear comparison with it."

D. C. Boulger,

History of China,

volume 1, chapter 21.

See, also,

CHINA: A. D. 1205-1234;

KHORASSAN;

BOKHARA: A. D. 1219;

SAMARKAND;

MERV;

BALKH;

KHUAREZM,

MONGOLS: A. D. 1202.

Overthrow of the Keraït, or the kingdom of Prester John.

See PRESTER JOHN, THE KINGDOM OF.

MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.

Conquests of the successors of Jingiz Khan.

"Okkodai [or Ogotai or Oktai], the son and successor of

Chinghiz, followed up the subjugation of China, extinguished

the Kin finally in 1234 and consolidated with his empire all

the provinces north of the Great Kiang. … After establishing

his power over so much of China as we have said, Okkodai

raised a vast army and set it in motion towards the west. One

portion was directed against Armenia, Georgia, and Asia Minor,

whilst another great host under Batu, the nephew of the Great

Khan, conquered the countries north of Caucasus, overran

Russia making it tributary, and still continued to carry fire

and slaughter westward. One great detachment under a

lieutenant of Batu's entered Poland, burned Cracow, found

Breslaw in ashes and abandoned by its people, and defeated

with great slaughter at Wahlstadt near Lignitz (April 12th,

1241) the troops of Poland, Moravia and Silesia, who had

gathered under Duke Henry of the latter province to make head

against this astounding flood of heathen. Batu himself with

the main body of his army was ravaging Hungary. …

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301].

Pesth was now taken and burnt and all its people put to

the sword. The rumours of the Tartars and their frightful

devastations had scattered fear through Europe, which the

defeat at Lignitz raised to a climax. Indeed weak and

disunited Christendom seemed to lie at the foot of the

barbarians. The Pope to be sure proclaimed crusade, and wrote

circular letters, but the enmity between him and the Emperor

Frederic II. was allowed to prevent any co-operation, and

neither of them responded by anything better than words to the

earnest calls for help which came from the King of Hungary. No

human aid merited thanks when Europe was relieved by hearing

that the Tartar host had suddenly retreated eastward. The

Great Khan Okkodai was dead [A. D. 1241] in the depths of

Asia, and a courier had come to recall the army from Europe.

In 1255 a new wave of conquest rolled westward from Mongolia,

this time directed against the Ismaelians or 'Assassins' on

the south of the Caspian, and then successively against the

Khalif of Baghdad and Syria. The conclusion of this expedition

under Hulagu may be considered to mark the climax of the

Mongol power. Mangu Khan, the emperor then reigning, and who

died on a campaign in China in 1259, was the last who

exercised a sovereignty so nearly universal. His successor

Kublai extended indeed largely the frontiers of the Mongol

power in China [see CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294], which he brought

entirely under the yoke, besides gaining conquests rather

nominal than real on its southern and southeastern borders,

but he ruled effectively only in the eastern regions of the

great empire, which had now broken up into four. (1) The

immediate Empire of the Great Khan, seated eventually at

Khanbalik or Peking, embraced China, Corea, Mongolia, and

Manchuria, Tibet, and claims at least over Tunking and

countries on the Ava frontier; (2), the Chagatai Khanate, or

Middle Empire of the Tartars, with its capital at Almalik,

included the modern Dsungaria, part of Chinese Turkestan,

Transoxiana, and Afghanistan; (3), the Empire of Kipchak, or

the Northern Tartars, founded on the conquests of Batu, and

with its chief seat at Sarai, on the Wolga, covered a large

part of Russia, the country north of Caucasus, Khwarizm, and a

part of the modern Siberia; (4), Persia, with its capital

eventually at Tabriz, embraced Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan

and part of Asia Minor, all Persia, Arabian Irak, and

Khorasan."

H. Yule,

Cathay and the way Thither: Preliminary Essay,

sections 92-94 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

H. H. Howorth,

History of the Mongols,

chapters 4-5.

{2223}

{2224}

MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.

The Kipchak empire.

The Golden Horde.

"It was under Toushi [or Juchi], son of Tschingis, that the

great migration of the Moguls effected an abiding settlement

in Russia. … Toushi, with half a million of Moguls, entered

Europe close by the Sea of Azof. On the banks of the river

Kalka he encountered the united forces of the Russian princes.

The death of Toushi for awhile arrested the progress of the

Tatar arms. But in 1236, Batu, the son of Toushi, took the

command, and all the principalities and cities of Russia, with

the exception of Novogorod, were desolated by fire and sword

and occupied by the enemy. For two centuries Russia was held

cabined, cribbed, confined by this encampment or horde. The

Golden Horde of the Deshti Kipzak, or Steppe of the Hollow

Tree. Between the Volga and the Don, and beyond the Volga,

spreads this limitless region the Deshti Kipzak. It was

occupied in the first instance, most probably, by Hun-Turks,

who first attracted and then were absorbed by fresh

immigrants. From this region an empire took its name. By the

river Akhtuba, a branch of the lower Volga, at Great Serai,

Batu erected his golden tent; and here it was he received the

Russian princes whom he had reduced to vassalage. Here he

entertained a king of Armenia; and here, too, he received the

ambassadors of S. Louis. … With the exception of Novogorod,

which had joined the Hanseatic League in 1276, and rose

rapidly in commercial prosperity, all Russia continued to

endure, till the extinction of the house of Batu, a degrading

and hopeless bondage. When the direct race came to an end, the

collateral branches became involved in very serious conflicts;

and in 1380, Temnik-Mami was overthrown near the river Don by

Demetrius IV., who, with the victory, won a title of honour,

Donski, which outlasted the benefits of the victory; although

it is from this conflict that Russian writers date the

commencement of their freedom. … After an existence of more

than 250 years the Golden Horde was finally dissolved in 1480.

Already, in 1468, the khanate of Kusan [or Kazan] was

conquered and absorbed by the Grand Duke Ivan; and, after the

extinction of the horde, Europeans for the first time exacted

tribute of the Tatar, and ambassadors found their way

unobstructed to Moscow. But the breaking up of the Golden

Horde did not carry with it the collapse of all Tatar power in

Russia. Rather the effect was to create a concentration of all

their residuary resources in the Crimea."

C. I. Black,

The Proselytes of Ishmael,

part 3, chapter 4.

"The Mongol word yurt meant originally the domestic fireplace,

and, according to Van Hammer, the word is identical with the

German herde and the English hearth, and thence came in a

secondary sense to mean house or home, the chief's house being

known as Ulugh Yurt or the Great House. An assemblage of

several yurts formed an ordu or orda, equivalent to the German

hort and the English horde, which really means a camp. The

chief camp where the ruler of the nation lived was called the

Sir Orda, i. e., the Golden Horde. … It came about that

eventually the whole nation was known as the Golden Horde."

The power of the Golden Horde was broken by the conquests of

Timour (A. D. 1389-1391). It was finally broken into several

fragments, the chief of which, the Khanates of Kazan, of

Astrakhan, and of Krim, or the Crimea, maintained a long

struggle with Russia, and were successively overpowered and

absorbed in the empire of the Muscovite.

H. H. Howorth,

History of the Mongols,

part 2, pages 1 and x.

See, also, above: A. D. 1229-1294;

KIPCHAKS; and RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

MONGOLS: A. D. 1257-1258.

Khulagu's overthrow of the Caliphate.

See BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.

MONGOLS: A. D. 1258-1393.

The empire of the Ilkhans.

See PERSIA: A. D. 1258-1393.

MONGOLS: A. D. 1371-1405.

The conquests of Timour.

See TIMOUR.

MONGOLS: A. D. 1526-1605.

Founding of the Mogul (Mongol) empire in India.

See INDIA.: A. D. 1399-1605.

----------MONGOLS: End----------

MONITOR AND MERRIMAC, Battle of the.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (MARCH).

MONKS.

See

AUSTIN CANONS;

BENEDICTINE ORDERS;

CAPUCHINS;

CARMELITE FRIARS;

CARTHUSIAN ORDER;

CISTERCIAN ORDER;

CLAIRVAUX;

CLUGNY;

MENDICANT ORDERS;

RECOLLECTS;

SERVITES;

THEATINES;

TRAPPISTS.

MONMOUTH, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE).

MONMOUTH'S REBELLION.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).

MONOCACY, Battle of the.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND).

MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY;

also, JACOBITE CHURCH.

MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY, The.

"The Council of Chalcedon having decided that our Lord

possessed two natures, united but not confused, the Eutychian

error condemned by it is supposed to have been virtually

reproduced by the Monothelites, who maintained that the two

natures were so united as to have but one will. This heresy is

ascribed to Heraclius the Greek emperor, who adopted it as a

political project for reconciling and reclaiming the

Monophysites to the Church, and thus to the empire. The

Armenians as a body had held, for a long time, the Monophysite

(a form of the Eutychian) heresy, and were then in danger of

breaking their allegiance to the emperor, as they had done to

the Church; and it was chiefly to prevent the threatened

rupture that Heraclius made a secret compromise with some of

their principal men. … Neither … the strenuous efforts of

the Greek emperors Heraclius and Constans, nor the concession

of Honorius the Roman pontiff to the soundness of the

Monothelite doctrine, could introduce it into the Church.

Heraclius published in A. D. 639 an Ecthesis, or a formula, in

which Monotheism was covertly introduced. The sixth general

council, held in Constantinople A. D. 680, condemned both the

heresy and Honorius, the Roman pontiff who had countenanced it.

{2225}

'The doctrine of the Monothelites, thus condemned and exploded

by the Council of Constantinople, found a place of refuge

among the Mardaites, a people who inhabited the mountains of

Libanus and Anti-Libanus, and who, about the conclusion of

this century, received the name of Maronites from John Maro,

their first bishop-a name which they still retain.' … In the

time of the Crusaders, the Maronites united with them in their

wars against the Saracens, and subsequently (A. D. 1182) in

their faith. After the evacuation of Syria by the Crusaders,

the Maronites, as their former allies, had to bear the

vengeance of the Saracenic kings; and for a long time they

defended themselves as they could, sometimes inflicting

serious injury on the Moslem army, and at others suffering the

revengeful fury of their enemies. They ultimately submitted to

the rule of their Mohammedan masters, and are now good

subjects of the sultan. … The Maronites now … are entirely

free from the Monothelite heresy, which they doubtless

followed in their earlier history; nor, indeed, does there

appear a single vestige of it in their histories, theological

books, or liturgies. Their faith in the person of Christ and

in all the articles of religion is now, as it has been for a

long time past, in exact uniformity with the doctrines of the

Roman Church."

J. Wortabet,

Researches into the Religions of Syria,

pages 103-111; with foot-note.

ALSO IN:

H. F. Tozer,

The Church and the Eastern Empire,

chapter 5.

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 47.

P. Schaff,

History of the Christian Church,

volume 4, chapter 11, sections 109-111.

MONROE, James,

Opposition to the Federal Constitution.

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

Presidential election and administration.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816, to 1825.

MONROE DOCTRINE, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1823.

MONROVIA.

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

----------MONS: Start--------

MONS: A. D. 1572.

Capture by Louis of Nassau, recovery by the Spaniards,

and massacre.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.

MONS: A. D. 1691.

Siege and surrender to Louis XIV.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.

MONS: A. D. 1697.

Restored to Spain.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

MONS: A. D. 1709.

Siege and reduction by Marlborough and Prince Eugene.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.

MONS: A. D. 1713.

Transferred to Holland.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

MONS: A. D 1746-1748.

Taken by the French and restored to Austria.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747;

and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

----------MONS: End--------

MONS GRAMPIUS, Battle of.

See GRAMPIANS.

MONS SACER, Secession of the Roman Plebeians to.

See ROME: B. C. 494-492.

MONS TARPEIUS.

See CAPITOLINE HILL.

MONSIEUR.

Under the old regime, in France, this was the special

designation of the elder among the king's brothers.

MONT ST. JEAN, Battle of.

The battle of Waterloo—

is sometimes so called by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

MONTAGNAIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,

and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

MONTAGNARDS, OR THE MOUNTAIN.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER);

1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);

and after, to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

MONTAGNE NOIRE, Battle of (1794).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

----------MONTANA: Start--------

MONTANA: A. D. 1803,

Partly or wholly embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

The question.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

MONTANA: A. D. 1864-1889.

Organization as a Territory and admission as a State.

Montana received its Territorial organization in 1864, and was

admitted to the Union as a State in 1889.

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

----------MONTANA: End--------

MONTANISTS.

A name given to the followers of Montanus, who appeared in the

2d century, among the Christians of Phrygia, claiming that the

Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, "had, by divine appointment,

descended upon him for the purpose of foretelling things of

the greatest moment that were about to happen, and

promulgating a better and more perfect discipline of life and

morals. … This sect continued to flourish down to the 5th

century."

J. L. von Mosheim,

Historical Commentaries, 2d Century,

section. 66.

MONTAPERTI, Battle of (1260).

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

MONTAUBAN, Siege of (1621).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

MONTAUKS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

MONTBÉLIARD, Battle of (1871).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

MONTCALM, and the defense of Canada.

See CANADA: A. D. 1756, to 1759.

MONTE CASEROS, Battle of (1852).

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

MONTE CASINO, The Monastery of.

See BENEDICTINE ORDERS.

MONTE ROTUNDO, Battle of (1867).

See ITALY: A. D. 1867-1870.

MONTE SAN GIOVANNI, Battle and massacre (1495).

See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

MONTEBELLO,

Battle of (1800).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

Battle of (1859.)

See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.

MONTECATINI, Battle of (1315).

See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

MONTENEGRO.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

MONTENOTTE, Battles at (1796).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

MONTEREAU, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

MONTEREAU, The Bridge of (1419).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1415-1419.

MONTEREY, California:

Possession taken by the American fleet (1846).

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.

MONTEREY, Mexico:

Siege by the Americans (1846).

See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

MONTEREY, Pennsylvania, The Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA).

MONTEVIDEO: Founding of the city.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

{2226}

MONTEZUMA, The so-called Empire of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

MONTFORT, Simon de (the elder), The Crusade of.

See CRUSADES: A. D.1201-1203.

MONTFORT, Simon de (the younger),

The English Parliament and the Barons' war.

See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH: EARLY STAGES IN ITS EVOLUTION;

and ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

MONTGOMERY, General Richard, and his expedition against Quebec.

See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.

MONTGOMERY CONSTITUTION and Government.

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

MONTI OF SIENA, The.

See SIENA.

MONTLEHERY, Battle of (1465).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468.

----------MONTMÉDY: Start--------

MONTMÉDY: A. D. 1657.

Siege and capture by the French and English.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.

MONTMÉDY: A. D. 1659.

Cession to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

----------MONTMÉDY: End--------

MONTMIRAIL, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

MONTPELIER, Treaty of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

MONTPELIER, Second Treaty of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

MONTPENSIER, Mademoiselle, and the Fronde.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1653.

----------MONTREAL: Start--------

MONTREAL: A. D. 1535.

The Naming of the Island.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.

MONTREAL: A. D. 1611.

The founding of the City by Champlain.

See CANADA: A. D. 1611-1616.

MONTREAL: A. D. 1641-1657.

Settlement under the seigniory of the Sulpicians.

See CANADA: A.D. 1637-1657.

MONTREAL: A. D. 1689.

Destructive attack by the Iroquois.

See CANADA: A. D. 1640-1700.

MONTREAL: A. D. 1690.

Threatened by the English Colonists.

See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

MONTREAL: A. D. 1760.

The surrender of the city and of all Canada to the English.

See CANADA: A. D. 1760.

MONTREAL: A. D. 1775-1776.

Taken by the Americans and recovered by the British.

See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.

MONTREAL: A. D. 1813.

Abortive expedition of American forces against the city.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

----------MONTREAL: End--------

MONTROSE, and the Covenanters.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640; and 1644-1645.

MONZA, Battle of (1412).

See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

MONZON,

MONÇON, Treaty of (1626).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

MOODKEE, Battle of (1845).

See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

MOOKERHYDE, Battle of (1574).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.

MOOLTAN,

MULTAN: A. D. 1848-1849.

Siege and capture by the English.

See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

MOORE, Sir John:

Campaign in Spain and death.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

MOORE'S CREEK, Battle of (1776).

See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775-1776.

MOORISH SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES.

See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.

----------MOORS: Start--------

MOORS, OR MAURI,

Origin.

See NUMIDIANS.

MOORS: A. D. 698-709.

Arab conquest.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709;

and MAROCCO.

MOORS: A. D. 711-713.

Conquest of Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713, and after.

MOORS: 11-13th Centuries.

The Almoravides and Almohades in Morocco.

See ALMORAVIDES; and ALMOHADES.

MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.

Persecution and final expulsion from Spain.

The deadly effect upon that country.

"After the reduction … of the last Mohammedan kingdom in

Spain, the great object of the Spaniards became to convert

those whom they had conquered [in violation of the treaty made

on the surrender of Granada]. … By torturing some, by burning

others, and by threatening all, they at length succeeded; and

we are assured that, after the year 1526, there was no

Mohammedan in Spain, who had not been converted to

Christianity. Immense numbers of them were baptized by force;

but being baptized, it was held that they belonged to the

Church, and were amenable to her discipline. That discipline

was administered by the Inquisition, which, during the rest of

the 16th century, subjected these new Christians, or Moriscoes,

as they were now called, to the most barbarous treatment. The

genuineness of their forced conversions was doubted; it

therefore became the business of the Church to inquire into

their sincerity. The civil government lent its aid; and among

other enactments, an edict was issued by Philip II., in 1566,

ordering the Moriscoes to abandon everything which by the

slightest possibility could remind them of their former

religion. They were commanded, under severe penalties, to

learn Spanish, and to give up all their Arabic books. They

were forbidden to read their native language, or to write it,

or even to speak it in their own houses. Their ceremonies and

their very games were strictly prohibited. They were to

indulge in no amusements which had been practised by their

fathers; neither were they to wear such clothes as they had

been accustomed to. Their women were to go unveiled; and, as

bathing was a heathenish custom, an public baths were to be

destroyed, and even an baths in private houses. By these and

similar measures, these unhappy people were at length goaded

into rebellion; and in 1568 they took the desperate step of

measuring their force against that of the whole Spanish

monarchy. The result could hardly be doubted; but the

Moriscoes maddened by their sufferings, and fighting for their

all, protracted the contest till 1571, when the insurrection was

finally put down. By this unsuccessful effort they were

greatly reduced in numbers and in strength; and during the

remaining 27 years of the reign of Philip II. we hear

comparatively little of them. Notwithstanding an occasional

outbreak, the old animosities were subsiding, and in the

course of time would probably have disappeared. At all events,

there was no pretence for violence on the part of the Spaniards,

since it was absurd to suppose that the Moriscoes, weakened in

every way, humbled, broken, and scattered through the kingdom,

could, even if they desired it, effect anything against the

resources of the executive government.

{2227}

But, after the death of Philip II., that movement began …

which, contrary to the course of affairs in other nations,

secured to the Spanish clergy in the 17th century, more power

than they had possessed in the 16th. The consequences of this

were immediately apparent. The clergy did not think that the

steps taken by Philip II. against the Moriscoes were

sufficiently decisive. … Under his successor, the clergy …

gained fresh strength, and they soon felt themselves

sufficiently powerful to begin another and final crusade

against the miserable remains of the Moorish nation. The

Archbishop of Valencia was the first to take the field. In

1602, this eminent prelate presented a memorial to Philip III.

against the Moriscoes; and finding that his views were

cordially supported by the clergy, and not discouraged by the

crown, he followed up the blow by another memorial having the

same object. … He declared that the Armada, which Philip II.

sent against England in 1588, had been destroyed, because God

would not allow even that pious enterprise to succeed, while

those who undertook it, left heretics undisturbed at home. For

the same reason, the late expedition to Algiers had failed; it

being evidently the will of Heaven that nothing should prosper

while Spain was inhabited by apostates. He, therefore,

exhorted the king to exile all the Moriscoes, except some whom

he might condemn to work in the galleys, and others who could

become slaves, and labour in the mines of America. This, he

added, would make the reign of Philip glorious to all

posterity, and would raise his fame far above that of his

predecessors, who in this matter had neglected their obvious

duty. … That they should all be slain, instead of being

banished, was the desire of a powerful party in the Church,

who thought that such signal punishment would work good by

striking terror into the heretics of every nation. Bleda, the

celebrated Dominican, one of the most influential men of his

time, wished this to be done, and to be done thoroughly. He

said, that, for the sake of example, every Morisco in Spain

should have his throat cut; because it was impossible to tell

which of them were Christians at heart, and it was enough to

leave the matter to God, who knew his own, and who would

reward in the next world those who were really Catholics. …

The religious scruples of Philip III. forbade him to struggle

with the Church; and his minister Lerma would not risk his own

authority by even the show of opposition. In 1609 he announced

to the king, that the expulsion of the Moriscoes had become

necessary. 'The resolution,' replied Philip, 'is a great one;

let it be executed.' And executed it was, with unflinching

barbarity. About 1,000,000 of the most industrious inhabitants

of Spain were hunted out like wild beasts, because the

sincerity of their religious opinions was doubtful. Many were

slain, as they approached the coast; others were beaten and

plundered; and the majority, in the most wretched plight,

sailed for Africa. During the passage, the crew, in many of

the ships, rose upon them, butchered the men, ravished the

women, and threw the children into the sea. Those who escaped

this fate, landed on the coast of Barbary, where they were

attacked by the Bedouins, and many of them put to the sword.

Others made their way into the desert, and perished from

famine. Of the number of lives actually sacrificed, we have no

authentic account; but it is said, on very good authority,

that in one expedition, in which 140,000 were carried to

Africa, upwards of 100,000 suffered death in its most

frightful forms within a few months after their expulsion from

Spain. Now, for the first time, the Church was really

triumphant. For the first time there was not a heretic to be

seen between the Pyrenees and the Straits of Gibraltar. All

were orthodox, and all were loyal. Every inhabitant of that

great country obeyed the Church, and feared the king. And from

this happy combination, it was believed that the prosperity

and grandeur of Spain were sure to follow. … The effects

upon the material prosperity of Spain may be stated in a few

words. From nearly every part of the country, large bodies of

industrious agriculturists and expert artificers were suddenly

withdrawn. The best systems of husbandry then known, were

practised by the Moriscoes, who tilled and irrigated with

indefatigable labour. The cultivation of rice, cotton, and

sugar, and the manufacture of silk and paper were almost

confined to them. By their expulsion all this was destroyed at

a blow, and most of it was destroyed for ever. For the Spanish

Christians considered such pursuits beneath their dignity. In

their judgment, war and religion were the only two avocations

worthy of being followed. To fight for the king, or to enter

the Church was honourable; but everything else was mean and

sordid. When, therefore, the Moriscoes were thrust out of

Spain, there was no one to fill their place; arts and

manufactures either degenerated, or were entirely lost, and

immense regions of arable land were left uncultivated. …

Whole districts were suddenly deserted, and down to the

present day have never been repeopled. These solitudes gave

refuge to smugglers and brigands, who succeeded the

industrious inhabitants formerly occupying them; and it is

said that from the expulsion of the Moriscoes is to be dated

the existence of those organized bands of robbers, which,

after this period, became the scourge of Spain, and which no

subsequent government has been able entirely to extirpate. To

these disastrous consequences, others were added, of a

different, and, if possible, of a still more serious kind. The

victory gained by the Church increased both her power and her

reputation. … The greatest men, with hardly an exception,

became ecclesiastics, and all temporal considerations, all

views of earthly policy, were despised and set at nought. No

one inquired; no one doubted; no one presumed to ask if all

this was right. The minds of men succumbed and were prostrate.

While every other country was advancing, Spain alone was

receding. Every other country was making some addition to

knowledge, creating some art, or enlarging some science, Spain

numbed into a death-like torpor, spellbound and entranced by

the accursed superstition which preyed on her strength,

presented to Europe a solitary instance of constant decay."

H. T. Buckle,

History of Civilization,

volume 2, chapter 8.

ALSO IN:

W. H. Prescott,

History of the Reign of Philip II.,

book 5, chapters 1-8 (volume 3).

R. Watson,

History of the Reign of Philip III.,

book 4.

J. Dunlop,

Memoirs of Spain, 1621-1700,

volume 1, chapter 1.

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

MOORS: 15-19th Centuries.

The kingdom of Marocco.

See MAROCCO.

----------MOORS: End--------

MOPH.

See MEMPHIS.

{2228}

MOQUELUMNAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MOQUELUMNAN FAMILY.

MOQUIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

MORA, The.

The name of the ship which bore William the Conqueror to

England, and which was the gift of his wife, the Duchess

Matilda.

MORAT, Battle of (1476).

See BURGUNDY (THE FRENCH DUKEDOM): A. D. 1476-1477.

----------MORAVIA: Start--------

MORAVIA:

Its people and their early history.

See BOHEMIA: ITS PEOPLE, &c.

MORAVIA: 9th Century.

Conversion to Christianity.

The kingdom of Svatopluk and its obscure destruction.

"Moravia has not even a legendary history. Her name appears

for the first time at the beginning of the 9th century, under

its Slav form, Morava (German 'March,' 'Moehren'). It is used

to denote at the same time a tributary of the Danube and the

country it waters; it is met with again in the lower valley of

that stream, in Servia, and appears to have a Slav origin.

During the 7th and 8th centuries there is no doubt Moravia was

divided among several princes, and had a hard struggle against

the Avars. The first prince whose name is known was Moïmir,

who ruled at the beginning of the 9th century. … During his

reign Christianity made some progress in Moravia. … Moïmir

tried to withstand the Germans, but was not successful; and in

846 Louis the German invaded his country, deposed him, and

made his nephew Rostislav, whom the chroniclers call Rastiz,

ruler in his stead. … The new prince, Rostislav, determined

to secure both the political and moral freedom of his country.

He fortified his frontiers and then declared war against the

emperor. He was victorious, and when once peace was secured he

undertook a systematic conversion of his people. Thus came

about one of the great episodes in the history of the Slavs,

and their Church, the mission of the apostles Cyril and

Methodius. … After having struggled successfully for some

time against the Germans" Rostislav was "betrayed by his

nephew and vassal, Svatopluk, into the hands of Karloman, duke

of Carinthia and son of Louis the German, who put out his eyes

and shut him up in a monastery. Svatopluk believed himself

sure of the succession to his uncle as the price of his

treachery, but a very different reward fell to his lot, as

Karloman, trusting but little in his fidelity to the Germans,

threw him also into captivity. The German yoke was, however,

hateful to the Moravians; they soon rebelled, and Karloman

hoped to avert the danger by releasing Svatopluk and placing

him at the head of an army. Svatopluk marched against the

Moravians, then suddenly joined his forces to theirs and

attacked the Germans. This time the independence of Moravia

was secured, and was recognized by the treaty of Forcheim

(874). … Thenceforward peace reigned between Svatopluk and

Louis the German. … At one time he [Svatopluk] was the most

powerful monarch of the Slavs; Rome was in treaty with him,

Bohemia gravitated towards the orbit of Moravia, while Moravia

held the empire in check. … At this time [891] the kingdom

of Svatopluk … included, besides Moravia and the present

Austrian Silesia, the subject country of Bohemia, the Slav

tribes on the Elbe and the Vistula as far as the neighbourhood

of Magdeburg, part of Western Galicia, the country of the

Slovaks, and Lower Pannonia." But Svatopluk was ruined by war

with his neighbor, Arnulf, duke of Pannonia. The latter

"entered into an alliance with Braclav, a Slovene prince,

sought the aid of the king of the Bulgarians, and, what was of

far graver importance, summoned to his help the Magyars, who

had just settled themselves on the Lower Danube. Swabians,

Bavarians, Franks, Magyars, and Slovenes rushed simultaneously

upon Moravia. Overwhelmed by numbers, Svatopluk made no

attempt at resistance; he shut up his troops in fortresses,

and abandoned the open country to the enemy, who ravaged it

for four whole weeks. Then hostilities ceased; but no durable

peace could exist between the two adversaries. War began again

in the following year, when death freed Arnulf from Svatopluk.

… At his death he left three sons; he chose the eldest,

Moïmir II., as his heir, and assigned appanages to each of the

others. On his death-bed he begged them to live at peace with

one another, but his advice was not followed. … Bohemia soon

threw off those bonds which had attached her as a vassal to

Svatopluk; the Magyars invaded Moravian Pannonia, and forced

Moïmir into an alliance with them. … In the year 900 the

Bavarians, together with the Chekhs, invaded Moravia. In 903

the name of Moïmir disappears. As to the cause of his death,

as to how it was that suddenly and for ever the kingdom of

Moravia was destroyed, the chronicles tell us nothing. Cosmas

of Prague shows us Moravia at the mercy of Germans, Chekhs,

and Hungarians; then history is silent, towns and castles

crumble to pieces, churches are overthrown, the people are

scattered."

L. Leger,

History of Austro-Hungary,

chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

G. F. Maclear,

Conversion of the West: The Slavs,

chapter 4.

MORAVIA: A. D. 1355.

Absorption in the kingdom of Bohemia.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1355.

----------MORAVIA: End----------

MORAVIAN OR BOHEMIAN BRETHREN (Unitas Fratrum):

Origin and early history.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457; and 1621-1648.

MORAVIAN OR BOHEMIAN BRETHREN (Unitas Fratrum):

In Saxony and in America.

The Indian Missions.

"In 1722, and in the seven following years, a considerable

number of these 'Brethren,' led by Christian David, who were

persecuted in their homes, were received by Count Zinzendorf

on his estate at Berthelsdorf in Saxony. They founded a

village called Herrnhut, or 'the Watch of the Lord.' There

they were joined by Christians from other places in Germany,

and, after some time, Zinzendorf took up his abode among them,

and became their principal guide and pastor. … In 1737, he

consecrated himself wholly to the service of God in connection

with the Moravian settlement, and was ordained a bishop. …

Zinzendorf had before been received into the Lutheran

ministry. The peculiar fervor which characterized his

religious work, and certain particulars in his teaching,

caused the Saxon Government, which was wedded to the

traditional ways of Lutheranism, to exclude him from Saxony

for about ten years (1736-1747). He prosecuted his religious

labors in Frankfort, journeyed through Holland and England,

made a voyage to the West Indies, and, in 1741, another voyage

to America.

{2229}

New branches of the Moravian body he planted in the countries

which he visited. … It was a church within a church that

Zinzendorf aimed to establish. It was far from his purpose to

found a sect antagonistic to the national churches in the

midst of which the Moravian societies arose. … With a

religious life remarkable as combining warm emotion with a

quiet and serene type of feeling, the community of Zinzendorf

connected a missionary zeal not equalled at that time in any

other Protestant communion. Although few in number, they sent

their gospel messengers to all quarters of the globe."

G. P. Fisher,

History of the Christian Church,

pages 506-507.

The first settlement of the Moravians in America was planted

in Georgia, in 1735. "But Oglethorpe's border war with the

Spaniards compelled him to call every man in his colony to

arms, and the Moravians, rather than forsake their principles

[of non-resistance, and dependence upon prayer], abandoned

their lands and escaped to Pennsylvania [1740]. Here some of

their brethren were already fixed. Among the refugees was the

young David Zeisberger, the future head of the Ohio missions.

Bethlehem on the Lehigh became, and is yet, the centre in

America of their double system of missions and education. They

bought lands, laid out villages and farms, built houses,

shops, and mills, but everywhere, and first of all, houses of

prayer, in thankfulness for the peace and prosperity at length

found. The first mission established by Zinzendorf in the

colonies was in 1741, among the Mohican Indians, near the

borders of New York and Connecticut. The bigoted people and

authorities of the neighborhood by outrages and persecution

drove them off, so that they were forced to take refuge on the

Lehigh. The brethren established them in a new colony twenty

miles above Bethlehem, to which they gave the name of

Gnadenhütten (Tents of Grace). The prosperity of the Mohicans

attracted the attention and visits of the Indians beyond. The

nearest were the Delawares, between whom and the Mohicans

there were strong ties of affinity, as branches of the old

Lenni Lenape stock. Relations were thus formed between the

Moravians and the Delawares. And by the fraternization between

the Delawares and Shawanees … and their gradual emigration

to the West to escape the encroachments of Penn's people, it

occurred that the Moravian missionaries, Zeisberger foremost,

accompanied their Delaware and Mohican converts to the

Susquehanna in 1765, and again, when driven from there by the

cession at Fort Stanwix, journeyed with them across the

Alleghanies to Goshgoshink, a town established by the

unconverted Delawares far up the Alleghany River." In 1770,

having gained some important converts among the Delawares of

the Wolf clan, at Kuskuskee, on Big Beaver Creek, they

transferred themselves to that place, naming it Friedenstadt.

But there they were opposed with such hostility by warriors

and white traders that they determined "to plunge a step

further into the wilderness, and go to the head chief of the

Delawares at Gepelmukpechenk (Stillwater, or Tuscarawi) on the

Muskingum. It was near this village that Christian Frederick

Post, the brave, enterprising pioneer of the Moravians, had

established himself in 1761, with the approbation of the

chiefs. … By marriage with an Indian wife he had forfeited

his regular standing with the congregation. His intimate

acquaintance with the Indians, and their languages and

customs, so far gained upon them that in 1762 he was permitted

to take Heckewelder to share his cabin and establish a school

for the Indian children. But in the autumn the threatened

outburst of Pontiac's war had compelled them to flee." Early

in 1772 the Moravian colony "was invited by the council at

Tuscarawi, the Wyandots west of them approving it, to come

with all their Indian brethren from the Alleghany and

Susquehanna, and settle on the Muskingum (as the Tuscarawas

was then called), and upon any lands that they might choose."

The invitation was accepted. "The pioneer party, in the

removal from the Beaver to Ohio, consisted of Zeisberger and

five Indian families, 28 persons, who arrived at this

beautiful ground May 3, 1772. … The site was at the large

spring, and appropriately it was named for it Shoenbrun. In

August arrived the Missionaries Ettwein and Heckewelder, with

the main body of Christian Indians who had been invited from

the Alleghany and the Susquehanna, about 250 in number. …

This, and further accessions from the east in September, made

it advisable to divide the colony into two villages. The

second [named Gnadenhütten] was established ten miles below

Shoenbrun. … In April, 1773, the remnants of the mission on

the Beaver joined their brethren in Ohio. The whole body of

the Moravian Indians … was now united and at rest under the

shelter of the unconverted but … tolerant Delaware warriors.

… The population of the Moravian villages at the close of

1775 was 414 persons. … The calamity of the Moravians was

the war of the American Revolution. It developed the dangerous

fact that their villages … were close upon the direct line

between Pittsburgh and Detroit, the outposts of the two

contending forces." The peaceful settlement became an object

of hostility to the meaner spirits on both sides. In

September, 1781, by order of the British commander at Detroit,

they were expelled from their settlement, robbed of all their

possessions, and sent to Sandusky. In the following February,

a half-starved party of them, numbering 96, who had ventured

back to their ravaged homes, for the purpose of gleaning the

corn left standing in the fields, were massacred by a brutal

American force, from the Ohio. "So perished the Moravian

missions on the Muskingum. Not that the pious founders ceased

their labors, or that these consecrated scenes knew them no

more. But their Indian communities, the germ of their work,

the sign of what was to be accomplished by them in the great

Indian problem, were scattered and gone, Zeisberger, at their

head, labored with the remnants of their congregation for

years in Canada. They then transferred themselves temporarily

to settlements on the Sandusky, the Huron, and the Cuyahoga

rivers. At last he and Heckewelder, with the survivors of

these wanderings, went back to their lands on the Tuscarawas,

now surrounded by the whites, but fully secured to them by the

generosity of Congress."

R. King,

Ohio,

chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

D. Cranz,

History of the United Brethren.

F. Bovet,

The Banished Count (Life of Zinzendorf).

E. de Schweinitz,

Life and Times of David Zeisberger.

D. Zeisberger,

Diary.

D. Berger,

United Brethren

(American Church History),

volume 12.

{2230}

----------MOREA: Start--------

MOREA:

Origin of the name.

"The Morea must … have come into general use, as the name of

the peninsula [of the Peloponnesus] among the Greeks, after

the Latin conquest [of 1204-1205], even allowing that the term

was used among foreigners before the arrival of the Franks.

… The name Morea was, however, at first applied only to the

western coast of the Peloponnesus, or perhaps more

particularly to Elis, which the epitome of Strabo points out

as a district exclusively Sclavonian, and which, to this day,

preserves a number of Sclavonian names. … Originally the

word appears to be the same geographical denomination which

the Sclavonians of the north had given to a mountain district

of Thrace in the chain of Mount Rhodope. In the 14th century

the name of this province is written by the Emperor

Cantacuzenos, who must have been well acquainted with it

personally, Morrha. Even as late as the 14th century, the

Morea is mentioned in official documents relating to the Frank

principality as a province of the Peloponnesus, though the

name was then commonly applied to the whole peninsula."

G. Finlay,

History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,

chapter 1, section 4.

MOREA:

The Principality of the.

See ACHAIA: A. D. 1205-1387.

----------MOREA: End--------

MOREAU, General,

The Campaigns and the military and political fortunes of.

See FRANCE:

A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);

1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);

1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER), (NOVEMBER);

1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY); and 1804-1805;

also, GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (AUGUST).

MORETON BAY DISTRICT.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840, and 1859.

MORGAN, General Daniel, and the War or the American Revolution.

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

MORGAN, General John H., and his raid into Ohio and Indiana.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).

MORGAN, William, The abduction of.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1826-1832.

MORGANATIC MARRIAGES.

"Besides the dowry which was given before the marriage

ceremony had been performed, it was customary [among some of

the ancient German peoples] for the husband to make his wife a

present on the morning after the first night. This was called

the 'morgengabe,' or morning gift, the presenting of which,

where no previous ceremony had been observed, constituted a

particular kind of connexion called matrimonium morganaticam,

or 'morganatic marriage. As the liberality of the husband was

apt to be excessive, we find the amount limited by the

Langobardian laws to one fourth of the bridegroom's

substance."

W. C. Perry,

The Franks,

chapter 10.

MORGARTEN, Battle or (1315).

See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

MORINI, The.

See BELGÆ.

MORISCOES.

This name was given to the Moors in Spain after their nominal

and compulsory conversion to Christianity.

See MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.

MORMAERS,

MAARMORS.

A title, signifying great Maer or Steward, borne by certain

princes or sub-kings of provinces in Scotland in the 10th and

11th centuries. The Macbeth of history was Mormaer of Moray.

W. F. Skene,

Celtic Scotland,

volume 3, pages 49-51.

See, also, SCOTLAND: A. D. 1039-1054.

MORMANS, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

----------MORMONISM: Start--------

MORMONISM: A. D. 1805-1830.

Joseph Smith and the Book or Mormon.

"Joseph Smith, Jr., who … appears in the character of the

first Mormon prophet, and the putative founder of Mormonism

and the Church of Latter Day Saints, was born in Sharon,

Windsor County, Vermont, December 13, 1805. He was the son of

Joseph Smith, Sr., who, with his wife Lucy and their family,

removed from Royalton, Vermont, to Palmyra, New York, in the

summer of 1816. The family embraced nine children, Joseph,

Jr., being the fourth in the order of their ages. … At

Palmyra, Mr. Smith, Sr., opened 'a cake and beer shop,' as

described by his signboard, doing business on a small scale,

by the profits of which, added to the earnings of an

occasional day's work on hire by himself and his elder sons,

for the village and farming people, he was understood to

secure a scanty but honest living for himself and family. …

In 1818 they settled upon a nearly wild or unimproved piece of

land, mostly covered with standing timber, situate about two

miles south of Palmyra. … Little improvement was made upon

this land by the Smith family in the way of clearing, fencing,

or tillage. … The larger proportion of the time of the

Smiths … was spent in hunting and fishing … and idly

lounging around the stores and shops in the village. … At

this period in the life and career of Joseph Smith, Jr., or

'Joe Smith,' as he was universally named, and the Smith

family, they were popularly regarded as an illiterate,

whiskey-drinking, shiftless, irreligious race of people—the

first named, the chief subject of this biography, being

unanimously voted the laziest and most worthless of the

generation. … Taciturnity was among his characteristic

idiosyncrasies, and he seldom spoke to anyone outside of his

intimate associates, except when first addressed by another;

and then, by reason of his extravagancies of statement, his

word was received with the least confidence by those who knew

him best. He could utter the most palpable exaggeration or

marvellous absurdity with the utmost apparent gravity. … He

was, however, proverbially good-natured, very rarely if ever

indulging in any combative spirit toward anyone, whatever

might be the provocation, and yet was never known to laugh.

Albeit, he seemed to be the pride of his indulgent father, who

has been heard to boast of him as the 'genus of the family,'

quoting his own expression. Joseph, moreover, as he grew in

years, had learned to read comprehensively, in which

qualification he was far in advance of his elder brother, and

even of his father. … As he … advanced in reading and

knowledge, he assumed a spiritual or religious turn of mind,

and frequently perused the Bible, becoming quite familiar with

portions thereof. … The final conclusion announced by him

was, that all sectarianism was fallacious, all the churches on

a false foundation, and the Bible a fable. … In September,

1819, a curious stone was found in the digging of a well upon

the premises of Mr. Clark Chase, near Palmyra. This stone

attracted particular notice on account of its peculiar shape,

resembling that of a child's foot. It was of a whitish, glassy

appearance, though opaque, resembling quartz.

{2231}

Joseph Smith, Sr., and his elder sons Alvin and Hyrum, did the

chief labor of this well-digging, and Joseph, Jr., who had

been a frequenter in the progress of the work, as an idle

looker-on and lounger, manifested a special fancy for this

geological curiosity, and he carried it home with him. …

Very soon the pretension transpired that he could see

wonderful things by its aid. … The most glittering sights

revealed to the mortal vision of the young impostor, in the

manner stated, were hidden treasures of great value, including

enormous deposits of gold and silver sealed in earthen pots or

iron chests, and buried in the earth in the immediate vicinity

of the place where he stood. These discoveries finally became

too dazzling for his eyes in daylight, and he had to shade his

vision by looking at the stone in his hat! … The imposture

was renewed and repeated at frequent intervals from 1820 to

1827, various localities being the scenes of … delusive

searches for money [for carrying on which Smith collected

contributions from his dupes], as pointed out by the

revelations of the magic stone. … Numerous traces of the

excavations left by Smith are yet remaining as evidences of

his impostures and the folly of his dupes, though most of them

have become obliterated by the clearing off and tilling of the

lands where they were made." In the summer of 1827 "Smith had

a remarkable vision. He pretended that, while engaged in

secret prayer, alone in the wilderness, an 'angel of the Lord'

appeared to him, with the glad tidings that 'all his sins had

been forgiven'; … also that he had received a 'promise that

the true doctrine and the fulness of the doctrine and the

fulness of the gospel should at some future time be revealed

to him.' … In the fall of the same year Smith had yet a more

miraculous and astonishing vision than any preceding one. He

now arrogated to himself, by authority of 'the spirit of

revelation,' and in accordance with the previous 'promises'

made to him, a far higher sphere in the scale of human

existence, assuming to possess the gift and power of 'prophet,

seer, and revelator.' On this assumption he announced to his

family friends and the bigoted persons who had adhered to his

supernaturalism, that he was 'commanded,' upon a secretly

fixed day and hour, to go alone to a certain spot revealed to

him by the angel, and there take out of the earth a metallic

book of great antiquity in its origin, and of immortal

importance in its consequences to the world, which was a

record, in mystic letters or characters, of the long-lost

tribes of Israel, … who had primarily inhabited this

continent, and which no human being besides himself could see

and live; and the power to translate which to the nations of

the earth was also given to him only, as the chosen servant of

God. … Accordingly, when the appointed hour came, the

prophet, assuming his practised air of mystery, took in hand

his money-digging spade and a large napkin, and went off in

silence and alone in the solitude of the forest, and after an

absence of some three hours returned, apparently with his

sacred charge concealed within the folds of the napkin. …

With the book was also found, or so pretended, a huge pair of

spectacles in a perfect state of preservation, or the Urim and

Thummim, as afterward interpreted, whereby the mystic record

was to be translated and the wonderful dealings of God

revealed to man, by the superhuman power of Joseph Smith. …

The sacred treasure was not seen by mortal eyes, save those of

the one anointed, until after the lapse of a year or longer

time, when it was found expedient to have a new revelation, as

Smith's bare word had utterly failed to gain a convert beyond

his original circle of believers. By this amended revelation,

the veritable existence of the book was certified to by eleven

witnesses of Smith's selection. It was then heralded as the

Golden Bible, or Book of Mormon, and as the beginning of a new

gospel dispensation. … The spot from which the book is

alleged to have been taken is the yet partially visible pit

where the money speculators had previously dug for another

kind of treasure, which is upon the summit of what has ever

since been known as 'Mormon Hill,' now owned by Mr. Anson

Robinson, in the town of Manchester, New York. This book …

was finally described by Smith and his echoes as consisting of

metallic leaves or plates resembling gold, bound together in a

volume by three rings running through one edge of them, the

leaves opening like an ordinary paper book. … Translations

and interpretations were now entered upon by the prophet," and

in 1830 the "Book of Mormon" was printed and published at

Palmyra, New York, a well-to-do farmer, Martin Harris, paying

the expense. "In claiming for the statements herein set forth

the character of fairness and authenticity, it is perhaps

appropriate to add … that the locality of the malversations

resulting in the Mormon scheme is the author's birthplace;

that he was well acquainted with 'Joe Smith,' the first Mormon

prophet, and with his father and all the Smith family, since

their removal to Palmyra from Vermont … ; that he was

equally acquainted with Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery, and

with most of the earlier followers of Smith, either as

money-diggers or Mormons; that he established at Palmyra, in

1823, and was for many years editor and proprietor of the

'Wayne Sentinel,' and was editorially connected with that

paper at the printing by its press of the original edition of

the 'Book of Mormon' in 1830; that in the progress of the work

he performed much of the reading of the proof-sheets,

comparing the same with the manuscript copies, and in the

meantime had frequent and familiar interviews with the pioneer

Mormons."

P. Tucker,

Origin, Rise and Progress of Mormonism,

chapters 1-5, and preface.

It is believed by many that the groundwork of the Book of

Mormon was supplied by an ingenious romance, written about

1814 by the Rev. Solomon Spalding, a Presbyterian minister of

some learning and literary ability, then living at New Salem

(now Conneaut), Ohio. This romance, which was entitled "The

Manuscript Found," purported to narrate the history of a

migration of the lost ten tribes of Israel to America. It was

never published; but members of Mr. Spalding's family, and

other persons, who read it or heard it read, in manuscript,

claimed confidently, after the appearance of the Book of

Mormon that the main body of the narrative and the notable

names introduced in it were identical with those of the

latter. Some circumstances, moreover, seemed to indicate a

probability that Mr. Spalding's manuscript, being left during

several weeks with a publisher named Patterson, at Pittsburgh,

came there into the hands of one Sidney Rigdon, a young printer,

who appeared subsequently as one of the leading missionaries

of Mormonism, and who is believed to have visited Joseph

Smith, at Palmyra, before the Book of Mormon came to light.

{2232}

On the other hand, Mormon believers have, latterly, made much

of the fact that a manuscript romance without title, by

Solomon Spalding, was found, not many years since, in the

Sandwich Islands, by President Fairchild of Oberlin College,

Ohio, and proved to bear no resemblance to the Book of Mormon.

Spalding is said, however, to have written several romances,

and, if so, nothing is proved by this discovery.

T. Gregg,

The Prophet of Palmyra,

chapters 1-11 and 41-45.

ALSO IN:

E. E. Dickinson,

New Light on Mormonism.

J. M. Kennedy,

Early Days of Mormonism,

chapters 1-2.

MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846.

The First Hegira to Kirtland, Ohio, the Second to Missouri,

the Third to Nauvoo, Illinois.

The Danites.

The building of the city and its Temple.

Hostility of the Gentiles.

The slaying of the Prophet.

"Immediately after the publication of the Book the Church was

duly organized at Manchester. On April 6, 1830, six members

were ordained elders—Joseph Smith, Sr., Joseph Smith, Jr.,

Hyrum Smith, Samuel Smith, Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Knight.

The first conference was held at Fayette, Seneca county, in

June. A special 'revelation' at this time made Smith's wife

'the Elect Lady and Daughter of God,' with the high-sounding

title of 'Electa Cyria.' In later years this lady became

disgusted with her husband's religion. … Another revelation

was to the effect that Palmyra was not the gathering-place of

the Saints, after all, but that they should proceed to

Kirtland, in Ohio. Consequently, the early part of 1831 saw

them colonized in that place, the move being known as 'The

First Hegira.' Still another revelation (on the 6th of June)

stated that some point in Missouri was the reliable spot.

Smith immediately selected a tract in Jackson county, near

Independence. By 1833 the few Mormons who had moved thither

were so persecuted that they went into Clay county, and

thence, in 1838, into Caldwell county, naming their settlement

'Far West.' The main body of the Mormons, however, remained

in Kirtland from 1831 till they were forced to join their

Western brethren in 1838. Brigham Young, another native of

Vermont, joined at Kirtland in 1832, and was ordained an

elder. The conference of elders on May 3, 1833, repudiated the

name of Mormons and adopted that of 'Latter-Day Saints.' The

first presidency consisted of Smith, Rigdon, and Frederick G.

Williams. In May, 1835, the Twelve Apostles—among them

Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball and Orson Hyde—left on a

mission for proselytes. … The Mormons were driven from

Missouri by Governor Boggs's 'Extraordinary Order,' which

caused them to gain sympathy as having been persecuted in a

slave State. They moved to Hancock county, Illinois, in 1840,

and built up Nauvoo [on the Mississippi River, 14 miles above

Keokuk] by a charter with most unusual privileges."

F. G. Mather,

The Early Days of Mormonism

(Lippincott's Magazine, August 1880).

In the midst of the troubles of Smith and his followers in

Missouri, and before their removal to Nauvoo, there arose

among them "the mysterious and much dreaded band that finally

took the name of Danites, or sons of Dan, concerning which so

much has been said while so little is known, some of the

Mormons even denying its existence. But of this there is no

question. Says Burton: 'The Danite band, a name of fear in the

Mississippi Valley, is said by anti-Mormons to consist of men

between the ages of 17 and 49. They were originally termed

Daughters of Gideon, Destroying Angels—the gentiles say

devils—and, finally, Sons of Dan, or Danites, from one of

whom was prophesied he should be a serpent in the path. They

were organized about 1837 under D. W. Patten, popularly called

Captain Fearnot, for the purpose of dealing as avengers of

blood with gentiles; in fact they formed a kind of death

society, desperadoes, thugs, hashshashiyun—in plain English,

assassins in the name of the Lord. The Mormons declare

categorically the whole and every particular to be the

calumnious invention of the impostor and arch apostate, Mr.

John C. Bennett. John Hyde, a seceder, states that the Danite

band, or the United Brothers of Gideon, was organized on the

4th of July, 1838, and was placed under the command of the

apostle David Patten, who for the purpose assumed the name of

Captain Fearnot. It is the opinion of some that the Danite

band, or Destroying Angels as again they are called, was

organized at the recommendation of the governor of Missouri as

a means of self-defence against persecutions in that State."

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 21, pages 124-126.

"The Mormons first attracted national notice about the time

they quitted Missouri to escape persecution and took refuge in

Illinois. In that free State a tract of land was granted them

and a charter too carelessly liberal in terms. The whole body,

already numbering about 15,000, gathered into a new city of

their own, which their prophet, in obedience to a revelation,

named Nauvoo; here a body of militia was formed under the name

of the Nauvoo legion; and Joe Smith, as mayor, military

commander, and supreme head of the Church, exerted an

authority almost despotic. The wilderness blossomed and

rejoiced, and on a lofty height of this holy city was begun a

grotesque temple, built of limestone, with huge monolithic

pillars which displayed carvings of moons and suns. … Nauvoo

was well laid out, with wide streets which sloped towards

well-cultivated farms; all was thrift and sobriety, no

spirituous liquors were drunk, and the colonists here, as in

their former settlements, furnished the pattern of insect

industry. The wonderful proselyting work of this new sect

abroad had already begun, and recruits came over from the

overplus toilers in the British factory towns. … But there

was something in the methods of this sect, not to speak of the

jealousy they excited by their prosperity, which bred them

trouble here as everywhere else where they came in contact

with American commonplace life. It was whispered that the

hierarchy of impostors grew rich upon the toils of their

simple followers. Polygamy had not yet received the sanction

of a divine revelation; and yet the first step towards it was

practised in the theory of 'sealing wives' spiritually, which

Smith had begun in some mysterious way that it baffled the

gentile to discover. Sheriffs, too, were forbidden to serve

civil process in Nauvoo without the written permission of its

mayor.

{2233}

All these strange scandals of heathenish pranks, and more,

besides, stirred up the neighboring gentiles, plain Illinois

backwoodsmen; and the more so that, besides his 3,000 militia,

the Mormon prophet controlled 6,000 votes, which, in the close

Presidential canvass of 1844, might have been enough to decide

the election. Joe Smith, indeed, whose Church nominated him

for President, showed a fatal but thoroughly American

disposition at this time to carry his power into politics.

This king of plain speech, who dressed as a journeyman

carpenter, suppressed a newspaper which was set up by seceding

Mormons. When complaint was made he resisted Illinois process

and proclaimed martial law; the citizens of the surrounding

towns armed for a fight. Joe Smith was arrested and thrown

into jail at Carthage with his brother Hiram. The rumor

spreading that the governor was disposed to release these

prisoners, a disorderly band gathered at the jail and shot

them [June 27, 1844]. Thus perished Smith, the Mormon founder.

His death at first created terror and confusion among his

followers, but Brigham Young, his successor, proved a man of

great force and sagacity. The exasperated gentiles clamored

loudly to expel these religious fanatics from Illinois as they

had been expelled from Missouri; and finally, to prevent a

civil war, the governor of the State took forcible possession

of the holy city, with its unfinished temple, while the Mormon

charter of Nauvoo was repealed by the legislature. The Mormons

now determined [1846] upon the course which was most suited to

their growth, and left American pioneer society to found their

New Jerusalem on more enduring foundations west of the Rocky

Mountains."

J. Schouler,

History of the United States,

volume 4, pages 547-549.

ALSO IN:

T. Ford,

History of Illinois,

chapters 8 and 10-11.

A. Davidson and B. Stuvé,

History of Illinois,

chapter 41.

J. Remy and J. Brenchley,

Journey to Great Salt Lake City,

book 2, chapters 2-3 (volume 1).

R. F. Burton,

The City of the Saints,

page 359.

MORMONISM: A. D. 1846-1848.

The gentile attack on Nauvoo.

Exodus of "the Saints" into the wilderness of the West.

Their settlement on the Great Salt Lake.

"During the winter of 1845-46 the Mormons made the most

prodigious preparations for removal. All the houses in Nauvoo,

and even the temple, were converted into work-shops; and

before spring more than 12,000 wagons were in readiness. The

people from all parts of the country flocked to Nauvoo to

purchase houses and farms, which were sold extremely low,

lower than the prices at a sheriff's sale, for money, wagons,

horses, oxen, cattle, and other articles of personal property

which might be needed by the Mormons in their exodus into the

wilderness. By the middle of May it was estimated that 16,000

Mormons had crossed the Mississippi and taken up their line of

march with their personal property, their wives and little

ones, westward across the continent to Oregon or California;

leaving behind them in Nauvoo a small remnant of 1,000 souls,

being those who were unable to sell their property, or who

having no property to sell were unable to get away. The twelve

apostles went first with about 2,000 of their followers.

Indictments had been found against nine of them in the circuit

court of the United States for the district of Illinois at its

December term, 1845, for counterfeiting the current coin of

the United States. The United States Marshal had applied to me

[the writer being at that time Governor of Illinois] for a

militia force to arrest them; but in pursuance of the amnesty

agreed on for old offences, believing that the arrest of the

accused would prevent the removal of the Mormons, and that if

arrested there was not the least chance that any of them would

ever be convicted, I declined the application unless regularly

called upon by the President of the United States according to

law. … It was notorious that none of them could be

convicted; for they always commanded evidence and witnesses

enough to make a conviction impossible."

T. Ford,

History of Illinois,

chapter 13.

"The Saints who had as yet been unable to leave Nauvoo

continued to labour assiduously at the completion of the

temple, so as to accomplish one of the most solemn prophecies

of their well-beloved martyr. The sacred edifice was

ultimately entirely finished, at the end of April, 1846, after

having cost the Saints more than a million dollars. It was

consecrated with great pomp on the 1st and 2nd of May, 1846.

… The day after the consecration of the temple had been

celebrated, the Mormons withdrew from the building all the

sacred articles which adorned it, and satisfied with having

done their duty in accomplishing, though to no purpose

otherwise, a Divine command, they crossed the Mississippi to

rejoin those who had gone before them. Nauvoo was abandoned.

There remained within its deserted walls but some hundred

families, whom the want of means and the inability to sell

their effects had not allowed as yet to start upon the road to

emigration. The presence of those who were thus detained,

together with the bruit caused by the ceremony of dedication,

raised the murmurs of the gentiles, and seemed to keep alive

their animosity and alarm. Their eager desire to be entirely

rid of the Mormons made them extremely sensitive to every idle

story respecting the projects of the latter to return. They

imagined that the Saints had only left in detachments to seek

recruits among the red-skins, meaning to come back with

sufficient force once more to take possession of their

property in Illinois. These apprehensions rose to such a pitch

that the anti-Mormons plunged into fresh acts of illegality

and barbarism. … On the 10th of September, 1846, an army of

1,000 men, possessing six pieces of artillery, started to

begin the attack under the direction of a person named Carlin,

and of the Reverend Mr. Brockman. Nauvoo had only 300 men to

oppose to this force, and but five small cannon, made from the

iron of an old steamboat. The fire opened on the afternoon of

the 10th, and continued on the 11th, 12th and 13th of

September." Every attack of the besiegers was repulsed, until

they consented to terms under which the remnant of the Mormons

was to evacuate the town at the end of five days. "The Mormons

had only three men killed and a few wounded during the whole

affair; the loss of their enemies is unknown, but it would

seem that it was heavy. It was agreed that a committee of five

persons should remain at Nauvoo to attend to the interests of

the exiles, and on the 17th of September, while the enemy, to

the number of 1,625, entered the city to plunder, the remnant

of the Mormons crossed the Mississippi to follow 'the track of

Israel towards the west.' …

{2234}

About the end of June, 1846, the first column of the emigrants

arrived on the banks of the Missouri, a little above the point

of confluence of this immense river with the Platte, in the

country of the Pottawatamies, where it stopped to await the

detachments in its rear. This spot, now known by the name of

Council Bluffs, was christened Kanesville by the Mormons. …

At this place, in the course of July, the federal government

made an appeal to the patriotism of the Mormons, and asked

them to furnish a contingent of 500 men for the Mexican war.

Did the government wish to favour the Saints by affording them

an opportunity of making money by taking service, or did it

merely wish to test their fidelity? This we cannot decide. …

The Saints generally regarded this levy as a species of

persecution; however … they furnished a battalion of 520

men, and received $20,000 for equipment from the war

department." The head quarters of the emigration remained at

Kanesville through the winter of 1846-47, waiting for the

brethren who had been left behind. There were several

encampments, however, some of them about 200 miles in advance.

The shelters contrived were of every kind—huts, tents, and

caves dug in the earth. The suffering was considerable and

many deaths occurred. The Indians of the region were

Pottawatamies and Omahas, both hostile to the United States

and therefore friendly to the Mormons, whom they looked upon

as persecuted foes of the American nation. "On the 14th of

April [1847], Brigham Young and eight apostles, at the head of

143 picked men and 70 carts laden with grain and agricultural

implements, started in search of Eden in the far-west. … The

23rd of July, 1847, Orson Pratt, escorted by a small advanced

guard, was the first to reach the Great Salt Lake. He was

joined the following day by Brigham Young and the main body of

the pioneers. That day, the 24th of July, was destined to be

afterwards celebrated by the Mormons as the anniversary of

their deliverance. … Brigham Young declared, by divine

inspiration, that they were to establish themselves upon the

borders of the Salt Lake, in this region, which was nobody's

property, and wherein consequently his people could follow

their religion without drawing upon themselves the hatred of

any neighbours. He spent several weeks in ascertaining the

nature of the country, and then fixed upon a site for the holy

city. … When he had thus laid the foundations of his future

empire, he set off on his return to Council Bluffs, leaving on

the borders of the Salt Lake the greater portion of the

companions who had followed him in his distant search. During

the summer, a convoy of 566 waggons, laden with large

quantities of grain, left Kanesville and followed upon the

tracks of the pioneers. … On their arrival at the spot

indicated by the president of the Church, they set to work

without a moment's repose. Land was tilled, trees and hedges

planted, and grain sown before the coming frost." The main

body of the emigrants, led by Brigham Young, moved from the

banks of the Missouri about the 1st of May, 1848, and arrived

at the Salt Lake the following autumn.

J. Remy and J. Brenchley,

Journey to Great-Salt-Lake City,

book 2, chapter 4 (volume 1).

"On the afternoon of the 22d [August, 1847] a conference was

held, at which it was resolved that the place should be called

the City of the Great Salt Lake. The term 'Great' was retained

for several years, until changed by legislative enactment. It

was so named in contradistinction to Little Salt Lake, a term

applied to a body of water some 200 miles to the south."

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 21, chapter 10.

MORMONISM: A. D. 1850.

Organization of the Territory of Utah.

See UTAH: A. D. 1849-1850.

MORMONISM: A. D. 1857-1859.

The rebellion in Utah.

See UTAH: A. D. 1857-1859.

MORMONISM: A. D. 1894.

Admission of Utah to the Union as a State.

See UTAH: A. D. 1894.

----------MORMONISM: End----------

MOROCCO.

See MAROCCO.

MORONA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

MORRILL TARIFF, The.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1861-1864 (UNITED STATES).

MORRIS, Gouverneur,

The framing of the Federal Constitution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

The origin of the Erie Canal.

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

MORRIS, Robert, and the finances of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

MORRIS-DANCE, The.

"Both English and foreign glossaries, observes Mr. Douce,

uniformly ascribe the origin of this dance to the Moors,

although the genuine Moorish or Morisco dance was, no doubt,

very different from the European morris. … It has been

supposed that the morris-dance was first brought into England

in the reign of Edward III., and when John of Gaunt returned

from Spain: but it is much more probable that we had it from

our Gallic neighbours, or the Flemings."

H. Smith,

Festivals, Games, etc.,

chapter 18.

MORRIS ISLAND, Military operations on.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

MORRIS'S PURCHASE.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

MORRISTOWN, N. J.:

Washington in winter quarters (1777-1778).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1776-1777; and 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

MORTARA, Battle of (1849).

See ITALY; A. D. 1848-1849.

MORTEMER, Battle of.

The French army invading Normandy, A. D. 1054, was surprised

by the Normans, in the town of Mortemer and utterly routed.

The town was destroyed and never rebuilt.

E. A. Freeman,

Norman Conquest,

chapter 12, section 2 (volume 3).

MORTIMER'S CROSS, Battle of (1461).

One of the battles in the "Wars of the Roses," fought Feb. 2,

1461, on a small plain called Kingsland Field, near Mortimer's

Cross, in Herefordshire, England. The Yorkists, commanded by

young Edward, Earl of March (soon afterwards King Edward IV.)

were greatly superior in numbers to the Lancastrians, under

the Earl of Pembroke, and won a complete victory.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

MORTMAIN, The Statute of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1279.

MORTON, Thomas, at Merrymount.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1622-1628.

MORTUATH, The.

See TUATH, THE.

MOSA, The.

The ancient name of the river Meuse.

{2235}

----------MOSCOW: Start--------

MOSCOW: A. D. 1147.

Origin of the city.

"The name of Moscow appears for the first time in the

chronicles at the date of 1147. It is there said that the

Grand Prince George Dolgorouki, having arrived on the domain

of a boyard named Stephen Koutchko, caused him to be put to

death on some pretext, and that, struck by the position of one

of the villages situated on a height washed by the Moskowa,

the very spot whereon the Kremlin now stands, he built the

city of Moscow. … During the century following its

foundation, Moscow remained an obscure and insignificant

village of Souzdal. The chroniclers do not allude to it except

to mention that it was burned by the Tartars (1237), or that a

brother of Alexander Nevski, Michael of Moscow, was killed

there in a battle with the Lithuanians. The real founder of

the principality of the name was Daniel, a son of Alexander

Nevski, who had received this small town and a few villages as

his appanage. … He was followed, in due course, by his

brothers George and Ivan."

A. Rambaud,

History of Russia,

volume 1, chapter 12.

MOSCOW: A. D. 1362-1480.

Rise of the duchy which grew to be the Russian Empire.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

MOSCOW: A. D. 1571.

Stormed and sacked by the Crim Tartars.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1569-1571.

MOSCOW: A. D. 1812.

Napoleon in possession.

The burning of the city.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER);

and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

----------MOSCOW: End--------

MOSKOWA,

BORODINO, Battle of the.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

MOSLEM.

See ISLAM;

also MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.

MOSQUITO INDIANS AND MOSQUITO COAST.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSQUITO,

or MOSQUITO INDIANS;

also NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850;

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

MOTASSEM, Al, Caliph, A. D. 833-841.

MOTAWAKKEL, Al, Caliph, A. D. 847-861.

MOTYE, Siege of.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.

MOUGOULACHAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

MOULEY-ISMAEL, Battle of (1835).

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

MOULTRIE, Colonel, and the defense of Charleston.

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

MOUND-BUILDERS OF AMERICA, The.

See AMERICA, PREHISTORIC.

MOUNT BADON, Battle of.

This battle was fought A. D. 520 and resulted in a crushing

defeat of the West Saxons by the Britons, arresting the

advance of the latter in their conquest of southwestern

England for a generation. It figures in some legends among the

victories of King Arthur.

J. R. Green,

The Making of England,

chapter 3.

MOUNT CALAMATIUS, Battle of.

See SPARTACUS, RISING OF.

MOUNT ETNA, Battle of (1849).

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

MOUNT GAURUS, Battle of.

See ROME: B. C. 343-290.

MOUNT TABOR, Battle of (1799).

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

MOUNT VESUVIUS, Battle of (B. C. 338).

See ROME: B. C. 339-338.

MOUNTAIN, The Party of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER);

1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);

and after, to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE, The (1857).

See UTAH: A. D. 1857-1859.

MOURU.

See MARGIANA.

MOXO, The Great.

See EL DORADO.

MOXOS,

MOJOS, The.

See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;

also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

MOYTURA, Battle of.

Celebrated in the legendary history of Ireland and represented

as a fatal defeat of the ancient people in that country called

the Firbolgs by the new-coming Tuatha-de-Danaan. "Under the

name of the 'Battle of the Field of the Tower' [it], was long

a favourite theme of Irish song."

T. Moore,

History of Ireland,

chapter 5 (volume 1).

MOZARABES,

MOSTARABES.

The Christian people who remained in Africa and southern Spain

after the Moslem conquest, tolerated in the practice of their

religion, "were called Mostarabes or Mozarabes; they adopted

the Arabic language and customs. … The word is from the

Arabic 'musta'rab,' which means one 'who tries to imitate or

become an Arab in his manners and language.'"

H. Coppée,

History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,

book 4, chapter 3 (volume 1), with foot-note.

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 51.

MOZART HALL.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.

MUFTI.

See SUBLIME PORTE.

MUGELLO, Battle of (A. D. 542).

See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

MUGGLETONIANS.

See RANTERS.

MUGHAL OR MOGUL EMPIRE.

See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.

MUGWUMPS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

MUHAJIRIN, The.

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

MUHLBERG, Battle of (1547).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.

MÜHLDORF, OR MAHLDORF, Battle of (1322).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.

MULATTO.

See MESTIZO.

MULE, Crompton's, The invention of.

See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

MÜLHAUSEN, Battle of (1674).

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

MULLAGHMAST, The Massacre of.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.

MULLIGAN, Colonel James A.:

Defense of Lexington, Missouri.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI).

MULTAN, OR MOOLTAN:

Siege and capture by the English (1848-1849).

See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

MUNDA, Battle of.

See ROME: B. C. 45.

MUNDRUCU, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.

MUNERA GLADIATORIA.

See LUDI.

----------MUNICH: Start--------

MUNICH: 13th Century.

First rise to importance.

See BAVARIA: A. D. 1180-1356.

MUNICH: A. D. 1632.

Surrender to Gustavus Adolphus.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

MUNICH: A. D. 1743.

Bombardment and capture by the Austrians.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.

----------MUNICH: End--------

MUNICIPAL CONSTITUTIONS AND FORMS.

See COMMUNE; BOROUGH; and GUILD.

{2236}

MUNICIPAL CURIA OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE.

See CURIA, MUNICIPAL.

MUNICIPIUM.

"The term Municipium appears to have been applied originally

to those conquered Italian towns which Rome included in her

dominion without conferring on the people the Roman suffrage

and the capacity of attaining the honours of the Roman state.

… If the inhabitants of such Municipia had everything Roman

except the right to vote and to be eligible to the Roman

magistracies, they had Commercium and Connubium. By virtue of

the first, such persons could acquire property within the

limits of the Roman state, and could dispose of it by sale,

gift, and testament. By virtue of the second, they could

contract a legal marriage with the daughter of a Roman

citizen."

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 2, chapter 14.

MUNSEES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES,

and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;

also, MANHATTAN ISLAND.

----------MÜNSTER: Start--------

MÜNSTER: A. D. 1532-1536.

The reign of the Anabaptists.

See ANABAPTISTS OF MÜNSTER.

MÜNSTER: A. D. 1644-1648.

Negotiation of the Peace of Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648;

and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1646-1648.

----------MÜNSTER: End--------

MUNYCHIA.

See PIRÆUS.

MUNYCHIA, Battle of (B. C. 403).

See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

MURA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

MURAD V., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1876 (MAY-AUGUST).

MURAT, King of Naples, The career of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY),

1806 (JANUARY-OCTOBER);

GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER), to 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);

SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER);

ITALY: A. D. 1808-1809;

RUSSIA: A. D. 1812;

GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813, 1813 (AUGUST), to (OCTOBER);

ITALY: A. D. 1814, and 1815.

MURCI.

A name given to degenerate Romans, in the later days of the

Empire, who escaped military service by cutting off the

fingers of their right hands.

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 17.

MURET, Battle of (A. D. 1213).

See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1210-1213;

and SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.

MURFREESBOROUGH,

STONE RIVER, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).

MURRAY, The Regent, Assassination of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

MURRHINE VASES.

"The highest prices were paid for the so-called Murrhine vases

(vasa Murrhina) brought to Rome from the East. Pompey, after

his victory over Mithridates, was the first to bring one of

them to Rome, which he placed in the temple of the Capitoline

Jupiter. Augustus, as is well known, kept a Murrhine goblet

from Cleopatra's treasure for himself, while all her gold

plate was melted. The Consularis T. Petronius, who owned one

of the largest collections of rare vases, bought a basin from

Murrha for 300,000 sestertii; before his death he destroyed

this matchless piece of his collection, so as to prevent Nero

from laying hold of it. Nero himself paid for a handled

drinking-goblet from Murrha a million sestertii. Crystal vases

also fetched enormous prices. There is some doubt about the

material of these Murrhine vases, which is the more difficult

to solve, as the only vase in existence which perhaps may lay

claim to that name is too thin and fragile to allow of closer

investigation. It was found in the Tyrol in 1837.

See

Neue Zeitschrift des Ferdinandeums,

volume v. 1839.

Pliny describes the colour of the Murrhine vases as a mixture

of white and purple; according to some ancient writers, they

even improved the taste of the wine drunk out of them."

E. Guhl and W. Koner,

Life of the Greeks and Romans,

section 91.

"I believe it is now understood that the murrha of the Romans

was not porcelain, as had been supposed from the line,

'Murrheaque in Parthis pocula cocta focis' (Propert. iv. 5.

26.), but an imitation in coloured glass of a transparent

stone."

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 39, foot-note.

MURSA, Battle of (A. D. 351).

See ROME: A. D. 337-361.

MUSCADINS.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

MUSCULUS, The.

A huge movable covered way which the Romans employed in siege

operations. Its construction, of heavy timbers, with a

roof-covering of bricks, clay and hides, is described in

Cæsar's account of the siege of Massilia.

Cæsar,

The Civil War,

book 2, chapter 10.

MUSEUM, British.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN: ENGLAND.

MUSEUM OF ALEXANDRIA, The.

See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246.

MUSKHOGEES, OR MASKOKALGIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

MUSSULMANS.

See ISLAM.

MUSTAPHA I., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1617-1618; and 1622-1623.

Mustapha II., Turkish Sultan, 1695-1703.

Mustapha III., Turkish Sultan, 1757-1774.

Mustapha IV., Turkish Sultan, 1807-1808.

MUTA, Battle of.

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

MUTHUL, Battle of the.

See NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.

MUTINA, Battle of (B. C. 72).

See SPARTACUS, RISING OF.

MUTINA, Battle of (B. C. 43).

See ROME: B. C. 44-42.

MUTINA AND PARMA.

On the final conquest of Cisalpine Gaul by the Romans, about

220 B. C. the Senate planted the colonies of Mutina (Modena)

and Parma on the line of the Æmilian Road and assigned the

territory of the Apuans to the new colony of Luca (Lucca).

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

book 5, chapter 41 (volume 2).

MUTINY ACTS, The English.

In 1689 the Parliament (called a Convention at first) which

settled the English crown upon William of Orange and Mary,

"passed the first Act for governing the army as a separate and

distinct body under its own peculiar laws, called 'The Mutiny

Act.' … The origin of the first Mutiny Act was this. France

had declared war against Holland, who applied under the treaty

of Nimeguen to England for troops. Some English regiments

refused to go, and it was felt that the common law could not

be employed to meet the exigency. The mutineers were for the

time by military force compelled to submit, happily without

bloodshed; but the necessity for soldiers to be governed by

their own code and regulations became manifest. Thereupon the

aid of Parliament was invoked, but cautiously.

{2237}

The first Mutiny Act was very short in enactments and to

continue only six months. It recited that standing armies and

courts martial were unknown to English law, and enacted that

no soldier should on pain of death desert his colours, or

mutiny. At the expiration of the six months another similar

Act was passed, also only for six months: and so on until the

present practice was established of regulating and governing

the army, now a national institution, by an annual Mutiny Act,

which is requisite for the legal existence of a recognised

force, whereby frequent meeting of Parliament is indirectly

secured, if only to preserve the army in existence."

W. H. Torriano,

William the Third,

chapter 7.

"These are the two effectual securities against military

power: that no pay can be issued to the troops without a

previous authorisation by the commons in a committee of

supply, and by both houses in an act of appropriation; and

that no officer or soldier can be punished for disobedience,

nor any court-martial held, without the annual re-enactment of

the mutiny bill."

H. Hallam,

Constitutional History of England,

chapter 15 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

Lord Macaulay,

History of England,

chapter 11 (volume 3).

MUTINY OF THE ENGLISH FLEET.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

MUTINY OF THE PHILADELPHIA LINE.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1781 (JANUARY).

MUTINY OF THE SEPOYS.

See INDIA: A. D. 1857, to 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

MUYSCAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIBCHAS.

MYCALE, Battle of.

See GREECE: B. C. 479.

MYCENÆ.

See GREECE: MYCENÆ: AND ITS KINGS;

also ARGOS; HERACLEIDÆ; and HOMER.

MYCIANS, The.

A race, so-called by the Greeks, who lived anciently on the

coast of the Indian Ocean, east of modern Kerman. They were

known to the Persians as Maka.

G. Rawlinson,

Five Great Monarchies: Persia,

chapter 1.

MYLÆ, Naval battle at (B. C. 260).

See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

MYONNESUS, Battle of (B. C. 190).

See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

MYRMIDONS, The.

"Æakus was the son of Zeus, born of Ægina, daughter of Asopus,

whom the god had carried off and brought into the island to

which he gave her name. … Æakus was alone in Ægina: to

relieve him from this solitude, Zeus changed all the ants in

the island into men, and thus provided him with a numerous

population, who, from their origin, were called Myrmidons."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 1, chapter 10.

According to the legends, Peleus, Telamon and Phocus were the

sons of Æakus; Peleus migrated, with the Myrmidons, or some

part of them, to Thessaly, and from there the latter

accompanied his son Achilles to Troy.

MYSIANS, The.

See PHRYGIANS.—MYSIANS.

MYSORE, The founding of the kingdom of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769.

MYSORE WARS, with Hyder Ali and Tippoo Saib.

See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769; 1780-1783; 1785-1793;

and 1798-1805.

MYSTERIES, Ancient Religious.

See ELEUSINIAN MYSTERIES.

MYSTICISM.

QUIETISM.

"The peculiar form of devotional religion known under these

names was not, as most readers are aware, the offspring of the

17th century. It rests, in fact, on a substratum of truth

which is coeval with man's being, and expresses one of the

elementary principles of our moral constitution. … The

system of the Mystics arose from the instinctive yearning of

man's soul for communion with the Infinite and the Eternal.

Holy Scripture abounds with such aspirations—the Old

Testament as well as the New; but that which under the Law was

'a shadow of good things to come,' has been transformed by

Christianity into a living and abiding reality. The Gospel

responds to these longings for intercommunion between earth

and heaven by that fundamental article of our faith, the

perpetual presence and operation of God the Holy Ghost in the

Church, the collective 'body of Christ,' and in the individual

souls of the regenerate. But a sublime mystery like this is

not incapable of misinterpretation. … The Church has ever

found it a difficult matter to distinguish and adjudicate

between what may be called legitimate or orthodox Mysticism

and those corrupt, degrading, or grotesque versions of it

which have exposed religion to reproach and contempt. Some

Mystics have been canonized as saints; others, no less

deservedly, have been consigned to obloquy as pestilential

heretics. It was in the East—proverbially the fatherland of

idealism and romance—that the earliest phase of error in this

department of theology was more or less strongly developed. We

find that in the 4th century the Church was troubled by a sect

called Massalians or Euchites, who placed the whole of

religion in the habit of mental prayer; alleging as their

authority the Scripture precept 'That men ought always to

pray, and not to faint.' They were for the most part monks of

Mesopotamia and Syria; there were many of them at Antioch when

St. Epiphanius wrote his Treatise against heresies, A. D. 376.

They held that every man is from his birth possessed by an

evil spirit or familiar demon, who can only be cast out by the

practice of continual prayer. They disparaged the Sacraments,

regarding them as things indifferent: they rejected manual

labor; and, although professing to be perpetually engaged in

prayer, they slept, we are told, the greater part of the day,

and pretended that in that state they received revelations

from above. … The Massalians did not openly separate from

the Church; they were condemned, however, by two Councils—one

at Antioch in 391, the other at Constantinople in 426.

Delusions of the same kind were reproduced from time to time

in the Oriental Church; and, as is commonly the case, the

originators of error were followed by a race of disciples who

advanced considerably beyond them. The Hesychasts, or

Quietists of Mount Athos in the 14th century, seem to have

been fanatics of an extreme type. They imagined that, by a

process of profound contemplation, they could discern

internally the light of the Divine Presence—the 'glory of

God'—the very same which was disclosed to the Apostles on the

Mount of Transfiguration. Hence they were also called

Thaborites.

{2238}

The soul to which this privilege was vouchsafed had no need to

practise any of the external acts or rites of religion. …

The theory of abstract contemplation, with the extraordinary

fruits supposed to be derived from it, travelled in due course

into the West, and there gave birth to the far-famed school of

the Mystics, of which there were various ramifications. The

earliest exponent of the system in France was John Scotus

Erigena, the contemporary and friend of Charles the Bald. …

Erigena incurred the censures of the Holy See; but the results

of his teaching were permanent. … The Mystics, or

Theosophists as some style them, attained a position of high

renown and influence at Paris towards the close of the 12th

century. Here two of the ablest expositors of the learning of

the middle age, Hugh and Richard of St. Victor, initiated

crowds of ardent disciples into the mysteries of the 'via

interna,' and of 'pure love'—that marvellous quality by which

the soul, sublimated and etherialized, ascends into the very

presence-chamber of the King of kings. … The path thus

traced was trodden by many who were to take rank eventually as

the most perfect masters of spiritual science; among them are

the venerated names of Thomas à Kempis, St. Bonaventure, John

Tauler of Strasburg, Gerson, and St. Vincent Ferrier. … But,

on the other hand, it is not less true that emotional religion

has been found to degenerate, in modern as well as in ancient

times, into manifold forms of moral aberration. … To exalt

above measure the dignity and privileges of the spiritual

element in man carries with it the danger of disparaging the

material part of our nature; and this results in the

preposterous notion that, provided the soul be absorbed in the

contemplation of things Divine, the actions of the body are

unimportant and indifferent. How often the Church has combated

and denounced this most insidious heresy is well known to all

who have a moderate acquaintance with its history. Under the

various appellations of Beghards, Fratricelli, Cathari,

Spirituals, Albigenses, Illuminati, Guerinets, and Quietists,

the self-same delusion has been sedulously propagated in

different parts of Christendom, and with the same ultimate

consequences. A revival of the last-named sect, the Quietists,

took place in Spain about the year 1675, when Michel de

Molinos, a priest of the diocese of Saragossa, published his

treatise called 'The Spiritual Guide,' or, in the Latin

translation, 'Manuductio spiritualis.' His leading principle,

like that of his multifarious predecessors, was that of

habitual abstraction of the mind from sensible objects, with a

view to gain, by passive contemplation, not only a profound

realisation of God's presence, but so perfect a communion with

Him as to end in absorption into His essence. … Persons of

the highest distinction—Cardinals, Inquisitors, nay, even

Pope Innocent himself—were suspected of sharing these

dangerous opinions. Molinos was arrested and imprisoned, and

in due time the Inquisition condemned sixty-eight propositions

from his works; a sentence which was confirmed by a Papal bull

in August, 1687. Having undergone public penance, he was

admitted to absolution; after which, in 'merciful'

consideration of his submission and repentance, he was

consigned for the rest of his days to the dungeons of the Holy

Office. Here he died in November, 1692. … 'The principles of

Quietism had struck root so deeply, that they were not to be

soon dislodged either by the terrors of the Inquisition, or by

the well-merited denunciations of the Vatican. The system was

irresistibly fascinating to minds of a certain order. Among

those who were dazzled by it was the celebrated Jeanne Marie

De la Mothe Guyon," whose ardent propagation of her mystic

theology in the court circles of France—where Fenelon,

Madame de Maintenon, and other important personages were

greatly influenced—gave rise to bitter controversies and

agitations. In the end, Madame Guyon was silenced and

imprisoned and Fenelon was subjected to humiliating papal

censures.

W. H. Jervis,

History of the Church of France,

volume 2, chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

R. A. Vaughan,

Hours with the Mystics.

J. Bigelow,

Miguel Molinos, the Quietist.

T. C. Upham,

Life of M'me Guyon.

H. L. S. Lear,

Fenelon,

chapters 3-5.

S. E. Herrick,

Some Heretics of Yesterday,

chapter 1.

H. C. Lea,

Chapters from the Religious History of Spain: Mystics.

MYTILENE, Siege of.

See LESBOS.

N

N. S.

New Style.

See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.

NAARDEN: A. D. 1572.

Massacre by the Spaniards.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.

NABATHEANS, The.

"Towards the seventh century B. C., the name Edomite suddenly

disappears, and is used only by some of the Israelitish

prophets, who, in doing so, follow ancient traditions. Instead

of it is found the hitherto unknown word, Nabathean.

Nevertheless the two names, Nabathean and Edomite, undoubtedly

refer to the same people, dwelling in the same locality,

possessing the same empire, with the same boundaries, and the

same capital, Selah [Petra]. Whence arose this change of name?

According to an appearances from an internal revolution, of

which we have no record, a change in the royal race and in the

dominant tribe."

F. Lenormant,

Manual of Ancient History,

book 7, chapter 4.

"This remarkable nation [the Nabatheans, or Nabatæans] has

often been confounded with its eastern neighbours, the

wandering Arabs, but it is more closely related to the Aramæan

branch than to the proper children of Ishmael. This Aramæan

or, according to the designation of the Occidentals, Syrian

stock must have in very early times sent forth from its most

ancient settlements about Babylon a colony, probably for the

sake of trade, to the northern end of the Arabian gulf; these

were the Nabatæans on the Sinaitic peninsula, between the gulf

of Suez and Aila, in the region of Petra (Wadi Mousa). In

their ports the wares of the Mediterranean were exchanged for

those of India; the great southern caravan-route, which ran

from Gaza to the mouth of the Euphrates and the Persian gulf,

passed through the capital of the Nabatæans—Petra—whose

still magnificent rock-palaces and rock-tombs furnish clearer

evidence of the Nabatæan civilization than does an almost

extinct tradition."

T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 5, chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

H. Ewald,

History of Israel,

volume 5, page 351.

{2239}

NABOB.

NAWAB.

Under the Moghul empire, certain viceroys or governors of

provinces bore the title of Nawab, as the Nawab Wuzeer or

Vizier of Oude, which became in English speech Nabob, and

acquired familiar use in England as a term applied to rich

Anglo-Indians.

NADIR SHAH, sovereign of Persia, A. D. 1736-1747.

NAEFELS, OR NÖFELS, Battle of (1388).

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

Battle of (1799).

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

NAGPUR:

The British acquisition and annexation.

See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819, and 1848-1856.

NAHANARVALI, The.

See LYGIANS.

NAHUA PEOPLES.

NAHUATL.

See MEXICO, ANCIENT.

NAIRS, The.

See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

NAISSUS, The Battle of.

See GOTHS: A. D. 268-270.

NAJARA, Battle of.

See NAVARETTE.

NAMANGAN, Battle of (1876).

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

NAMAQUA, The.

See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

NAMNETES,

NANNETES, The.

See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

----------NAMUR: Start--------

NAMUR: A. D. 1692.

Siege and capture by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1692.

NAMUR: A. D. 1695.

Siege and recovery by William of Orange.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696.

NAMUR: A. D. 1713.

Ceded to Holland.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;

and NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1713-1715.

NAMUR: A. D. 1746-1748.

Taken by the French and ceded to Austria.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747;

and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: CONGRESS.

----------NAMUR: End--------

NANA SAHIB, and the Sepoy Revolt.

See INDIA: A. D. 1848-1856; 1857 (MAY-AUGUST);

and 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

NANCY: Defeat and death of Charles the Bold (1477).

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477.

----------NANKING: Start--------

NANKING: A. D. 1842.

Treaty ending the Opium War and opening Chinese ports.

See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

NANKING: A. D. 1853-1864.

The capital of the Taiping Rebels.

See CHINA: A. D. 1850-1864.

----------NANKING: End--------

----------NANTES: Start--------

NANTES:

Origin of the name.

See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

NANTES: A. D. 1598.

The Edict of Henry IV.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1598-1599.

NANTES: A. D. 1685.

The Revocation of the Edict.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.

NANTES: A. D. 1793.

Unsuccessful attack by the Vendeans.

The crushing of the revolt and the frightful

vengeance of the Terrorists.

The demoniac Carrier and his Noyades.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER);

THE CIVIL WAR; and 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

----------NANTES: End--------

NANTICOKES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

NANTWICH, Battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (JANUARY).

NAO.

See CARAVELS.

NAPATA.

See ETHIOPIA.

----------NAPLES: Start--------

NAPLES:

Origin of the city.

See NEAPOLIS AND PALÆPOLIS.

NAPLES: A. D. 536-543.

Siege and capture by Belisarius.

Recovery by the Goths.

See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

NAPLES: A. D. 554-800.

The dukedom.

See ROME: A. D. 554-800.

NAPLES: 8-9th Centuries.

The duchy of Beneventum.

See BENEVENTUM; also, AMALFI.

NAPLES: A. D. 1000-1080.

The Norman Conquest.

Grant by the Pope as a fief of the Church.

See ITALY: A. D. 1000-1090.

NAPLES: A. D. 1127.

Union of Apulia with Sicily and formation of the

kingdom of Naples or the Two Sicilies.

See ITALY: A. D. 1081-1194.

NAPLES: A. D. 1282-1300.

Separation from Sicily.

Continuance as a separate kingdom under the House of Anjou.

Adhesion to the name "Sicily."

See ITALY: A. D. 1282-1300;

also, TWO SICILIES.

NAPLES: A. D. 1312-1313.

Hostilities between King Robert and the Emperor, Henry VII.

See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

NAPLES: A. D. 1313-1328.

King Robert's leadership of the Guelf interest in Italy.

His part in the wars of Tuscany.

See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

NAPLES: A. D. 1343-1389.

The troubled reign of Joanna I.

Murder of her husband, Andrew of Hungary.

Political effects of the Great Schism in the Church.

War of Charles of Durazzo and Louis of Anjou.

Interfering violence of Pope Urban VI.

See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.

NAPLES: A. D. 1386-1414.

Civil war between the Durazzo and the Angevin parties.

Success of Ladislas.

His capture, loss, and recapture of Rome.

See ITALY: A. D. 1386-1414.

NAPLES: A. D. 1414-1447.

Renewal of civil war.

Defeat of the Angevins and acquisition of the

crown by Alfonso, king of Aragon and Sicily.

League with Florence and Venice against Milan.

See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

NAPLES: A. D.1447-1454.

Claim of King Alfonso to the duchy of Milan.

War with Milan and Florence.

See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

NAPLES: A. D. 1458.

Separation of the crown from those of Aragon and Sicily.

Left to an illegitimate son of Alfonso.

Revived French claims.

See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

NAPLES: A. D. 1494-1496.

Invasion and temporary conquest by Charles VIII. of France.

Retreat of the French.

Venetian acquisitions in Apulia.

See ITALY: A. D. 1492-1494, 1494-1496;

and VENICE: A. D. 1494-1503.

NAPLES: A. D. 1501-1504.

Perfidious treaty of partition between

Louis XII. of France and Ferdinand of Aragon.

Their joint conquest.

Their quarrel and war.

The French expelled.

The Spaniards in possession.

See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

NAPLES: A. D. 1504-1505.

Relinquishment of French claims.

See ITALY: A. D. 1504-1506.

NAPLES: A. D. 1508-1509.

The League of Cambrai against Venice.

See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

NAPLES: A. D. 1528.

Siege by the French and successful defense.

See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

NAPLES: A. D. 1528-1570.

Under the Spanish viceroys.

Ravages of the Turks along the coast.

The blockade and peril of the city.

Revolt against the Inquisition.

Alva's repulse of the French.

See ITALY: A. D. 1528-1570;

and FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

{2240}

NAPLES: A. D. 1544.

Repeated renunciation of the claims of Francis I.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

NAPLES: A. D. 1647-1654.

Revolt of Masaniello.

Undertakings of the Duke of Guise and the French.

See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.

NAPLES: A. D. 1713.

The kingdom ceded to the House of Austria.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

NAPLES: A. D. 1734-1735.

Occupation by the Spaniards.

Cession to Spain, with Sicily, forming a kingdom for

Don Carlos, the first of the Neapolitan Bourbons.

See ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735;

and FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

NAPLES: A. D. 1742.

The neutrality of the kingdom in the War of the Austrian

Succession enforced by England.

See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.

NAPLES: A. D. 1744.

The War of the Austrian Succession.

Neutrality broken.

See ITALY: A. D. 1744.

NAPLES: A. D. 1749-1792.

Under the Spanish-Bourbon regime.

See ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.

NAPLES: A. D. 1769.

Seizure of Papal territory.

Demand for the suppression of the Order of the Jesuits.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

NAPLES: A. D. 1793.

Joined in the Coalition against Revolutionary France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

NAPLES: A. D. 1796.

Armistice with Bonaparte.

Treaty of Peace.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER).

NAPLES: A. D. 1798-1799.

The king's attack upon the French at Rome.

His defeat and flight.

French occupation of the capital.

Creation of the Parthenopeian Republic.

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

NAPLES: A. D. 1799.

Expulsion of the French.

Restoration of the king.

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

NAPLES: A. D. 1800-1801.

The king's assistance to the Allies.

Saved from Napoleon's vengeance by the intercession

of the Russian Czar.

Treaty of Foligno.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).

NAPLES: A. D. 1805 (April).

Joined in the Third Coalition against France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).

NAPLES: A. D. 1805-1806.

Napoleon's edict of dethronement against the king and queen.

Its enforcement by French arms.

Joseph Bonaparte made king of the Two Sicilies.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER)

NAPLES: A. D. 1808.

The crown resigned by Joseph Bonaparte (now king of Spain),

and conferred on Joachim Murat.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

NAPLES: A. D. 1808-1809.

Murat on the throne.

Expulsion of the English from Capri.

Popular discontent.

Rise of the Carbonari.

Civil war in Calabria.

See ITALY: A. D. 1808-1809.

NAPLES: A. D. 1814.

Desertion of Napoleon by Murat.

His treaty with the Allies.

See ITALY: A. D. 1814.

NAPLES: A. D. 1815.

Murat's attempt to head an Italian national movement.

His downfall and fate.

Restoration of the Bourbon Ferdinand.

See ITALY: A. D. 1815.

NAPLES: A. D. 1815.

Accession to the Holy Alliance.

See HOLY ALLIANCE.

NAPLES: A. D. 1820-1821.

Insurrection.

Concession of a Constitution.

Perjury and duplicity of the king.

Intervention of Austria to overthrow the Constitution.

Merciless re-establishment of despotism.

See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.

NAPLES: A. D. 1820-1822.

The Congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona.

Austrian intervention sanctioned.

See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

NAPLES: A. D. 1830.

Death of Francis I.

Accession of Ferdinand II.

See ITALY: A. D.1830-1832.

NAPLES: A. D. 1848.

Abortive revolt.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

NAPLES: A. D. 1859-1861.

Death of Ferdinand II.

Accession of Francis II.

The overthrow of his kingdom by Garibaldi.

Its absorption in the kingdom of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

----------NAPLES: End--------

NAPO,

QUIJO, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

NAPOLEON I.:

His career.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER);

and 1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER), to 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).

NAPOLEON III.:

His career as conspirator, President of the

French Republic, and Emperor.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1830-1840;

and 1848 (APRIL-DECEMBER), to 1870 (SEPTEMBER).

----------NARBONNE: Start--------

NARBONNE:

Founding of the city.

"In the year B. C. 118 it was proposed to settle a Roman

colony in the south of France at Narbo (Narbonne). … The

Romans must have seized some part of this country, or they

could not have made a colony, which implies the giving of land

to settlers. Narbo was an old native town which existed at

least as early as the latter part of the sixth century before

the Christian era. … The possession of Narbo gave the Romans

easy access to the fertile valley of the Garonne, and it was

not long before they took and plundered Tolosa (Toulouse),

which is on that river. … Narbo also commanded the road into

Spain."

G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 1, chapter 22.

NARBONNE: A. D. 437.

Besieged by the Goths.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 419-451.

NARBONNE: A. D. 525-531.

The capital of the Visigoths.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.

NARBONNE: A. D. 719.

Capture and occupation by the Moslems.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.

NARBONNE: A. D. 752-759.

Siege and recovery from the Moslems.

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

----------NARBONNE: End--------

NARISCI, The.

See MARCOMANNI.

NARRAGANSETTS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636;

and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637, 1674-1675,

1675, and 1676-1678.

NARSES, Campaigns of.

See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

NARVA, Siege and Battle of (1700).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.

NARVAEZ, Expedition of.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

NASEBY, Battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JUNE).

----------NASHVILLE, Tennessee: Start--------

NASHVILLE, Tennessee: A. D. 1779-1784.

Origin and name of the city.

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796.

{2241}

NASHVILLE, Tennessee: A. D. 1862.

Occupied by the Union forces.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE);

and (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

NASHVILLE, Tennessee: A. D. 1864.

Under siege.

Defeat of Hood's army.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A D. 1864 (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

----------NASHVILLE, Tennessee: End--------

NASI, The.

This was the title of the President of the Jewish Sanhedrin.

NASR-ED-DEEN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1848-.

NASSAU, The House of.

"We find an Otho, Count of Nassau, so long ago as the

beginning of the 10th century, employed as general under the

Emperor Henry I … in subduing a swarm of savage Hungarians,

who for many years had infested Germany. … The same

fortunate warrior had a principal hand afterwards in reducing

the Vandals, Danes, Sclavonians, Dalmatians, and Bohemians.

Among the descendants of Otho of Nassau, Walram I and III more

particularly distinguished themselves in the cause of the

German Emperors; the former under the victorious Otho I, the

latter under Conrad II. It was to these faithful services of

his progenitors that, in a great measure, were owing the large

possessions of Henry, surnamed the Rich, third in descent from

the last mentioned Walram, and grandfather to the brave but

unhappy Emperor Adolphus [deposed and slain at the battle of

Gelheim, in 1298.]

See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

The accession, by marriage, of Breda, Vianden, and other

lordships in the Netherlands, gave the Nassaus such a weight

in those provinces that John II of Nassau-Dillemburg, and his

son Engelbert II, were both successively appointed Governors

of Brabant by the Sovereigns of that State [Charles the Bold,

Duke of Burgundy, and his son-in-law, the Emperor Maximilian].

… The last, who was likewise honoured with the commission of

Maximilian I's Lieutenant-General in the Low-Countries,

immortalized his fame, at the same time that he secured his

master's footing there, by the glorious victory of

Guinegaste,"—or Guinegate, or the "Battle of the Spurs."

See FRANCE: A. D. 1513—1515.

J. Breval,

History of the House of Nassau,

pages 2-3.

Engelbert II. dying childless, "was succeeded by his brother

John, whose two sons, Henry and William, of Nassau, divided

the great inheritance after their father's death. William

succeeded to the German estates, became a convert to

Protestantism, and introduced the Reformation into his

dominions. Henry, the eldest son, received the family

possessions and titles in Luxembourg, Brabant, Flanders and

Holland, and distinguished himself as much as his uncle

Engelbert, in the service of the Burgundo-Austrian house. The

confidential friend of Charles V., whose governor he had been

in that Emperor's boyhood, he was ever his most efficient and

reliable adherent. It was he whose influence placed the

imperial crown upon the head of Charles. In 1515 he espoused

Claudia de Chalons, sister of Prince Philibert of Orange, 'in

order,' as he wrote to his father, 'to be obedient to his

imperial Majesty, to please the King of France, and more

particularly for the sake of his own honor and profit.' His

son Rene de Nassau-Chalons succeeded Philibert. The little

principality of Orange, so pleasantly situated between

Provence and Dauphiny, but in such, dangerous proximity to the

seat of the 'Babylonian captivity' of the popes at Avignon,

thus passed to the family of Nassau. The title was of high

antiquity. Already in the reign of Charlemagne, Guillaume au

Court-Nez, or 'William with the Short Nose,' had defended the

little town of Orange against the assaults of the Saracens.

The interest and authority acquired in the demesnes thus

preserved by his valor became extensive, and in process of

time hereditary in his race. The principality became an

absolute and free sovereignty, and had already descended, in

defiance of the Salic law, through the three distinct families

of Orange, Baux, and Chalons. In 1544, Prince Rene died at the

Emperor's feet in the trenches of Saint Dizier. Having no

legitimate children, he left all his titles and estates to his

cousin-german, William of Nassau [the great statesman and

soldier, afterwards known as William the Silent], son of his

father's brother William, who thus at the age of eleven years

became William the Ninth of Orange."

J. L. Motley,

The Rise of the Dutch Republic,

part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

The Dutch branch of the House of Nassau is now represented by

the royal family of Holland. The possessions of the German

branch, in the Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau, after

frequent partitioning, was finally gathered into a duchy,

which Prussia extinguished and absorbed in 1866.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

ALSO IN:

E. A. Freeman,

Orange

(Macmillan's Magazine, February, 1875).

Baron Maurier,

Lives of all the Princes of Orange.

See, also, ORANGE;

and GUELDERLAND: A. D. 1079-1473.

NAT TURNER'S INSURRECTION.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.

----------NATAL: Start--------

NATAL: The Name.

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

NATAL: A. D. 1834-1843.

Founding of the colony as a Dutch republic.

Its absorption in the British dominions.

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

----------NATAL: End--------

NATALIA, Queen of Servia.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1879-1889.

NATCHEZ, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

NATCHESAN FAMILY, and MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

NATCHEZ: A. D. 1862.

Taken by the National forces.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

NATCHITOCHES, The.

See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, French Revolution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JUNE).

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, German Revolution.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

NATIONAL BANK SYSTEM.

See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1861-1878.

NATIONAL CONVENTION, French, End of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF FRANCE.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN: FRANCE.

NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1825-1828.

NATIONALISTS, OR HOME RULERS, Irish.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.

{2242}

NATIONALITY, The Principle of.

"Among the French a nationality is regarded as the work of

history, ratified by the will of man. The elements composing

it may be very different in their origin. The point of

departure is of little importance; the only essential thing is

the point reached. The Swiss nationality is the most complete.

It embraces three families of people, each of which speaks its

own language. Moreover, since the Swiss territory belongs to

three geographical regions, separated by high mountains,

Switzerland, which has vanquished the fatality of nature, from

both the ethnographical and geographical point of view, is a

unique and wonderful phenomenon. But she is a confederation,

and for a long time has been a neutral country. Thus her

constitution has not been subjected to the great ordeal of

fire and sword. France, despite her diverse races—Celtic,

German, Roman, and Basque—has formed a political entity that

most resembles a moral person. The Bretons and Alsacians, who

do not all understand the language of her government, have not

been the least devoted of her children in the hour of

tribulation. Among the great nations France is the nation par

excellence. Elsewhere the nationality blends, or tends to

blend, with the race, a natural development and, hence, one

devoid of merit. All the countries that have not been able to

unite their races into a nation, have a more or less troubled

existence. Prussia has not been able to nationalize (that is

the proper word to use) her Polish subjects; hence she has a

Polish question, not to mention at present any other. England

has an Irish question. Both Turkey and Austria have a number

of such questions. Groups of people in various parts of the

Austrian Empire demand from the Emperor that they may be

allowed to live as Germans, Hungarians, Tsechs, Croatians, in

fact, even as Italians. They do not revolt against him; on the

contrary, each of them offers him a crown. The time is,

however, past when a single head can wear several crowns;

to-day every crown is heavy. These race claims are not merely

a cause of internal troubles; the agitations that they arouse

may lead to great wars. Evidently no state will ever interpose

between Ireland and England, but, while quarrels take place

between Germans and Slavs, there will intervene the two

conflicting forces of Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism,

formidable results and final consequences of ethnographical

patriotism. Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism are, indeed, not

forces officially acknowledged and organized. The Emperor of

Germany can honestly deny that he is a Pan-Germanist, and the

Tsar that he is a Pan-Slavist. Germans and Slavs of Austria,

and Slavs of the Balkans, may, for their part, desire to

remain Austrian or independent, as they are to-day. It is none

the less true, however, that there is in Europe an old quarrel

between two great races, that each of them is represented by a

powerful empire, and that these empires cannot forever remain

unconcerned about the quarrels of the two races. … The chief

application of the principle of nationality has been the

formation of the Italian and German nations. In former times

the existence, in the centre of the Continent, of two objects

of greed was a permanent cause of war. Will the substitution

of two important states for German anarchy and Italian

polyarchy prove a guaranty of future peace?"

E. Lavisse,

General View of the Political History of Europe,

chapter 5, sections 6-7.

NATIONALRATH, The.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

NATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITIES.

See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.

NATIVE STATES OF INDIA.

See INDIA: A. D. 1877.

NATIVI.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL, &c.: ENGLAND.

NAUARCHI.

The title given in ancient Sparta to the commanders of the

fleet. At Athens "the term Nauarchi seems to have been

officially applied only to the commanders of the so-called

sacred triremes."

G. Schömann,

Antiquities of Greece: The State,

part 3, chapters 1, and 3.

NAUCRATIS.

See NAUKRATIS.

NAUKRARIES.

See PHYLÆ.

NAUKRATIS.

"Naukratis was for a long time the privileged port [in Egypt]

for Grecian commerce with Egypt. No Greek merchant was

permitted to deliver goods in any other part (port), or to

enter any other of the mouths of the Nile except the Kanôpic.

If forced into any of them by stress of weather, he was

compelled to make oath that his arrival was a matter of

necessity, and to convey his goods round by sea into the

Kanôpic branch to Naukratis; and if the weather still forbade

such a proceeding, the merchandise was put into barges and

conveyed round to Naukratis by the internal canals of the

delta. Such a monopoly, which made Naukratis in Egypt

something like Canton in China or Nangasaki in Japan, no

longer subsisted in the time of Herodotus. … At what precise

time Naukratis first became licensed for Grecian trade, we

cannot directly make out. But there seems reason to believe

that it was the port to which the Greek merchants first went,

so soon as the general liberty of trading with the country was

conceded to them; and this would put the date of such grant at

least as far back as the foundation of Kyrene, … about 630

B. C., during the reign of Psammetichus. … [About a century

later, Amasis] sanctioned the constitution of a formal and

organised emporium or factory, invested with commercial

privileges, and armed with authority exercised by presiding

officers regularly chosen. This factory was connected with,

and probably grew out of, a large religious edifice and

precinct, built at the joint cost of nine Grecian cities: four

of them Ionic,—Chios, Teos, Phokæa and Klazomenæ; four

Doric,—Rhodes, Knidus, Halikarnassus, and Phaselis; and one

Æolic,—Mitylene. By these nine cities the joint temple and

factory was kept up and its presiding magistrates chosen; but

its destination, for the convenience of Grecian commerce

generally, seems revealed by the imposing title of The

Hellênion."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 20.

The site of Naukratis has been determined lately by the

excavations of Mr. W. M. Flinders Petrie, begun in 1885, the

results of which are appearing in the publications of the

"Egypt Exploration Fund." The ruins of the ancient city are

found buried under a mound called Nebireh. Its situation was

west of the Canobic branch of the Nile, on a canal which

connected it with that stream.

See EGYPT: B. C. 670-525.

NAULOCHUS, Battle of.

A naval battle fought near Naulochus, on the coast of Sicily,

in which Agrippa, commanding for the triumvir Octavius,

defeated and destroyed the fleet of Sextus Pompeius, B. C. 36.

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 27.

{2243}

NAUMACHIÆ.

The naumachiæ of the Romans were structures resembling

excavated amphitheatres, but having the large central space

filled with water, for the representation of naval combats.

"The great Naumachia of Augustus was 1,800 feet long and 1,200

feet broad."

R. Burn.

Rome and the Campagna,

introduction.

NAUPACTUS.

See MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD;

and GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

NAUPACTUS, Battle of (B. C. 429).

See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

NAUPACTUS, Treaty of.

A treaty, concluded B. C. 217, which terminated what was

called the Social War, between the Achæan League, joined with

Philip of Macedonia, and the Ætolian League, in alliance with

Sparta.

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 63.

ALSO IN:

E. A. Freeman,

History of Federal Government,

chapter 8, section 1.

NAUPLIA.

See ARGOS.

NAURAGHI.

See SARDINIA, THE ISLAND: NAME AND EARLY HISTORY.

NAUSETS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

NAUVOO, The Mormon city of.

See MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846, and 1846-1848.

NAVAJOS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

ATHAPASCAN FAMILY and APACHE GROUP.

NAVARETTE

NAJARA, Battle of.

Won, April 3, 1367, by the English Black Prince over a Spanish

and French army, in a campaign undertaken to restore Peter the

Cruel to the throne of Castile.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1366-1369,

and FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.

----------NAVARINO: Start--------

NAVARINO: B. C. 425.

An ancient episode in the harbor.

See GREECE: B. C. 425.

NAVARINO: A. D. 1686.

Taken by the Venetians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

NAVARINO: A. D. 1827.

Battle and destruction of the Turkish fleet.

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

----------NAVARINO: End--------

----------NAVARRE: Start--------

NAVARRE:

Aboriginal inhabitants.

See BASQUES.

NAVARRE:

Origin of the kingdom.

"No historical subject is wrapt in greater obscurity than the

origin and early history of the kingdom of Navarre. Whether,

during a great portion of the eighth and ninth centuries, the

country was independent or tributary; and, if dependent,

whether it obeyed the Franks, the Asturians, or the Arabs, or

successively all three, are speculations which have long

exercised the pens of the peninsular writers. … It seems

undoubted that, in just dread of the Mohammedan domination,

the inhabitants of these regions, as well as those of

Catalonia, applied for aid to the renowned emperor of the

Franks [Charlemagne]; and that he, in consequence, in 778,

poured his legions into Navarre, and seized Pamplona. It seems

no less certain that, from this period, he considered the

country as a fief of his crown; and that his pretensions,

whether founded in violence or in the voluntary submission of

the natives, gave the highest umbrage to the Asturian kings:

the feudal supremacy thenceforth became an apple of discord

between the two courts, each striving to gain the homage of

the local governors. … Thus things remained until the time

of Alfonso III., who … endeavoured to secure peace both with

Navarre and France by marrying a princess related to both

Sancho Iñigo, count of Bigorre, and to the Frank sovereign,

and by consenting that the province should be held as an

immovable fief by that count. This Sancho Iñigo, besides his

lordship of Bigorre, for which he was the vassal of the French

king, had domains in Navarre, and is believed, on apparently

good foundation, to have been of Spanish descent. He is said,

however, not to have been the first count of Navarre; that his

brother Aznar held the fief before him, nominally dependent on

king Pepin, but successfully laying the foundation of

Navarrese independence. If the chronology which makes Sancho

succeed Aznar in 836, and the event itself, be correct,

Alfonso only confirmed the count in the lordship. In this

case, the only remaining difficulty is to determine whether

the fief was held from Charles or Alfonso. … But whichever

of the princes was acknowledged for the time the lord

paramount of the province, there can be little doubt that both

governor and people were averse to the sway of either; both

had long aspired to independence, and that independence was at

hand. The son of this Sancho Iñigo was Garcia, father of

Sancho Garces, and the first king of Navarre [assuming the

crown about 885-891]; the first, at least, whom … historic

criticism can admit."

S. A. Dunham,

History of Spain and Portugal,

book 3, section 2, chapter 2.

See, also, SPAIN: A. D. 713-910.

NAVARRE: A. D. 1026.

Acquisition of the crown of Castile by King Sancho el Mayor.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230.

NAVARRE: A. D. 1234.

Succession of Thibalt, Count of Champagne, to the throne.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.

NAVARRE: A. D. 1284-1328.

Union with France, and separation.

In 1284, the marriage of Jeanne, heiress of the kingdom of

Navarre and of the counties of Champagne and Brie, to Philip

IV. of France, united the crown of Navarre to that of France.

They were separated in 1328, on the death of her last

surviving son, Charles IV., without male issue. Philip of

Valois secured the French crown, under the so called Salic

law, but that of Navarre passed to Jeanne's grand-daughter, of

her own name.

NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.

Usurpation of John II. of Aragon.

The House of Foix and the D'Albrets.

Conquest by Ferdinand.

Incorporation in the kingdom of Castile.

Blanche, daughter of Charles III. of Navarre and heiress of

the kingdom, married John II. of Aragon, to whom she gave

three children, namely, Don Carlos, or Charles, "who, as heir

apparent, bore the title of Prince of Viana, and two

daughters, Blanche and Eleanor. Don Carlos is known by his

virtues and misfortunes. At the death of his mother Blanche

[1442], he should have succeeded to the throne of Navarre; but

John II. was by no means disposed to relinquish the title

which he had acquired by marriage, and Carlos consented to be

his father's viceroy. But even this dignity he was not

permitted to enjoy unmolested." Persecuted through life,

sometimes imprisoned, sometimes in exile, he died at the age

of forty, in 1461.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

{2244}

"By the death of Don Carlos, the succession to the crown of

Navarre devolved to his sister Blanche, the divorced wife of

Henry IV. of Castile; and that amiable princess now became an

object of jealousy not only to her father but also to her

younger sister, Eleanor, married to the Count of Foix, to whom

John II. had promised the reversion of Navarre after his own

death. Gaston de Foix, the offspring of this union, had

married a sister of Louis XI.; and it had been provided in a

treaty between that monarch and John II., that in order to

secure the succession of the House of Foix to Navarre, Blanche

should be delivered into the custody of her sister. John

executed this stipulation without remorse. Blanche was

conducted to the Castle of Orthès in Bearn (April 1462),

where, after a confinement of nearly two years, she was

poisoned by order of her sister Eleanor." After committing

this crime, the latter waited nearly fifteen years for the

crown which it was expected to win, and then enjoyed it but

three weeks. Her father reigned until the 20th of January,

1479, when he died; the guilty daughter soon followed him.

"After Eleanor's brief reign … the blood-stained sceptre of

Navarre passed to her grandson Phœbus, 1479, who, however,

lived only four years, and was succeeded by his sister

Catherine. Ferdinand and Isabella [now occupying the thrones

of Aragon and Castile] endeavoured to effect a marriage

between Catherine and their own heir; but this scheme was

frustrated by Magdalen, the queen-mother, a sister of Louis

XI. of France, who brought about a match between her daughter

and John d'Albret, a French nobleman who had large possessions

on the borders of Navarre (1485). Nevertheless the Kings of

Spain supported Catherine and her husband against her uncle,

John de Foix, viscount of Narbonne, who pretended to the

Navarese crown on the ground that it was limited to male

heirs; and after the death of John, the alliance with Spain

was drawn still closer by the avowed purpose of Louis XII. to

support his nephew, Gaston de Foix, in the claims of his

father. After the fall of that young hero at Ravenna [see

ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513], his pretensions to the throne of

Navarre devolved to his sister, Germaine de Foix, the second

wife of King Ferdinand [see SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517], an event

which entirely altered the relations between the courts of

Spain and Navarre. Ferdinand had now an interest in supporting

the claims of the house of Foix-Narbonne; and Catherine, who

distrusted him, despatched in May 1512, plenipotentiaries to

the French court to negotiate a treaty of alliance." But it

was too late. Ferdinand had already succeeded in diverting to

Navarre an expedition which his son-in-law, Henry VIII. of

England, acting in the Holy League against Louis XII., which

Ferdinand now joined (see ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513), had sent

against Guienne. With this aid he took possession of Upper

Navarre. "In the following year, he effected at Orthès a

year's truce with Louis XII. (April 1st 1513), by which Louis

sacrificed his ally, the King of Navarre, and afterwards, by

renewing the truce, allowed Ferdinand permanently to settle

himself in his new conquest. The States of Navarre had

previously taken the oath of allegiance to Ferdinand as their

King, and on the 15th of June 1515, Navarre was incorporated

into the kingdom of Castile by the solemn act of the Cortès.

The dominions of John d'Albret and Catherine were now reduced

to the little territory of Bearn, but they still retained the

title of sovereigns of Navarre." Six years later, in 1521, the

French invaded Navarre and overran the whole kingdom.

"Pampeluna alone, animated by the courage of Ignatius Loyola,

made a short resistance. To this siege, the world owes the

Order of the Jesuits. Loyola, whose leg had been shattered by

a cannon ball, found consolation and amusement during his

convalescence in reading the lives of the saints, and was thus

thrown into that state of fanatical exaltation which led him

to devote his future life to the service of the Papacy."

Attempting to extend their invasion beyond Navarre, the French

were defeated at Esquiros and driven back, losing the whole of

their conquests.

T. H. Dyer,

History of Modern Europe,

book 1, chapters 4 and 7,

and book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

W. H. Prescott,

History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,

chapters 2 and 23 (volumes 1 and 3).

NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563.

The kingdom remaining on the French side of the Pyrenees.

Jeanne d'Albret's Bourbon marriage and the issue of it.

Establishment of Protestantism in Béarn.

Besides the Spanish province which Ferdinand the Catholic

appropriated and joined to Castile, and which gave its name to

the Kingdom of Navarre, "that kingdom embraced a large tract

of country lying on the French side of the Pyrenees, including

the principality of Béarn and the counties of Foix, Armagnac,

Albret, Bigorre, and Comminges. Catherine de Foix, the heiress

of this kingdom, had in 1491 carried it by marriage into the

house of D'Albret. Henry, the second king of Navarre belonging

to this house, was in 1528 united to Marguerite d'Angoulême,

the favourite and devoted sister of Francis I. of France.

Pampeluna, the ancient capital of their kingdom, being in the

hands of the King of Spain, Henry and Marguerite held their

Court at Nérac, the chief town of the duchy belonging to the

family of D'Albret. It was at Nérac that Marguerite, herself

more than half a Huguenot, opened an asylum to her persecuted

fellow-countrymen [see PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535]. Farel,

Calvin, Beza sought temporary refuge and found glad welcome

there, while to Lefevre, Clement Marot, and Gerard Roussel it

became a second home. Marguerite died in 1549, leaving only

one child, a daughter, who, in the event of her father having

no issue by any second marriage, became heiress to the crown

of Navarre. Born in 1528, Jeanne d'Albret had early and bitter

experience of what heirship to such a crown involved. The

Emperor Charles V. was believed to have early fixed his eye on

her as a fit consort for Philip, his son and successor." To

prevent this marriage, she was shut up for years, by her

uncle, the French king, Francis I., in the gloomy castle of

Plessis-les-Tours. When she was twelve years old he affianced

her to the Duke of Cleves, notwithstanding her vigorous

protests; but the alliance was subsequently broken off. "The

next hand offered to Jeanne, and which she accepted, was that

of Antoine, elder brother of the Prince of Condé, and head of

the Bourbon family. They were married in 1548, a year after

the death of Francis I., and a year before that of his sister

Marguerite, Jeanne's mother. The marriage was an unfortunate

one. Ambitious, yet weak and vain; frivolous and vacillating,

yet headstrong and impetuous, faithless to his wife, faithless

to his principles, faithless to his party, Antoine became the

butt and victim of the policy of the Court. But though

unfortunate in so many respects, this marriage gave to France,

if not the greatest, the most fortunate, the most popular, the

most beloved of all her monarchs"—namely, Henry IV.—Henry of

Navarre—the first of the Bourbon dynasty of French kings.

{2245}

"Antoine of Navarre died at the siege of Rouen in 1562. The

first use that the Queen made of the increased measure of

freedom she thus acquired was to publish an edict establishing

the Protestant and interdicting the exercise of the Roman

Catholic worship in Béarn. So bold an act by so weak a

sovereign—by one whose political position was so perilous and

insecure—drew down upon her the instant and severe

displeasure of the Pope," who issued against her a Bull of

excommunication, in October, 1563, and assumed the right to

dispose of her kingdom. This assumption was more than the

French Court could permit. "The Pope had to give way, and the

Bull was expunged from the ecclesiastical ordinances of the

Pontificate."

W. Hanna,

The Wars of the Huguenots,

chapter 4.

NAVARRE: A. D. 1568-1569.

The queen joins the Huguenots in France, with Prince Henry.

Invasion by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

NAVARRE: A. D. 1620-1622.

Protestant intolerance.

Enforcement of Catholic rights.

The kingdom incorporated and absorbed in France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

NAVARRE: A. D. 1876.

Disappearance of the last municipal and provincial

privileges of the old kingdom.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1873-1885.

----------NAVARRE: End--------

NAVE.

NAVIO.

See CARAVELS.

----------NAVIGATION LAWS: Start--------

NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1651.

The first English Act.

"After the triumph of the parliamentary cause [in the English

Civil War], great numbers of the royalists had sought refuge

in Virginia, Barbadoes, and the other West India settlements;

so that the white population of these dependencies was in

general fiercely opposed to the new government, and they might

be said to be in a state of rebellion after all the rest of

the empire had been reduced to submission and quiet.

Barbadoes, indeed, had actually received Lord Willoughby as

governor under a commission from Charles II., then in Holland,

and had proclaimed Charles as king. It was in these

circumstances that the English parliament in 1651, with the

view of punishing at once the people of the colonies and the

Dutch, who had hitherto enjoyed the greater part of the

carrying-trade between the West Indies and Europe, passed

their famous Navigation Act, declaring that no merchandise

either of Asia, Africa, or America, except only such as should

be imported directly from the place of its growth or

manufacture in Europe, should be imported into England,

Ireland, or any of the plantations, in any but English-built

ships, belonging either to English or English-plantation

subjects, navigated by English commanders, and having at least

three-fourths of the sailors Englishmen. It was also further

enacted that no goods of the growth, production, or

manufacture of any country in Europe should be imported into

Great Britain except in British ships, or in such ships as

were the real property of the people of the country or place

in which the goods were produced, or from which they could

only be, or most usually were, exported. Upon this law, which

was re-enacted after the Restoration, and which down to our

own day has been generally regarded and upheld as the

palladium of our commerce, and the maritime Magna Charta of

England, we shall only at present observe that one of its

first consequences was undoubtedly the war with Holland which

broke out the year after it was passed."

G. L. Craik,

History of British Commerce,

chapter 7 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

Adam Smith,

Wealth of Nations,

book 4, chapter 2.

J. A. Blanqui,

History of Political Economy,

chapter 29.

NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1660-1672.

Effect upon the American colonies,

and their relation to Great Britain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1651-1672.

NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1849.

Complete repeal of the British restrictive Acts.

"The question of the navigation laws was … brought forward

[in the British Parliament, at the commencement of the session

of 1849] … with a fair prospect of being settled!" The

stringency of the original act of 1651 had been "slightly

mitigated by another act passed in the reign of Charles II.;

but the modifications thus introduced were of slight

importance. A farther relaxation, made at the conclusion of

the war of independence, allowed the produce of the United

States to be imported in ships belonging to citizens of those

states. The last amendment of the original law was obtained in

the year 1825 by Mr. Huskisson, who made some important

changes in it. The law, then, which the legislature had to

reconsider in the year 1849 stood thus: the produce of Asia,

Africa, and America might be imported from places out of

Europe into the United Kingdom, if to be used therein, in

foreign as well us in British ships, provided that such ships

were the ships of the country of which the goods were the

produce, and from which they were imported. Goods which were

the produce of Europe, and which were not enumerated in the

act, might be brought thence in the ships of any country.

Goods sent to or from the United Kingdom to any of its

possessions, or from one colony to another, must be carried in

British ships, or in ships of the country in which they were

produced and from which they were imported. Then followed some

stringent definitions of the conditions which constituted a

vessel a British ship in the sense of the act. These

restrictions were not without their defenders. Even the great

founder of economic science, Adam Smith, while admitting that

the navigation laws were inconsistent with that perfect

freedom of trade which he contended for, sanctioned their

continuance on the ground that defence is much more important

than opulence. But as it was more and more strongly felt that

these laws were part and parcel of that baneful system of

monopoly which, under the name of protection, had so long been

maintained and was now so completely exploded, it began also

to be seriously doubted whether they were necessary to the

defence of the nation. … Therefore, on the 14th of February

in this year, Mr. Labouchere, as president of the board of

trade, proposed a resolution on the subject couched in the

following terms: 'That it is expedient to remove the

restrictions which prevent the free carriage of goods by sea

to and from the United Kingdom and the British possessions

abroad, and to amend the laws regulating the coasting trade of

the United Kingdom, subject nevertheless to such control by

her Majesty in council as may be necessary; and also to amend

the laws for the registration of ships and seamen.'

{2246}

A long debate took place on the question of the second reading

of the government measure. … 214 members followed Mr.

Disraeli into the lobby, while 275 voted with the government,

which therefore had a majority of 61. In the upper house Lord

Brougham astonished friend and foe by coming forward as the

strenuous and uncompromising opponent of the ministerial

measure. … The second reading was carried by a majority of

10. The smallness of this majority caused some anxiety to the

supporters of the measure with regard to its ultimate fate;

but this anxiety was relieved by the withdrawal of the most

conspicuous opponents of the bill, which consequently passed

without farther opposition."

W. N. Molesworth,

History of England, 1830-1874,

volume 2, chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

J. D. J. Kelley,

The Question of Ships,

chapter 4.

S. Walpole,

History of England from 1815,

chapter 20 (volume 4).

----------NAVIGATION LAWS: End----------

NAWAB-VIZIER,

NEWAB-WU-ZEER, of Oude.

See OUDE; also NABOB.

----------NAXOS: Start--------

NAXOS: B. C. 490.

Destruction by the Persians.

See GREECE: B. C. 490.

NAXOS: B. C. 466.

Revolt from the Delian Confederacy.

Subjugation by Athens.

See ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.

NAXOS: B. C. 376.

Battle between the Spartans and Athenians.

A battle was fought in September, B. C. 376, off Naxos,

between a Lacedæmonian fleet of 60 triremes and an Athenian

fleet of 80. Forty-nine of the former were disabled or

captured. "This was the first great victory … which the

Athenians had gained at sea since the Peloponnesian war."

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 77.

NAXOS: A. D. 1204-1567.

The mediæval dukedom.

"In the partition of the [Byzantine] empire [after the

conquest of Constantinople, in 1204, by the Crusaders and the

Venetians], the twelve islands of the Archipelago, which had

formed the theme of the Egean sea in the provincial division

of the Byzantine empire, fell to the share of the crusading

barons; but Mark Sanudo, one of the most influential of the

Venetian nobles in the expedition, obtained possession of the

principal part of the ancient theme—though whether by

purchase from the Frank barons to whom it had been allotted,

or by grant to himself from the emperor, is not known. Sanudo,

however, made his appearance at the parliament of Ravenika as

one of the great feudatories of the empire of Romania, and was

invested by the emperor Henry with the title of Duke of the

Archipelago, or Naxos. It is difficult to say on what precise

footing Sanudo placed his relations with the republic. His

conduct in the war of Crete shows that he ventured to act as a

baron of Romania, or an independent prince, when he thought

his personal interests at variance with his born allegiance to

Venice. … The new duke and his successors were compelled by

their position to acknowledge themselves, in some degree,

vassals both of the empire of Romania and of the republic of

Venice; yet they acted as sovereign princes." Nearly at the

close of the fourteenth century the dukedom passed from the

Sanudo family to the Crispo family, who reigned under the

protection of Venice until 1537, when the Duke of Naxos was

reduced to vassalage by the Turkish sultan Suleiman. Thirty

years later, his title and authority were extinguished by the

sultan, on the petition of the Greek inhabitants, who could

not endure his oppressive and disgraceful government.

G. Finlay,

History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,

chapter 10, sections 1-3.

ALSO IN:

Sir J. E. Tennent,

History of Modern Greece,

chapter 3.

H. F. Tozer,

The Islands of the Aegean,

chapter 4.

----------NAXOS: End----------

NAZARETH, Battle of (1799).

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

NEANDERTHAL MAN.

The race represented by a remarkable human skull and imperfect

skeleton found in 1857, in a limestone cave in the

Neanderthal, Rhenish Prussia, and thought to be the most

primitive race of which any knowledge has yet been obtained.

J. Geikie,

Prehistoric Europe,

page 22.

ALSO IN:

W. B. Dawkins,

Cave Hunting,

page 240.

NEAPOLIS, Schools of.

In the first century of the Roman empire, "Neapolis [modern

Naples] had its schools and colleges, as well as Athens; its

society abounded in artists and men of letters, and it enjoyed

among the Romans the title of the learned, which comprehended

in their view the praise of elegance as well as knowledge."

C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 40.

NEAPOLIS AND PALÆPOLIS.

"Palaepolis is mentioned only by Livy: it was an ancient

Cumaean colony, the Cumaeans having taken refuge there across

the sea. Neapolis derives its name from being a much later

settlement of different Greek tribes, and was perhaps not

founded till Olymp. 91, about the time of the Athenian

expedition to Sicily, and as a fortress of the Greeks against

the Sabellians. It is not impossible that the Athenians also

may have had a share in it. Both towns, however, were of

Chalcidian origin and formed one united state, which at that

time may have been in possession of Ischia. Many absurdities

have been written about the site of Palaepolis, and most of

all by Italian antiquaries. We have no data to go upon except

the two statements in Livy, that Palaepolis was situated by

the side of Neapolis, and that the Romans [in the second

Samnite war] had pitched their camp between the two towns. The

ancient Neapolis was undoubtedly situated in the centre of the

modern city of Naples above the church of Sta. Rosa; the coast

is now considerably advanced. People have sought for

Palaepolis likewise within the compass of the modern city. …

I alone should never have discovered its true site, but my

friend, the Count de Serre, a French statesman, who in his

early life had been in the army and had thus acquired a quick

and certain miliary eye, discovered it in a walk which I took

with him. The town was situated on the outer side of Mount

Posilipo, where the quarantine now is."

B. G. Niebuhr,

Lectures on the History of Rome,

lecture 40 (volume 1).

"Parthenopé was an ancient Greek colony founded by the

Chalcidians of Cuma on the northern part of the Bay of Naples.

In after years another city sprung up a little to the south,

whence the original Parthenopé was called Palæpolis or

Old-town, while the new town took the name of Neapolis. The

latter preserves its name in the modern Naples." Palæpolis was

taken by the Romans, B. C. 327, at the beginning of the second

Samnite War, and is heard of no more. Neapolis made peace with

them and lived.

H. G. Liddell,

History of Rome,

book 3, chapter 21 (volume 1).

{2247}

NEAPOLIS (Syracuse).

See TEMENITES.

NEARDA.

See JEWS: B. C. 536-A. D. 50.

----------NEBRASKA: Start--------

NEBRASKA:

The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

NEBRASKA: A. D. 1803.

Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

NEBRASKA: A. D. 1854.

Territorial organization.

The Kansas-Nebraska Bill.

Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.

NEBRASKA: A. D. 1867.

Admission to the Union.

Nebraska was organized as a State and admitted

to the Union in 1867.

----------NEBRASKA: End--------

NECKER, Ministry of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788, to 1789 (JUNE).

NECTANSMERE, Battle of (A. D. 685).

See SCOTLAND: 7TH CENTURY.

NEERWINDEN,

LANDEN,

Battle of (1693).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY)

Battle of (1793).

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

NEGRITO.

"The term Negrito, i. e. 'Little Negro,' [was] long applied by

the Spaniards to the dark dwarfish tribes in the interior of

Luzon, and some others of the Philippine Islands. Here it will

be extended to the dwarfish negroid tribes in the Andaman

Islands and interior of Malacca, but to no others."

A. H. Keane,

Philology and Ethnology of the Interoceanic Races

(appendix to Wallace's Hellwald's Australasia),

section 4.

NEGRO, The.

See AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

NEGRO PLOT, Imagined in New York.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1741.

NEGRO SLAVERY.

See SLAVERY: NEGRO.

NEGRO SUFFRAGE.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1867 (JANUARY), and (MARCH); and 1868-1870.

NEGRO TROOPS, in the American Civil War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (MAY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

----------NEGROPONT: Start--------

NEGROPONT:

The Name.

The ancient island of Eubœa received from the Venetians the

name Negropont. "In the middle ages, Eubœa was called Egripo,

a corruption of Euripus, the name of the town built upon the

ruins of Chalcis. The Venetians, who obtained possession of

the island upon the dismemberment of the Byzantine empire by

the Latins, called it Negropont, probably a corruption of

Egripo, and 'ponte,' a bridge."

W. Smith,

Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography.

NEGROPONT: A. D. 1470.

Capture and Massacre by the Turks.

See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

----------NEGROPONT: End--------

NEGUS, OR NEGOOS, The.

See ABYSSINIA: 15-19TH CENTURIES.

NEHAVEND, Battle of.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

NELSON'S FARM, OR GLENDALE, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

NEMEDIANS, The.

It is among the legends of the Irish that their island was

settled, about the time of the patriarch Jacob, by a colony of

descendants from Japhet, led by one Nemedius, from whom they

and their posterity took the name of Nemedians. The Nemedians

were afterwards subjugated by a host of African sea-rovers,

known as Fomorians, but were delivered from these in time by a

fresh colony of their kindred from the East called the Fir

Bolgs.

T. Wright,

History of Ireland,

book 1, chapter 2.

NEMEAN AND ISTHMIAN GAMES.

"The Nemean and Isthmian [games in ancient. Greece] were

celebrated each twice in every Olympiad, at different seasons

of the year: the former in the plain of Nemea, in Argolis,

under the presidency of Argos; the latter in the Corinthian

isthmus, under the presidency of Corinth. These, like the

Pythian and Olympic games, claimed a very high antiquity,

though the form in which they were finally established was of

late institution; and it is highly probable that they were

really suggested by the tradition of ancient festivals, which

had served to cement an Amphictyonic confederacy."

C. Thirlwall,

History of Greece,

chapter 10.

NEMETACUM.

Modern Arras.

See BELGÆ.

NEMETES, The.

See VANGIONES.

NEMI, Priest of.

See ARICIAN GROVE.

NEMOURS, Treaty and Edict of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

NEODAMODES.

Enfranchised helots, in ancient Sparta.

G. Grote,

History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 73.

NEOLITHIC PERIOD.

See STONE AGE.

NEOPLATONICS, The.

"There now [in the third century after Christ] arose another

school, which from its first beginnings announced itself as a

reform and support of the ancient faith, and, consequently, as

an enemy of the new religion. This was the Neoplatonic school

of Alexandria, founded by Ammonius Saccas and Plotinus, and

which was afterwards represented by Porphyrius, Amelius, and

Iamblicus. The doctrine of this school was the last, and in

many respects the best production of paganism, now in its

final struggle; the effort of a society, which acknowledged

its own defects, to regenerate and to purify itself.

Philosophy, and the religion of the vulgar, hitherto separated

and irreconcilable, joined in harmony together for mutual

support, and for a new existence. The Neoplatonics

endeavoured, therefore, to unite the different systems of

philosophy, especially the Pythagorean, Platonic, and

Aristotelean, in one body with the principles of oriental

learning, and thus to raise an edifice of universal, absolute

truth. In the same manner they represented the varied forms of

eastern and western religious worship as one entire whole,

which had manifested itself indeed in different ways, but at

the foundation of which there lay the same true faith. They

taught that 'every kind of homage and adoration, which men

offer to superior beings, is referred to heroes, demons, or

Gods, but, finally, to the one most-high God, the author of

all: that these demons are the chiefs and genii of the

different parts, elements, and powers of the world, of people,

countries, and cities, to obtain whose favour and protection,

it behoved men to honour them according to the rites and

customs of the ancients.'

{2248}

It is, therefore, manifest that these philosophers were

essentially hostile to the Christian religion,—the exclusive

character of which, and tendency to destroy all other

religions, stood in direct contrast with their doctrines: and

as their school was in its vigour at the very time in which

Christianity made its most rapid advances, and had struck

Paganism with a mortal wound, they employed themselves

especially, and more earnestly, than other philosophers, to

maintain their own tenets, and to destroy Christianity. They

in nowise, however, desired to defend heathenism, or its

worship, in their then degenerate and degrading state: their

ideal was a more pure, more noble, spiritualized, polytheism,

to establish which was the object which they had proposed to

themselves. Whilst, therefore, on the one hand, they preserved

the ancient and genuine truths which had sprung from primitive

tradition, and purified them from recent errors and

deformations; on the other, they adopted many of the doctrines

of the hated Christianity, and sought to reform paganism by

the aid of light which had streamed upon them from the

sanctuary of the Church. This admission and employment of

Christian truths are easily explained, if it be true, that two

of their chiefs, Ammonius and Porphyrius, had been Christians.

It is well known that they received instructions from

Christian masters. … This uniformity, or imitation, consists

not only in the use of terms, but in essential dogmas. The

Neoplatonic idea of three hypostases in one Godhead would not

have been heard of, if the Christian doctrine of the Trinity

had not preceded it. … Their doctrines respecting the minor

Gods, their influence and connexion with the supreme Being,

approached near to the Christian dogma of the angels. Nor is

the influence of Christianity less evident in the pure and

grave morality of the Neoplatonics: in their lessons which

teach the purifying of fallen souls, the detachment from the

senses, the crucifying … of the affections and passions, it

is easy to distinguish the Christian, from the commingled

pagan, elements. The Neoplatonics endeavoured to reform

polytheism by giving to men a doctrine more pure concerning

the Gods, by attributing an allegorical sense to the fables,

and a moral signification to the forms and ceremonies of

religion: they sought to raise the souls of men to piety, and

rejected from their mythology many of the degrading narrations

with which it had before abounded. It was their desire also to

abolish the sacrifices, for the Gods could only abhor the

slaughter, the dismemberment and the burning of animals. But

at the same time they reduced to a theory the apparitions of

the Gods; they declared magic to be the most divine of

sciences; they taught and defended theurgy, or the art of

invoking the Gods (those of an inferior order, who were united

to matter), and of compelling them to comply with the desires

of men."

J. J. I. Döllinger,

History of the Church,

volume 1, pages 70-73.

ALSO IN:

F. Ueberweg,

History of Philosophy,

sections 66-70 (volume 1).

C. Kingsley,

Alexandria and Her Schools.

NEPAUL, OR NIPAL, English war with the Ghorkas of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

NEPHTHALITES, The.

See HUNS, THE WHITE.

NÉRAC, Treaty of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

NERESHEIM, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

NERI AND BIANCHI (Blacks and Whites), The.

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

NERIUM, Headland of.

The ancient name of Cape Finisterre,

NERO, Roman Emperor, A. D. 54-68.

NERONIA.

Games instituted by Nero, to be conducted in the Greek fashion

and to recur periodically, like the Olympian.

NERVA, Roman Emperor, A. D. 96-98.

NERVII, The.

A tribe in Belgic Gaul, at the time of Cæsar's conquest, which

occupied the country "between the Sambre and the Scheldt

(French and Belgic Hainaut, provinces of Southern Brabant, of

Antwerp, and part of Eastern Flanders). The writers posterior

to Cæsar mention Bagacum (Bavay) as their principal town."

Napoleon III.,

History of Cæsar,

book 3, chapter 2, foot-note (volume 2).

The tribe was destroyed by Cæsar.

See BELGÆ, CÆSAR'S CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE.

NESSA: Destruction by the Mongols (1220).

See KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.

NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

The great religious controversy of the Christian world in the

fourth century, relating to the mystery of the Trinity, having

been settled by the triumph of the doctrine of Athanasius over

the doctrine of Arius, it was succeeded in the fifth century

by a still more violent disputation, which concerned the yet

profounder mystery of the Incarnation. To the dogmatists of

one party it was wickedness to distinguish the divine nature

and the human nature which they believed to be united in

Christ; to the dogmatists of the other side it was sin to

confound them. Cyril of Alexandria became the implacable

leader of the first party. Nestorius, Patriarch of

Constantinople, was forced to the front of the battle on the

other side and became its martyr. The opponents of Nestorius

gained advantages in the contest from the then rapidly growing

tendency in the Christian world to pay divine honors to the

Virgin Mary as the Mother of God. To Nestorius and those who

believed with him, this was abhorrent. "Like can but bear

like," said Nestorius in one of his sermons; "a human mother

can only bear a human being. God was not born—he dwelt in

that which was born." But the mob was too easily charmed with

Mariolatry to be moved by reasoning on the subject, and Cyril

led the mob, not only in Alexandria, where it murdered Hypatia

and massacred Jews at his bidding, but generally throughout

the Christian world. A Council called at Ephesus in 431 and

recognized as the third Œcumenical Council, condemned

Nestorius and degraded him from his episcopal throne; but a

minority disputed its procedure and organized a rival Council,

which retorted anathemas and excommunications against Cyril

and his friends. The emperor at last interfered and dissolved

both; but Nestorius, four years later, was exiled to the

Libyan desert and persecuted remorselessly until he died.

Meantime the doctrine of Cyril had been carried to another

stage of development by one of his most ardent supporters, the

Egyptian monk Eutyches, who maintained that the human nature

of Christ was absorbed in the divine nature. Both forms of the

doctrine of one nature in the Son of God seem to have acquired

somewhat confusedly the name of Monophysite, though the latter

tenet is more often called Eutychian, from the name of its

chief promulgator.

{2249}

It kindled new fires in the controversy. In 449, a second

Council at Ephesus, which is called the "Robber Synod" on

account of the peculiar violence and indecency of its

proceedings, sustained the Monophysites. But two years later,

in 451, the vanquished party, supported by Pope Leo the Great,

at Rome, succeeded in assembling a Council at Chalcedon which

laid down a definition of the Christian faith affirming the

existence of two natures in one person, and which nevertheless

condemned Nestorianism and Monophysitism, alike. Their success

only inflamed the passions of the worshippers of the Virgin as

the "Mother of God." "Everywhere monks were at the head of the

religious revolution which threw off the yoke of the Council

of Chalcedon." In Jerusalem "the very scenes of the Saviour's

mercies ran with blood shed in his name by his ferocious

self-called disciples." At Alexandria, a bishop was murdered

in the baptistery of his church. At Constantinople, for sixty

years, there went on a succession of bloody tumults and fierce

revolutionary conspiracies which continually shook the

imperial throne and disorganized every part of society, all

turning upon the theological question of one nature or two in

the incarnate Son of God. The Emperor Zeno "after a vain

attempt to obtain the opinions of the chief ecclesiastical

dignitaries, without assembling a new Council, a measure which

experience had shown to exasperate rather than appease the

strife, Zeno issued his famous Henoticon, or Edict of Union.

… It aimed not at the reconcilement of the conflicting

opinions, but hoped, by avoiding all expressions offensive to

either party, to allow them to meet together in Christian

amity." The Henoticon only multiplied the factions in number

and heated the strife between them. The successor of Zeno,

Anastasius, became a partisan in the fray, and through much of

his reign of twenty-seven years the conflict raged more

fiercely than ever. Constantinople was twice, at least, in

insurrection. "The blue and green factions of the Circus—such

is the language of the times—gave place to these more

maddening conflicts. The hymn of the Angels in Heaven [the

Trisagion] was the battle-cry on earth." At length the death

of Anastasius ended the strife. His successor Justin (A. D.

518), bowed to the authority of the Bishop of Rome—the Pope

Hormisdas—and invoked his aid. The Eastern world, exhausted,

followed generally the emperor's example in taking the

orthodoxy of Rome for the orthodoxy of Christianity.

Nestorianism and Monophysitism in their extreme forms were

driven from the open field in the Christian world, but both

survived and have transmitted their remains to the present day.

H. H. Milman,

History of Latin Christianity,

book 2, chapters 3-4,

book 3, chapter 1, and 3.

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 47.

J. Alzog,

Universal Church History, 2d epoch,

chapter 2.

See, also,

NESTORIANS; JACOBITE CHURCH;

and MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY.

NESTORIANS, The.

"Within the limits of the Roman empire … this sect was

rapidly extirpated by persecution [see above, NESTORIAN AND

MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY]; and even in the patriarchate of

Antioch, where, as we have seen, the tenets of Nestorius at

first found greatest favour, it had disappeared as early as

the time of Justinian [A. D. 527-565]. But another field lay

open to it in the Persian kingdom of the Sassanidæ, and in

this it ultimately struck its roots deeply. The Chaldæan

church, which at the beginning of the fifth century was in a

flourishing condition, had been founded by missionaries from

Syria; its primate, or Catholicos, was dependent on the

patriarch of Antioch, and in respect of language and

discipline it was closely connected with the Syrian church. It

is not surprising, therefore, to find that some of its members

lent a ready ear to the Nestorian doctrines. This was

especially the case with the church-teachers of the famous

seminary at Edessa in Mesopotamia. … One of their number,

Barsumas, who was bishop of the city of Nisibis from 435 to

489, by his long and active labours contributed most of all to

the establishment of the Nestorian church in Persia. He

persuaded the king Pherozes (Firuz) that the antagonism of his

own sect to the doctrine of the established church of the

Roman empire would prove a safeguard for Persia. … From that

time Nestorianism became the only form of Christianity

tolerated in Persia. … The Catholicos of Chaldæa now threw

off his dependence on Antioch, and assumed the title of

Patriarch of Babylon. The school of Edessa, which in 489 was

again broken up by the Greek emperor, Zeno, was transferred to

Nisibis, and in that place continued for several centuries to

be an important centre of theological learning, and especially

of biblical studies. … In the sixth century the Nestorians

had established churches from the Persian Gulf to the Caspian

Sea, and had preached the Gospel to the Medes, the Bactrians,

the Huns, and the Indians, and as far as the coast of Malabar

and the island of Ceylon. At a later period, starting from

Balk and Samarcand, they spread Christianity among the nomad

Tartar tribes in the remote valleys of the Imaus; and the

inscription of Siganfu, which was discovered in China, and the

genuineness of which is considered to be above suspicion,

describes the fortunes of the Nestorian church in that country

from the first mission, A. D. 636, to the year in which that

monument was set up, A. D. 781. In the ninth century, during

the rule of the caliphs at Bagdad, the patriarch removed to

that city, and at this period twenty-five metropolitans were

subject to him. … From the eleventh century onwards the

prosperity of the Chaldæan church declined, owing to the

terrible persecutions to which its members were exposed.

Foremost among these was the attack of Timour the Tartar, who

almost exterminated them. Within the present century their

diminished numbers have been still further thinned by

frightful massacres inflicted by the Kurds. Their headquarters

now are a remote and rugged valley in the mountains of

Kurdistan, on the banks of the Greater Zab. … Beyond the

boundary which separates Turkey from Persia to the southward

of Mount Ararat, a similar community is settled on the shores

of Lake Urumia. A still larger colony is found at Mosul, and

others … elsewhere in the neighbourhood of the Tigris. …

Of their widely extended missions only one fragment now

remains, in the Christians of St. Thomas on the Malabar coast

of India."

H. F. Tozer,

The Church and the Eastern Empire,

chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

chapter 47.

NETAD, Battle of.

See HUNS: A. D. 453.

{2250}

----------NETHERLANDS: Start--------

NETHERLANDS.

The Land.

"The north-western corner of the vast plain which extends from

the German ocean to the Ural mountains is occupied by the

countries called the Netherlands [Low Countries]. This small

triangle, enclosed between France, Germany, and the sea, is

divided by the modern kingdoms of Belgium and Holland into two

nearly equal portions. … Geographically and

ethnographically, the Low Countries belong both to Gaul and to

Germany. It is even doubtful to which of the two the Batavian

island, which is the core of the whole country, was reckoned

by the Romans. It is, however, most probable that all the

land, with the exception of Friesland, was considered a part

of Gaul. Three great rivers—the Rhine, the Meuse, and the

Scheld—had deposited their slime for ages among the dunes

and sandbanks heaved up by the ocean around their mouths. A

delta was thus formed, habitable at last for man. It was by

nature a wide morass, in which oozy islands and savage forests

were interspersed among lagoons and shallows; a district lying

partly below the level of the ocean at its higher tides,

subject to constant overflow from the rivers, and to frequent

and terrible inundations by the sea. … Here, within a

half-submerged territory, a race of wretched icthyophagi dwelt

upon 'terpen,' or mounds, which they had raised, like beavers,

above the almost fluid soil. Here, at a later day, the same

race chained the tyrant Ocean and his mighty streams into

subserviency, forcing them to fertilize, to render commodious,

to cover with a beneficent network of veins and arteries, and

to bind by watery highways with the farthest ends of the

world, a country disinherited by nature of its rights. A

region, outcast of ocean and earth, wrested at last from both

domains their richest treasures. A race, engaged for

generations in stubborn conflict with the angry elements, was

unconsciously educating itself for its great struggle with the

still more savage despotism of man. The whole territory of the

Netherlands was girt with forests. An extensive belt of

woodland skirted the sea-coast, reaching beyond the mouths of

the Rhine. Along the outer edge of this barrier, the dunes

cast up by the sea were prevented by the close tangle of

thickets from drifting further inward, and thus formed a

breastwork which time and art were to strengthen. The groves

of Haarlem and the Hague are relics of this ancient forest.

The Badahuenna wood, horrid with Druidic sacrifices, extended

along the eastern line of the vanished lake of Flevo. The vast

Hercynian forest, nine days' journey in breadth, closed in the

country on the German side, stretching from the banks of the

Rhine to the remote regions of the Dacians, in such vague

immensity (says the conqueror of the whole country) that no

German, after traveling sixty days, had ever reached, or even

heard of, its commencement. On the south, the famous groves of

Ardennes, haunted by faun and satyr, embowered the country,

and separated it from Celtic Gaul. Thus inundated by mighty

rivers, quaking beneath the level of the ocean, belted about

by hirsute forests, this low land, nether land, hollow land,

or Holland, seemed hardly deserving the arms of the

all-accomplished Roman."

J. L. Motley,

The Rise of the Dutch Republic,

introduction, section 1.

NETHERLANDS:

The early inhabitants.

See BELGÆ; NERVII; BATAVIANS; and FRISIANS.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 69.

Revolt of the Batavians under Civilis.

See BATAVIANS.

NETHERLANDS: 4-9th Centuries.

Settlement and domination of the Franks.

See FRANKS; also, GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 843-870.

Partly embraced in the kingdom of Lotharingia.

The partitioning.

See LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.

NETHERLANDS: (Flanders): A. D. 863-1383.

The Flemish towns and counts.

See FLANDERS.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 922-1345.

The early Counts of Holland.

"It was in the year 922 that Charles the Simple [of France]

presented to Count Dirk the territory of Holland, by letters

patent. This narrow hook of land, destined, in future ages, to

be the cradle of a considerable empire, stretching through

both hemispheres, was, thenceforth, the inheritance of Dirk's

descendants. Historically, therefore, he is Dirk I., Count of

Holland. … From the time of the first Dirk to the close of

the 13th century there were nearly four hundred years of

unbroken male descent, a long line of Dirks and Florences.

This iron-handed, hot-headed, adventurous race, placed as

sovereign upon its little sandy hook, making ferocious

exertions to swell into large consequence, conquering a mile

or two of morass or barren furze, after harder blows and

bloodier encounters than might have established an empire

under more favorable circumstances, at last dies out. The

countship falls to the house of Avennes, Counts of Hainault.

Holland, together with Zeland, which it had annexed, is thus

joined to the province of Hainault. At the end of another half

century the Hainault line expires. William the Fourth died

childless in 1355 [1345?]."

J. L. Motley,

Rise of the Dutch Republic,

introduction, sections 5-6.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 13-15th Centuries.

Relations with the Hanseatic League.

See HANSA TOWNS.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1345-1354.

The Rise of the Hooks and the Kabeljauws, or Cods.

"On the death of William IV. [Count of Holland] without issue

in 1345, his sister, married to the Emperor Louis, became

Countess of Zealand, Holland, Friezland and Hainault. But her

husband dying soon afterwards, many of the noblesse, whom she

had offended by the attempt to restrain their excesses,

instigated her son to assume the sovereignty. In the

sanguinary struggle which ensued, the people generally adhered

to the cause of Margaret." They "looked forward to the

necessities of a female reign as likely to afford them

opportunities to win further immunities, as the condition of

their support against the turbulent nobles. Did not these

live, like the great fish, by devouring the smaller ones? And

how could they be checked but by the hooks which, though

insignificant in appearance, when aptly used would be too

strong for them. Such was the talk of the people; and from

these household words arose the memorable epithets, which in

after years were heard in every civic brawl, and above the din

and death-cry of many a battle-field. Certain of the nobles

adhered to the cause of the Hooks, while some of the cities,

among which were Delft, Haarlem, Dort, and Rotterdam,

supported the Kabeljauws [or Cods].

{2251}

The community was divided into parties rather than into

classes. … In the exasperation of mutual injury, the primary

cause of quarrel was soon forgotten. The Hooks were proud of

the accession of a lord to their ranks; and the Kabeljauws

were equally glad of the valuable aid which a wealthy and

populous town was able to afford. The majority of the

cities,—perhaps the majority of the inhabitants in all of

them,—favoured the Hook party, as the preponderance of the

landowners lay in the opposite scale. But no adherence to

antagonistic principles, or even a systematic profession of

them, is traceable throughout the varying struggle. … In

Friezland the two factions were designated by the

recriminative epithets of 'Vet-Koopers' and

'Schieringers,'—terms hardly translatable. In the conflict

which first marshalled the two parties in hostile array, the

Hooks were utterly defeated;—their leaders who survived were

banished, their property confiscated, and their dwellings

razed to the ground. Margaret was forced to take refuge in

England, where she remained until a short time previous to her

death in 1354, when the four provinces acknowledged William V.

as their undisputed lord. The succeeding reigns are chiefly

characterised by the incessant struggles of the embittered

factions. … Whatever progress was made during the latter

half of the 14th century was municipal and commercial. In a

national view the government was helpless and inefficient,

entangled by ambitious family alliances with France, England,

and Germany, and distracted by the rival powers and

pretensions of domestic factions. Under the administration of

the ill-fated Jacoba [or Jacqueline] these evils reached their

full maturity."

W. T. McCullagh,

Industrial History of Free Nations,

chapter 9 (volume 2).

NETHERLANDS: 14-15th Centuries.

Commercial and industrial superiority.

Advance in learning and art.

"What a scene as compared with the rest of Northern Europe,

and especially with England … must have been presented by

the Low Countries during the 14th century! In 1370, there are

3,200 woollen-factories at Malines and on its territory. One

of its merchants carries on an immense trade with Damascus and

Alexandria. Another, of Valenciennes, being at Paris during a

fair, buys up an the provisions exposed for sale in order to

display his wealth. Ghent, in 1340, contains 40,000 weavers.

In 1389, it has 189,000 men bearing arms; the drapers alone

furnish 18,000 in a revolt. In 1380, the goldsmiths of Bruges

are numerous enough to form in war time an entire division of

the army. At a repast given by one of the Counts of Flanders

to the Flemish magistrates, the seats provided for the guests

being unfurnished with cushions, they quietly folded up their

sumptuous cloaks, richly embroidered and trimmed with fur, and

placed them on the wooden benches. When leaving the table at

the conclusion of the feast, a courtier called their attention

to the fact that they were going without their cloaks. The

burgomaster of Bruges replied: 'We Flemings are not in the

habit of carrying away the cushions after dinner.' …

Commines, the French chronicler, writing in the 15th century,

says that the traveller, leaving France and crossing the

frontiers of Flanders, compared himself to the Israelites when

they had quitted the desert and entered the borders of the

Promised Land. Philip the Good kept up a court which surpassed

every other in Europe for luxury and magnificence. … In all

such matters of luxury and display, England of the 16th or

17th century had nothing to compare with the Netherlands a

hundred or even two hundred years before. After luxury, come

comfort, intelligence, morality, and learning, which develop

under very different conditions. In the course of time even

Italy was outstripped in the commercial race. The conquest of

Egypt by the Turks, and the discovery of a water passage to

the Indies, broke up the overland trade with the East, and

destroyed the Italian and German cities which had flourished

on it. … Passing from the dominion of the House of Burgundy

to that of the House of Austria, which also numbered Spain

among its vast possessions, proved to them in the end an event

fraught with momentous evil. Still for a time, and from a mere

material point of view it was an evil not unmixed with good.

The Netherlanders were better sailors and keener merchants

than the Spaniards, and, being under the same rulers, gained

substantial advantages from the close connection. The new

commerce of Portugal also filled their coffers; so that while

Italy and Germany were impoverished, they became wealthier and

more prosperous than ever. … With wealth pouring in from all

quarters, art naturally followed in the wake of commerce.

Architecture was first developed, and nowhere was its

cultivation more general than in the Netherlands."

D. Campbell,

The Puritan in Holland, &c.,

volume 1, chapter 1.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland and Hainault): A. D. 1417-1430.

The despoiling of Countess Jaqueline.

In 1417, Count William VI. of Holland, Hainault and Friesland,

died, leaving no male heirs, but a daughter, Jacoba, or

Jaqueline, whom most of the nobles and towns of the several

states had already acknowledged as the heiress of her father's

sovereignty. Though barely seventeen years of age, the

countess Jake, as she was sometimes called, wore a widow's

weeds. She had been married two years before to John, the

second son of the king of France, who became presently

thereafter, by his brother's death, the dauphin of France.

John had died, a few months before Count William's death, and

the young countess, fair in person and well endowed in mind,

was left with no male support, to contend with the rapacity of

an unscrupulous bishop-uncle (John, called The Godless, Bishop

of Liege), who strove to rob her of her heritage. "Henry V.

[of England] had then stood her friend, brought about a

reconciliation, established her rights and proposed a marriage

between her and his brother John, Duke of Bedford, who was

then a fine young man of five or six and twenty. … But she

was a high-spirited, wilful damsel, and preferred her first

cousin, the Duke of Brabant, whose father was a brother of

Jean Sans Peur [Duke of Burgundy]. … The young Duke was only

sixteen, and was a weak-minded, passionate youth. Sharp

quarrels took place between the young pair; the Duchess was

violent and headstrong, and accused her husband of allowing

himself to be governed by favourites of low degree. The Duke

of Burgundy interfered in vain. … After three years of

quarrelling, in the July of 1421 Jaqueline rode out early one

morning, met a knight of Hainault called Escaillon, 'who had

long been an Englishman at heart,' and who brought her sixty

horsemen, and galloped off for Calais, whence she came to

England, where Henry received her with the courtesy due to a

distressed dame-errant, and she became a most intimate

companion of the Queen. …

{2252}

She loudly gave out that she intended to obtain a separation

from her husband on the plea of consanguinity, although a

dispensation had been granted by the Council of Constance, and

'that she would marry some one who would pay her the respect

due to her rank.' This person soon presented himself in the

shape of Humfrey, duke of Gloucester, the King's youngest

brother, handsome, graceful, accomplished, but far less

patient and conscientious than any of his three elders."

Benedict XIII., the anti-pope, was persuaded to pronounce the

marriage of Jaqueline and John of Brabant null and void; "but

Henry V. knew that this was a vain sentence, and intimated to

his brother that he would never consent to his espousing the

Duchess of Brabant; showing him that the wedlock could not be

legal, and that to claim the lady's inheritance would lead to

a certain rupture with the Duke of Burgundy, who could not but

uphold the cause of his cousin of Brabant." Notwithstanding

these remonstrances, the Duke Humfrey did marry the seductive

Jaqueline, early in 1424. "He then sent to demand from the

Duke of Brabant the possession of the lady's inheritance; and

on his refusal the Hainaulters espoused whichever party they

preferred and began a warfare among themselves." Soon

afterwards the godless bishop of Liege died and "bequeathed

the rights he pretended to have to Hainault, not to his niece,

but to the Duke of Burgundy. Gloucester in the meantime

invaded Hainault and carried on a 'bitter war there.' Burgundy

assembled men-at-arms for its protection; and letters passed

between the Dukes, ending in a challenge—not between

Jaqueline's two husbands, who would have seemed the fittest

persons to have fought out the quarrel, but between Gloucester

and Burgundy." It was arranged that the question of the

possession of Hainault should be decided by single combat.

Humfrey returned to England to make preparations, leaving

Jaqueline at Mons, with her mother. The latter proved false

and allowed the citizens of Mons to deliver up the unhappy

lady to Philip of Burgundy. Her English husband found himself

powerless to render her much aid, and was possibly indifferent

to her fate, since another woman had caught his fancy.

Jaqueline, after a time, escaped from her captivity, and

revived the war in Hainault, Gloucester sending her 500 men.

"The Duke of Brabant died, and reports reached her that

Gloucester had married Eleanor Cobham; but she continued to

battle for her county till 1428, when she finally came to

terms with Philippe [of Burgundy], let him garrison her

fortresses, appointed him her heir, and promised not to marry

without his consent. A year or two after, however, she married

a gentleman of Holland called Frank of Burslem, upon which he

was seized by the Burgundians. To purchase his liberty she

yielded all her dominions, and only received an annual pension

until 1436, when she died, having brought about as much strife

and dissension as any woman of her time."

C. M. Yonge,

Cameos of English History,

series 2, chapter 33.

ALSO IN:

E. de Monstrelet,

Chronicles

(translated by Johnes),

book 1, chapters 164, 181, 234>,

book 2, chapters 22-32, 48-49.

C. M. Davies,

History of Holland,

part 1, chapters 5-6.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1428-1430.

The sovereignty of the House of Burgundy established.

"Upon the surrender of Holland, Zealand, Friezland, and

Hainault by Jacoba, Philip [the duke of Burgundy called Philip

the Good] became possessed of the most considerable states of

the Netherlands. John, duke of Burgundy, his father, had

succeeded to Flanders and Artois, in right of his mother

Margaret, sole heiress of Louis van der Male, count of

Flanders. In the year 1429, Philip entered into possession of

the county of Namur, by the death of Theodore, its last native

prince, without issue, of whom he had purchased it during his

lifetime for 132,000 crowns of gold. To Namur was added in the

next year the neighbouring duchy of Brabant, by the death [A.

D. 1430] of Philip (brother of John, who married Jacoba of

Holland), without issue; although Margaret, countess-dowager

of Holland, aunt of the late duke, stood the next in

succession, since the right extended to females, Philip

prevailed with the states of Brabant to confer on him, as the

true heir, that duchy and Limburg, to which the Margraviate of

Antwerp and the lordship of Mechlin were annexed. … The

accession of a powerful and ambitious prince to the government

of the county was anything but a source of advantage to the

Dutch, excepting, perhaps, in a commercial point of view."

C. M. Davies,

History of Holland,

part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1451-1453.

Revolt of Ghent.

See GHENT: A. D. 1451-1453.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1456.

The Burgundian hand laid on Utrecht.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1456.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1473.

Guelderland taken into the Burgundian dominion.

See GUELDERLAND: A. D. 1079-1473.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.

The severance from Burgundy.

Accession of the Duchess Mary.

The grant of the "Great Privilege."

On the fifth of January, 1477, Charles the Bold of Burgundy

came to his end at Nancy, and Louis XI. of France laid prompt

and sure hands on the Burgundian duchy, which remained

thenceforth united to the French crown. It was the further

intention of Louis to secure more or less of the Netherland

domain of the late duke, and he began seizures to that end.

But the Netherland states much preferred to acknowledge the

sovereignty of the young duchess Mary, daughter and sole

heiress of Charles the Bold, provided she would make proper

terms with them. "Shortly after her accession, the nobles, to

whose guardianship she had been committed by Charles before

his departure, summoned a general assembly of the states of

the Netherlands at Ghent, to devise means for arresting the

enterprises of Louis, and for raising funds to support the war

with France, as well as to consider the state of affairs in

the provinces. … This is the first regular assembly of the

states-general of the Netherlands. … Charles, and his

father, Philip, had exercised in the Netherlands a species of

government far more arbitrary than the inhabitants had until

then been accustomed to. … It now appeared that a favourable

opportunity offered itself for rectifying these abuses; and

the assembly, therefore, made the consideration of them a

preliminary to the grant of any supplies for the war. … They

insisted so firmly on this resolution that Mary, finding they

were determined to refuse any subsidies till their grievances

were redressed, consented to grant charters of privileges to

all the states of the Netherlands. That of Holland and Zealand

[was] commonly called the Great Charter."

C. M. Davies,

History of Holland,

part 2, chapter 2 (volume 1), with foot-note.

{2253}

"The result of the deliberations [of the assembly of the

states, in 1477] is the formal grant by Duchess Mary of the

'Groot Privilegie,' or Great Privilege, the Magna Charta of

Holland. Although this instrument was afterwards violated, and

indeed abolished, it became the foundation of the republic. It

was a recapitulation and recognition of ancient rights, not an

acquisition of new privileges. It was a restoration, not a

revolution. Its principal points deserve attention from those

interested in the political progress of mankind. 'The duchess

shall not marry without consent of the estates of her

provinces. All offices in her gift shall be conferred on

natives only. No man shall fill two offices. No office shall

be farmed. The Great Council and Supreme Court of Holland is

re-established. Causes shall be brought before it on appeal

from the ordinary courts. It shall have no original

jurisdiction of matters within the cognizance of the

provincial and municipal tribunals. The estates and cities are

guaranteed in their right not to be summoned to justice beyond

the limits of their territory. The cities, in common with all

the provinces of the Netherlands, may hold diets as often and

at such places as they choose. No new taxes shall be imposed

but by consent of the provincial estates. Neither the duchess

nor her descendants shall begin either an offensive or

defensive war without consent of the estates. In case a war be

illegally undertaken, the estates are not bound to contribute

to its maintenance. In all public and legal documents, the

Netherland language shall be employed. The commands of the

duchess shall be invalid, if conflicting with the privileges

of a city. The seat of the Supreme Council is transferred from

Mechlin to the Hague. No money shall be coined, nor its value

raised or lowered, but by consent of the estates. Cities are

not to be compelled to contribute to requests which they have

not voted. The Sovereign shall come in person before the

estates, to make his request for supplies.' … Certainly, for

the fifteenth century, the 'Great Privilege' was a reasonably

liberal constitution. Where else upon earth, at that day, was

there half so much liberty as was thus guaranteed?"

J. L. Motley,

The Rise of the Dutch Republic,

introduction, section 8.

ALSO IN:

L. S. Costello,

Memoirs of Mary of Burgundy,

chapters 28-30.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.

The Austrian marriage of Mary of Burgundy.

"Several husbands were proposed to the Princess of Burgundy,

and every one was of opinion there was a necessity of her

marrying, to defend those territories that she had left to

her, or (by marrying the dauphin), to recover what she had

lost.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1477.

Several were entirely for this match, and she was as earnest

for it as anybody, before the letters she had sent by the Lord

of Humbercourt and the chancellor to the king [Louis XI.] were

betrayed to the ambassadors from Ghent. Some opposed the

match, and urged the disproportion of their age, the dauphin

being but nine years old, and besides engaged to the King of

England's daughter; and these suggested the son of the Duke of

Cleves. Others recommended Maximilian, the emperor's son, who

is at present King of the Romans." Duchess Mary made choice

presently of Maximilian, then Archduke of Austria, afterwards

King of the Romans and finally emperor. The husband-elect

"came to Cologne, where several of the princess's servants

went to meet him, and carry him money, with which, as I have

been told, he was but very slenderly furnished; for his father

was the stingiest and most covetous prince, or person, of his

time. The Duke of Austria was conducted to Ghent, with about

700 or 800 horse in his retinue, and this marriage was

consummated [August 18, 1477], which at first sight brought no

great advantage to the subjects of the young princess; for,

instead of his supporting her, she was forced to supply him

with money. His armies were neither strong enough nor in a

condition to face the king's; besides which, the humour of the

house of Austria was not pleasing to the subjects of the house

of Burgundy, who had been bred up under wealthy princes, that

had lucrative offices and employments to dispose of; whose

palaces were sumptuous, whose tables were nobly served, whose

dress was magnificent, and whose liveries were pompous and

splendid. But the Germans are of quite a contrary temper;

boorish in their manners and rude in their way of living."

Philip de Commines,

Memoirs,

book 6, chapter 2 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

L. S. Costello,

Memoirs of Mary of Burgundy,

chapter 31.

See, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1477-1495.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.

Maximilian and the Flemings.

The end of the Hook party in Holland.

"According to the terms of the marriage treaty between

Maximilian and Mary, their eldest son, Philip, succeeded to

the sovereignty of the Netherlands immediately upon the death

of his mother [March 26, 1482]. As he was at this time only

four years of age, Maximilian obtained the acknowledgment of

himself as guardian of the young count's person, and protector

of his states, by all the provinces except Flanders and

Guelderland. The Flemings having secured the person of Philip

at Ghent, appointed a regency." To reduce the Flemings to

obedience, Maximilian carried on two campaigns in their

country, during 1484 and 1485, as the result of which Ghent

and Bruges surrendered. "Maximilian was acknowledged protector

of Flanders during the minority of Philip, who was delivered

by the Ghenters into the hands of his father, and by him

entrusted to the care of Margaret of York, Duchess-dowager of

Burgundy, until he became of age." Three years later

(1488)—Maximilian having been, in the meantime, crowned "King

of the Romans," at Aix la Chapelle, and thus cadetted, so to

speak, for his subsequent coronation as emperor—the Flemings

rose again in revolt, Maximilian was at Bruges, and rumor

accused him of a design to occupy the city with German troops.

The men of Bruges forestalled the attempt by seizing him

personally and making him a prisoner. They kept him in durance

for nearly four months, until he had signed a treaty, agreeing

to surrender the government of the Netherlands to the young

Duke Philip, his son; to place the latter under the care of

the princes of the blood (his relatives on the Burgundian

side); to withdraw all foreign troops, and to use his

endeavors to preserve peace with France.

{2254}

On these terms Maximilian obtained his liberty; but, meantime,

his father, the Emperor Frederic, had marched an army to the

frontiers of Brabant for his deliverance, and the very

honorable King of the Romans, making haste to the shelter of

these forces, repudiated with alacrity all the engagements he

had sworn to. His imperial father led the army he had brought

into Flanders and laid siege to Ghent; but tired of the

undertaking after six weeks and returned to Germany, leaving

his forces to prosecute the siege and the war. The commotions

in Flanders now brought to life the popular party of the

"Hooks" in Holland, and war broke out in that province. In

neither part of the Netherlands were the insurgents

successful. The Flemings had been helped by France, and when

the French king abandoned them they were forced to buy a peace

on humiliating terms and for a heavy price in cash. In

Holland, the revolt languished for a time, but broke out with

fresh spirit in 1490, excited by an edict which summarily

altered the value of the coin. In the next year it took the

name of the "Casembrotspel," or Bread and Cheese War. This

insurrection was suppressed in 1492, with the help of German

troops, and proved only disastrous to the province. "It was

the last effort made for a considerable time by the Hollanders

against the increasing power and extortion of their counts.

… The miserable remnant of the Hook or popular party melted

so entirely away that we hear of them no more in Holland: the

county, formerly a power respected in itself, was now become a

small and despised portion of an overgrown state." In 1494,

Philip having reached the age of seventeen, and Maximilian

having become emperor by the death of his father, the latter

surrendered and the former was installed in the government of

the Netherlands.

C. M. Davies,

History of Holland,

part 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519.

Beginning of the Austro-Spanish tyranny.

Absorption in the vast dominion of Charles V.

The seventeen Provinces, their independent constitutions and

their States-General.

"In 1494, Philip, now 17 years of age, became sovereign of the

Netherlands. But he would only swear to maintain the

privileges granted by his grandfather and great-grandfather,

Charles and Philip, and refused to acquiesce in the Great

Privilege of his mother. The Estates acquiesced. For a time,

Friesland, the outlying province of Holland, was severed from

it. It was free, and it chose as its elective sovereign the

Duke of Saxony. After a time he sold his sovereignty to the

House of Hapsburg. The dissensions of the Estates had put them

at the mercy of an autocratic family. Philip of Burgundy, in

1496, married Joanna, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella. In

1500 his son Charles was born, who was afterwards Charles V.,

Duke of the Netherlands, but also King of Spain, Emperor of

Germany, King of Jerusalem, and, by the grant of Alexander

VI., alias Roderic Borgia and Pope, lord of the whole new

world. Joanna, his mother, through whom he had this vast

inheritance, went mad, and remained mad during her life and

his.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.

Charles not only inherited his mother's and father's

sovereignties, but his grandfather's also.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526].

… The peril which the liberties of the Netherlands were now

running was greater than ever. They had been drawn into the

hands of that dynasty which, beginning with two little Spanish

kingdoms [Castile and Aragon], had in a generation developed

into the mightiest of monarchies. … Charles succeeded his

father Philip as Count of Flanders in 1506. His father, Philip

the Handsome, was at Burgos in Castile, where he was attacked

by fever, and died when only 28 years of age. Ten years

afterwards Charles became King of Spain (1516). When he was 19

years of age (1519) he was elected emperor.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1519.

The three nations over whom he was destined to rule hated each

other cordially. There was antipathy from the beginning

between Flemings and Spaniards. The Netherlands nobles were

detested in Spain, the Spaniards in the Low Countries were

equally abhorred. … Charles was born in Flanders, and during

his whole career was much more a Fleming than a Spaniard. This

did not, however, prevent him from considering his Flemish

subjects as mainly destined to supply his wants, and submit to

his exactions. He was always hard pressed for money. The

Germans were poor and turbulent. The conquest and subjection

of the Moorish population in Spain had seriously injured the

industrial wealth of that country. But the Flemings were

increasing in riches, particularly the inhabitants of Ghent.

They had to supply the funds which Charles required in order

to carry out the operations which his necessities or his

policy rendered urgent. He had been taught, and he readily

believed, that his subjects' money was his own. Now just as

Charles had come to the empire, two circumstances had occurred

which have had a lasting influence over the affairs of Western

Europe. The first of these was the conquest of Egypt by the

Turks under Selim I (1512-20). … Egypt had for nearly two

centuries been the only route by which Eastern produce, so

much valued by European nations, could reach the consumer. …

Now this trade, trifling to be sure to our present experience,

was of the highest importance to the trading towns of Italy,

the Rhine, and the Netherlands. … But the Netherlands had

two industries which saved them from the losses which affected

the Germans and Italians. They were still the weavers of the

world. They still had the most successful fisheries. … The

other cause was the revolt against the papacy" [the

Reformation—see PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, and after].

J. E. T. Rogers,

The Story of Holland,

chapters 5-6.

The seventeen provinces comprehended under the name of the

Netherlands, as ruled by Charles V., were the four duchies of

Brabant, Limburg, Luxemburg, and Guelderland; the seven

counties of Artois, Hainault, Flanders, Namur, Zutphen,

Holland, and Zealand; the five seigniories or lordships of

Friesland, Mechlin, Utrecht, Overyssel, and Groningen; and the

margraviate of Antwerp. "Of these provinces, the four which

adjoined the French border, and in which a French dialect was

spoken, were called Walloon [see WALLOONS]; in the other

provinces a dialect, more or less resembling German,

prevailed, that of the midland ones being Flemish, that of the

northern, Dutch. They differed still more in their laws and

customs than in language. Each province was an independent

state, having its own constitution, which secured more liberty

to those who lived under it than was then commonly enjoyed in

most other parts of Europe. …

{2255}

The only institutions which supplied any links of union among

the different provinces were the States-General, or assembly

of deputies sent from each, and the Supreme Tribunal

established at Mechlin, having an appellate jurisdiction over

them all. The States-General, however, had no legislative

authority, nor power to impose taxes, and were but rarely

convened. … The members of the States-General were not

representatives chosen by the people, but deputies, or

ambassadors, from certain provinces. The different provinces

had also their own States."

T. H. Dyer,

History of Modern Europe,

volume 2, pages 221-222.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1512.

Burgundian provinces included in the Circle of Burgundy.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555.

The Reformation in the Provinces.

The "Placards" and Persecutions of Charles V.

The Edict of 1550.

The Planting of the Inquisition.

"The people of the Netherlands were noted not less for their

ingenuity shown in the invention of machines and implements,

and for their proficiency in science and letters, than for

their opulence and enterprise. It was their boast that common

laborers, even the fishermen who dwelt in the huts of

Friesland, could read and write, and discuss the

interpretation of Scripture. … In such a population, among

the countrymen of Erasmus, where, too, in previous ages,

various forms of innovation and dissent had arisen, the

doctrines of Luther must inevitably find an entrance. They

were brought in by foreign merchants, 'together with whose

commodities,' writes the old Jesuit historian Strada, 'this

plague often sails.' They were introduced with the German and

Swiss soldiers, whom Charles V. had occasion to bring into the

country. Protestantism was also transplanted from England by

numerous exiles who fled from the persecution of Mary. The

contiguity of the country to Germany and France provided

abundant avenues for the incoming of the new opinions. 'Nor

did the Rhine from Germany, or the Meuse from France,' to

quote the regretful language of Strada, 'send more water into

the Low Countries, than by the one the contagion of Luther, by

the other of Calvin, was imported into the same Belgic

provinces.' The spirit and occupations of the people, the

whole atmosphere of the country, were singularly propitious

for the spread of the Protestant movement. The cities of

Flanders and Brabant, especially Antwerp, very early furnished

professors of the new faith. Charles V. issued, in 1521, from

Worms, an edict, the first of a series of barbarous enactments

or 'Placards,' for the extinguishing of heresy in the

Netherlands; and it did not remain a dead letter. In 1523, two

Augustinian monks were burned at the stake in Brussels. …

The edicts against heresy were imperfectly executed. The

Regent, Margaret of Savoy, was lukewarm in the business of

persecution; and her successor, Maria, the Emperor's sister,

the widowed Queen of Hungary, was still more leniently

disposed. The Protestants rapidly increased in number.

Calvinism, from the influence of France, and of Geneva, where

young men were sent to be educated, came to prevail among

them. Anabaptists and other licentious or fanatical sectaries,

such as appeared elsewhere in the wake of the Reformation,

were numerous; and their excesses afforded a plausible pretext

for violent measures of repression against all who departed

from the old faith. In 1550, Charles V. issued a new Placard,

in which the former persecuting edicts were confirmed, and in

which a reference was made to Inquisitors of the faith, as

well as to the ordinary judges of the bishops. This excited

great alarm, since the Inquisition was an object of extreme

aversion and dread. The foreign merchants prepared to leave

Antwerp, prices fell, trade was to a great extent suspended;

and such was the disaffection excited, that the Regent Maria

interceded for some modification of the obnoxious decree.

Verbal changes were made, but the fears of the people were not

quieted; and it was published at Antwerp in connection with a

protest of the magistrates in behalf of the liberties which

were put in peril by a tribunal of the character threatened.

'And,' says the learned Arminian historian, 'as this affair of

the Inquisition and the oppression from Spain prevailed more

and more, all men began to be convinced that they were

destined to perpetual slavery.' Although there was much

persecution in the Netherlands during the long reign of

Charles, yet the number of martyrs could not have been so

great as 50,000, the number mentioned by one writer, much less

100,000, the number given by Grotius."

G. P. Fisher,

The Reformation,

chapter 9.

"His hand [that of Charles V.] planted the inquisition in the

Netherlands. Before his day it is idle to say that the

diabolical institution ever had a place there. The isolated

cases in which inquisitors had exercised functions proved the

absence and not the presence of the system. … Charles

introduced and organized a papal inquisition, side by side

with those terrible 'placards' of his invention, which

constituted a masked inquisition even more cruel than that of

Spain. … The number of Netherlanders who were burned,

strangled, beheaded, or buried alive, in obedience to his

edicts … has been placed as high as 100,000 by distinguished

authorities, and have never been put at a lower mark than

50,000. The Venetian envoy Navigero placed the number of

victims in the provinces of Holland and Friesland alone at

30,000, and this in 1546, ten years before the abdication, and

five before the promulgation of the hideous edict of 1550. …

'No one,' said the edict [of 1550], 'shall print, write, copy,

keep, conceal, sell, buy, or give in churches, streets, or

other places, any book or writing made by Martin Luther, John

Ecolampadius, Ulrich Zwinglius, Martin Bucer, John Calvin, or

other heretics reprobated by the Holy Church; … nor break,

or otherwise injure the images of the holy virgin or canonized

saints; … nor in his house hold conventicles, or illegal

gatherings, or be present at any such in which the adherents

of the above-mentioned heretics teach, baptize, and form

conspiracies against the Holy Church and the general welfare.

… Moreover, we forbid … all lay persons to converse or

dispute concerning the Holy Scriptures, openly or secretly,

especially on any doubtful or difficult matters, or to read,

teach, or expound the Scriptures, unless they have duly

studied theology and been approved by some renowned

university; … or to preach secretly, or openly, or to

entertain any of the opinions of the above-mentioned heretics.

… Such perturbators of the general quiet are to be executed,

to wit: the men with the sword and the women to be buried alive,

if they do not persist in their errors; if they do persist in

them they are to be executed with fire; all their property in

both cases being confiscated to the crown.'"

The horrible edict further bribed informers, by promising to

them half the goods of a convicted heretic, while, at the same

time, it forbade, under sharp penalties, any petitioning for

pardon in favor of such heretics.

J. L. Motley,

The Rise of the Dutch Republic,

part 1, chapter 1,

and part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

J. H. Merle d'Aubigne,

History of the Reformation in Europe in the Time of Calvin,

book 13, chapters 9-11 (volume 7).

{2265}

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1539-1540.

The revolt and enslavement of Ghent.

See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1547.

Pragmatic Sanction of Charles V. changing the Relations of

his Burgundian inheritance to the Empire.

In the Germanic diet assembled at Augsburg in 1547, after the

Emperor's defeat of the Protestant princes at Muhlberg (see

GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552), he was able to exercise his will

almost without opposition and decree arbitrarily whatever he

chose. He there "proclaimed the Pragmatic Sanction for the

Netherlands, whereby his old Burgundian inheritance was

declared by his own law to be indivisible, the succession

settled on the house of Hapsburg, it was attached to the

German empire as a tenth district, had to pay certain

contributions, but was not to be subject to the Imperial

Chamber or the Imperial Court of Judicature. He thus secured

the personal union of these territories with his house, and

made it the duty of the empire to defend them, while at the

same time he withdrew them from the jurisdiction of the

empire; it was a union by which the private interests of the

house of Hapsburg had everything to gain, but which was of no

advantage to the empire."

L. Häusser,

The Period of the Reformation,

chapter 16.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555.

The Abdication of Charles V.

Accession of Philip II.

His sworn promises.

"In the autumn of this year [1555] the world was astonished by

the declaration of the emperor's intention to resign all his

vast dominions, and spend the remainder of his days in a

cloister. … On the 25th of October, the day appointed for

the ceremony [of the surrender of the sovereignty of the

Netherlands], the knights of the Golden Fleece, and the

deputies of all the states of the Netherlands assembled at

Brussels. … On the day after the emperor's resignation the

mutual oaths were taken by Philip and the states of Holland;

the former swore to maintain all the privileges which they now

enjoyed, including those granted or confirmed at his

installation as heir in 1549. He afterwards renewed the

promise made by Charles in the month of May preceding, that no

office in Holland, except that of stadtholder, should be given

to foreigners or to Netherlanders of those provinces in which

Hollanders were excluded from offices. In the January of the

next year [1556] the emperor resigned the crown of Spain to

his son, reserving only an annuity of 100,000 crowns, and on

the 7th of September following, having proceeded to Zealand to

join the fleet destined to carry him to Spain, he surrendered

the imperial dignity to his brother Ferdinand." He then

proceeded to the cloister of St. Just, near Piacenza, where he

lived in retirement until his death, which occurred August 21,

1558.

C. M. Davies,

History of Holland,

part 2, chapter 6 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

W. Stirling,

Cloister Life of Charles V.

O. Delepierre,

Historical Difficulties,

chapter 10.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555-1559.

Opening of the dark and bloody reign of Philip II. of Spain.

His malignity.

His perfidy.

His evil and plotting industry.

"Philip, bred in this [Spanish] school of slavish

superstition, taught that he was the despot for whom it was

formed, familiar with the degrading tactics of eastern

tyranny, was at once the most contemptible and unfortunate of

men. … He was perpetually filled with one idea—that of his

greatness; he had but one ambition—that of command; but one

enjoyment—that of exciting fear. … Deceit and blood were

his greatest, if not his only, delights. The religious zeal

which he affected, or felt, showed itself but in acts of

cruelty; and the fanatic bigotry which inspired him formed the

strongest contrast to the divine spirit of Christianity. …

Although ignorant, he had a prodigious instinct of cunning. He

wanted courage, but its place was supplied by the harsh

obstinacy of wounded pride. All the corruptions of intrigue

were familiar to him; yet he often failed in his most

deep-laid designs, at the very moment of their apparent

success, by the recoil of the bad faith and treachery with

which his plans were overcharged. Such was the man who now

began that terrible reign which menaced utter ruin to the

national prosperity of the Netherlands. … Philip had only

once visited the Netherlands before his accession to sovereign

power. … Every thing that he observed on this visit was

calculated to revolt both [his opinions and his prejudices].

The frank cordiality of the people appeared too familiar. The

expression of popular rights sounded like the voice of

rebellion. Even the magnificence displayed in his honour

offended his jealous vanity. From that moment he seems to have

conceived an implacable aversion to the country, in which

alone, of all his vast possessions, he could not display the

power or inspire the terror of despotism. The sovereign's

dislike was fully equalled by the disgust of his subjects. …

Yet Philip did not at first act in a way to make himself more

particularly hated. He rather, by an apparent consideration

for a few points of political interest and individual

privilege, and particularly by the revocation of some of the

edicts against heretics, removed the suspicions his earlier

conduct had excited; and his intended victims did not perceive

that the despot sought to lull them to sleep, in the hopes of

making them an easier prey. Philip knew well that force alone

was insufficient to reduce such a people to slavery. He

succeeded in persuading the states to grant him considerable

subsidies, some of which were to be paid by instalments during

a period of nine years. That was gaining a great step towards

his designs. … At the same time he sent secret agents to

Rome, to obtain the approbation of the pope to his insidious

but most effective plan for placing the whole of the clergy in

dependence upon the crown. He also kept up the army of

Spaniards and Germans which his father had formed on the

frontiers of France; and although he did not remove from their

employments the functionaries already in place, he took care

to make no new appointments to office among the natives of the

Netherlands. … To lead his already, deceived subjects the

more surely into the snare, he announced his intended

departure on a short visit to Spain; and created for the

period of his absence a provisional government, chiefly

composed of the leading men among the Belgian nobility.

{2257}

He flattered himself that the states, dazzled by the

illustrious illusion thus prepared, would cheerfully grant to

this provisional government the right of levying taxes during

the temporary absence of the sovereign. He also reckoned on

the influence of the clergy in the national assembly, to

procure the revival of the edicts against heresy, which he had

gained the merit of suspending. … As soon as the states had

consented to place the whole powers of government in the hands

of the new administration for the period of the king's

absence, the royal hypocrite believed his scheme secure, and

flattered himself he had established an instrument of durable

despotism. … The edicts against heresy, soon adopted

[including a re-enactment of the terrible edict of 1550—see

above], gave to the clergy an almost unlimited power over the

lives and fortunes of the people. But almost all the

dignitaries of the church being men of great respectability

and moderation, chosen by the body of the inferior clergy,

these extraordinary powers excited little alarm. Philip's

project was suddenly to replace these virtuous ecclesiastics

by others of his own choice [through a creation of new

bishoprics], as soon as the states broke up from their annual

meeting; and for this intention he had procured the secret

consent and authority of the court of Rome. In support of

these combinations, the Belgian troops were completely broken

up and scattered in small bodies over the country. … To

complete the execution of this system of perfidy, Philip

convened an assembly of all the states at Ghent, in the month

of July, 1559. … Anthony Perrenotte de Granvelle, bishop of

Arras [afterwards cardinal], who was considered as Philip's

favorite counsellor, but who was in reality no more than his

docile agent, was commissioned to address the assembly in the

name of his master, who spoke only Spanish. His oration was

one of cautious deception." It announced the appointment of

Margaret, duchess of Parma, a natural daughter of Charles V.,

and therefore half-sister of Philip, to preside as regent over

the government of the Netherlands during the absence of the

sovereign. It also urged with skilful plausibility certain

requests for money on the part of the latter. "But

notwithstanding all the talent, the caution, and the mystery

of Philip and his minister, there was among the nobles one man

[William of Nassau, prince of Orange and stadtholder, or

governor, of Holland, Zealand, and Utrecht] who saw through

all. Without making himself suspiciously prominent, he

privately warned some members of the states of the coming

danger. Those in whom he confided did not betray the trust.

They spread among the other deputies the alarm, and pointed

out the danger to which they had been so judiciously awakened.

The consequence was, a reply to Philip's demand, in vague and

general terms, without binding the nation by any pledge; and

an unanimous entreaty that he would diminish the taxes,

withdraw the foreign troops, and entrust no official

employments to any but natives of the country. The object of

this last request was the removal of Granvelle, who was born

in Franche-Comte. Philip was utterly astounded at all this. In

the first moment of his vexation he imprudently cried out,

'Would ye, then, also bereave me of my place; I, who am a

Spaniard?' But he soon recovered his self-command, and resumed

his usual mask; expressed his regret at not having sooner

learned the wishes of the state; promised to remove the

foreign troops within three months; and set off for Zealand,

with assumed composure, but filled with the fury of a

discovered traitor and a humiliated despot." In August, 1559,

he sailed for Spain.

T. C. Grattan,

History of the Netherlands,

chapter 7.

"Crafty, saturnine, atrabilious, always dissembling and

suspecting, sombre, and silent like night when brooding over

the hatching storm, he lived shrunk within himself, with only

the fellowship of his gloomy thoughts and cruel resolves. …

There is something terrific in the secrecy, dissimulation and

dogged perseverance with which Philip would, during a series

of years, meditate and prepare the destruction of one man, or

of a whole population, and something still more awful in the

icy indifference, the superhuman insensibility, the

accumulated cold-blooded energy of hoarded-up vengeance with

which, at the opportune moment, he would issue a dry sentence

of extermination. … He seemed to take pleasure in

distilling, slowly and chemically, the poison which,

Python-like, he darted at every object which he detested or

feared, or which he considered an obstacle in his path."

C. Gayarre,

Philip II. of Spain,

chapter 1.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1559-1562.

The Spanish troops, the new bishoprics,

and the shadow of the Inquisition.

The appeal of Brabant to its ancient "Joyeuse Entrée."

"The first cause of trouble, after Philip's departure from the

Netherlands, arose from the detention of the Spanish troops

there. The king had pledged his word … that they should

leave the country by the end of four months, at farthest. Yet

that period had long since passed, and no preparations were

made for their departure. The indignation of the people rose

higher and higher at the insult thus offered by the presence

of these detested foreigners. It was a season of peace. No

invasion was threatened from abroad; no insurrection existed

at home. … Granvelle himself, who would willingly have

pleased his master by retaining a force in the country on

which he could rely, admitted that the project was

impracticable. 'The troops must be withdrawn,' he wrote, 'and

that speedily, or the consequence will be an insurrection.'

… The Prince of Orange and Count Egmont threw up the

commands intrusted to them by the king. They dared no longer

hold them, as the minister added, it was so unpopular. … Yet

Philip was slow in returning an answer to the importunate

letters of the regent and the minister; and when he did reply,

it was to evade their request. … The regent, however, saw

that, with or without instructions, it was necessary to act.

… The troops were ordered to Zealand, in order to embark for

Spain. But the winds proved unfavorable. Two months longer

they were detained, on shore or on board the transports. They

soon got into brawls with the workmen employed on the dikes;

and the inhabitants, still apprehensive of orders from the

king countermanding the departure of the Spaniards, resolved,

in such an event, to abandon the dikes, and lay the country

under water! Fortunately, they were not driven to this

extremity.

{2258}

In January, 1561, more than a year after the date assigned by

Philip, the nation was relieved of the presence of the

intruders. … This difficulty was no sooner settled than it

was followed by another scarcely less serious." Arrangements

had been made for "adding 13 new bishoprics to the four

already existing in the Netherlands. … The whole affair had

been kept profoundly secret by the government. It was not till

1561 that Philip disclosed his views, in a letter to some of

the principal nobles in the council of state. But, long before

that time, the project had taken wind, and created a general

sensation through the country. The people looked on it as an

attempt to subject them to the same ecclesiastical system

which existed in Spain. The bishops, by virtue of their

office, were possessed of certain inquisitorial powers, and

these were still further enlarged by the provisions of the

royal edicts. … The present changes were regarded as part of

a great scheme for introducing the Spanish Inquisition into

the Netherlands. … The nobles had other reasons for opposing

the measure. The bishops would occupy in the legislature the

place formerly held by the abbots, who were indebted for their

election to the religious houses over which they presided. The

new prelates, on the contrary, would receive their nomination

from the crown; and the nobles saw with alarm their own

independence menaced by the accession of an order of men who

would naturally be subservient to the interests of the

monarch. … But the greatest opposition arose from the manner

in which the new dignitaries were to be maintained. This was

to be done by suppressing the offices of the abbots, and by

appropriating the revenues of their houses to the maintenance

of the bishops. … Just before Philip's departure from the

Netherlands, a bull arrived from Rome authorizing the erection

of the new bishoprics. This was but the initiatory step. Many

other proceedings were necessary before the consummation of

the affair. Owing to impediments thrown in the way by the

provinces, and the habitual tardiness of the court of Rome,

nearly three years elapsed before the final briefs were

expedited by Pius IV."

W. H. Prescott,

History of the Reign of Philip II.,

book 2, chapter 6 (volume 1).

"Against the arbitrary policy embodied in the edicts, the new

bishoprics and the foreign soldiery, the Netherlanders

appealed to their ancient constitutions. These charters were

called 'handvests', in the vernacular Dutch and Flemish,

because the sovereign made them fast with his hand. As already

stated, Philip had made them faster than any of the princes of

his house had ever done, so far as oath and signature could

accomplish that purpose, both as hereditary prince in 1549,

and as monarch in 1555. … Of these constitutions, that of

Brabant, known by the title of the 'joyeuse entrée' 'blyde

inkomst,' or blythe entrance, furnished the most decisive

barrier against the present wholesale tyranny. First and

foremost, the 'joyous entry' provided, 'that the prince of the

land should not elevate the clerical state higher than of old

has been customary and by former princes settled; unless by

consent of the other two estates, the nobility and the

cities.' Again, 'the prince can prosecute no one of his

subjects, nor any foreign resident, civilly or criminally,

except in the ordinary and open courts of justice in the

province, where the accused may answer and defend himself with

the help of advocates.' Further, 'the prince shall appoint no

foreigners to office in Brabant.' Lastly 'should the prince,

by force or otherwise, violate any of these privileges, the

inhabitants of Brabant, after regular protest entered, are

discharged of their oaths of allegiance, and, as free,

independent, and unbound people, may conduct themselves

exactly as seems to them best.' Such were the leading

features, so far as they regarded the points now at issue, of

that famous constitution which was so highly esteemed in the

Netherlands, that mothers came to the province in order to

give birth to their children, who might thus enjoy, as a

birthright, the privileges of Brabant. Yet the charters of the

other provinces ought to have been as effective against the

arbitrary course of the government. 'No foreigner,' said the

constitution of Holland, 'is eligible as councillor,

financier, magistrate, or member of a court. Justice can be

administered only by the ordinary tribunals and magistrates.

The ancient laws and customs shall remain inviolable. Should

the prince infringe any of these provisions, no one is bound

to obey him.' These provisions from the Brabant and Holland

charters are only cited as illustrative of the general spirit

of the provincial constitutions. Nearly all the provinces

possessed privileges equally ample, duly signed and sealed."

J. L. Motley,

The Rise of the Dutch Republic,

part 2, chapter 2 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

E. E. Crowe,

Cardinal Granvelle

(Eminent Foreign Statesmen, volume 1).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.

Beginning of organized resistance to the tyranny

and persecution of Philip.

The signing of the Compromise.

The League of the Gueux.

William of Orange now "claimed, in the name of the whole

country, the convocation of the states-general. This assembly

alone was competent to decide what was just, legal, and

obligatory for each province and every town. … The ministers

endeavored to evade a demand which they were at first

unwilling openly to refuse. But the firm demeanor and

persuasive eloquence of the prince of Orange carried before

them all who were not actually bought by the crown; and

Granvelle found himself at length forced to avow that an

express order from the king forbade the convocation of the

states, on any pretext, during his absence. The veil was thus

rent asunder, which had in some measure concealed the

deformity of Philip's despotism. The result was a powerful

confederacy among all who held it odious, for the overthrow of

Granvelle, to whom they chose to attribute the king's conduct.

… Those who composed this confederacy against the minister

were actuated by a great variety of motives. … It is

doubtful if any of the confederates except the prince of

Orange clearly saw that they were putting themselves in direct

and personal opposition to the king himself. William alone,

clear-sighted in politics and profound in his views, knew, in

thus devoting himself to the public cause, the adversary with

whom he entered the lists. This great man, for whom the

national traditions still preserve the sacred title of

'father' (Vader-Willem), and who was in truth not merely the

parent but the political creator of the country, was at this

period in his 30th year. … Philip, … driven before the

popular voice, found himself forced to the choice of throwing

off the mask at once, or of sacrificing Granvelle.

{2259}

An invincible inclination for manœuvring and deceit decided

him on the latter measure; and the cardinal, recalled but not

disgraced, quitted the Netherlands on the 10th of March, 1564.

The secret instructions to the government remained unrevoked;

the president Viglius succeeded to the post which Granvelle

had occupied; and it was clear that the projects of the king

had suffered no change. Nevertheless some good resulted from

the departure of the unpopular minister. The public

fermentation subsided; the patriot lords reappeared at court;

and the prince of Orange acquired an increasing influence in

the council and over the government. … It was resolved to

dispatch a special envoy to Spain, to explain to Philip the

views of the council. … The count of Egmont, chosen by the

council for this important mission, set out for Madrid in the

month of February, 1565. Philip received him with profound

hypocrisy; loaded him with the most flattering promises; sent

him back in the utmost elation: and when the credulous count

returned to Brussels, he found that the written orders, of

which he was the bearer, were in direct variance with every

word which the king had uttered. These orders were chiefly

concerning the reiterated subject of the persecution to be

inflexibly pursued against the religious reformers. Not

satisfied with the hitherto established forms of punishment,

Philip now expressly commanded that the more revolting means

decreed by his father in the rigor of his early zeal, such as

burning, living burial, and the like, should be adopted. …

Even Viglius was terrified by the nature of Philip's commands;

and the patriot lords once more withdrew from all share in the

government, leaving to the duchess of Parma and her ministers

the whole responsibility of the new measures. They were at

length put into actual and vigorous execution in the beginning

of the year 1566. The inquisitors of the faith, with their

familiars, stalked abroad boldly in the devoted provinces,

carrying persecution and death in their train. Numerous but

partial insurrections opposed these odious intruders. Every

district and town became the scene of frightful executions or

tumultuous resistance."

T. C. Grattan,

History of the Netherlands,

chapter 7.

In November, 1565, a meeting of Flemish nobles was held at

Culenborg House, Brussels, where they formed a league, in

which Philip de Marnix, Lord of Ste. Aldegonde, Count Louis of

Nassau, a younger brother of the Prince of Orange, and

Viscount Brederode, were the foremost leaders. "In a meeting

held at Breda, in January 1566, the league promulgated their

views in a paper called the Compromise, attributed to the hand

of Ste. Aldegonde. The document contained a severe

denunciation of the inquisition as an illegal, pernicious and

iniquitous tribunal; the subscribers swore to defend one

another against any attack that might be made upon them; and

declared, at the same time, that they did not mean to throw

off their allegiance to the King. … In the course of two

months the Compromise was signed by about 2,000 persons,

including many Catholics; but only a few of the great nobles

could be prevailed on to subscribe it. … The Prince of

Orange at first kept aloof from the league, and at this period

Egmont, who was of a more impulsive temper, seemed to act the

leading part; but the nation relied solely upon William. The

latter gave at least a tacit sanction to the league in the

spring of 1566, by joining the members of it in a petition to

the Regent which he had himself revised."

T. H. Dyer,

History of Modern Europe,

book 3, chapter 7 (volume 2).

"The league had its origin in banquets, and a banquet gave it

form and perfection. … Brederode entertained the

confederates in Kuilemberg House; about 300 guests assembled;

intoxication gave them courage, and their audacity rose with

their numbers. During the conversation, one of their number

happened to remark that he had overheard the Count of

Barlaimont whisper in French to the regent, who was seen to

turn pale on the delivery of the petitions, that 'she need not

be afraid of a band of beggars (gueux).' … Now, as the very

name for their fraternity was the very thing which had most

perplexed them, an expression was eagerly caught up, which,

while it cloaked the presumption of their enterprise in

humility, was at the same time appropriate to them as

petitioners. Immediately they drank to one another under this

name, and the cry 'Long live the gueux!' was accompanied with

a general shout of applause. … What they had resolved on in

the moment of intoxication they attempted, when sober, to

carry into execution. … In a few days, the town of Brussels,

swarmed with ash-gray garments, such as were usually worn by

mendicant friars and penitents. Every confederate put his

whole family and domestics in this dress. Some carried wooden

bowls thinly overlaid with plates of silver, cups of the same

kind, and wooden knives; in short, the whole paraphernalia of

the beggar tribe, which they either fixed round their hats or

suspended from their girdles. … Hence the origin of the name

'Gueux,' which was subsequently borne in the Netherlands by

all who seceded from popery, and took up arms against the

king."

F. Schiller,

History of the Revolt of the Netherlands,

book 3.

ALSO IN:

J. L. Motley,

The Rise of the Dutch Republic,

part 2, chapters 3-6 (volume 1).

F. von Raumer,

History of the 16th and 17th Centuries

illustrated by original documents,

letter 16 (volume 1).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

Field preaching under arms.

The riots of the Image-breakers.

Philip's schemes of revenge.

Discouragement and retirement of Orange.

Blindness of Egmont and Horn, and their fate.

"While the Privy Council was endeavouring to obtain a

'Moderation' of the Edicts, and … effected that the heretics

should be no longer burnt but hung, and that the Inquisition

should proceed 'prudently, and with circumspection,' a

movement broke out among the people which mocked at all

Edicts. The open country was suddenly covered with thousands

of armed noblemen, citizens, and peasants, who assembled in

large crowds in the open air to listen to some heretical

preacher, Lutheran, Calvinist, or even an Anabaptist, and to

hold forbidden services, with prayers and hymns, in the mother

tongue. They sallied forth with pistols, arquebuses, flails,

and pitchforks; the place of meeting was marked out like a

camp, and surrounded by guards; from 10,000 to 20,000

assembled, the armed men outside, the women and children

within.

{2260}

After the immense choir had sung a psalm, one of the

excommunicated preachers appeared between two pikes (according

to the 'Moderation' a price was set upon the head of everyone of

them), and expounded the new doctrine from the Scriptures; the

assembly listened in devout silence, and when the service was

ended separated quietly, but defiantly. This was repeated day

after day throughout the country, and nobody dared to attack

the armed field preachers. The Regent was in a painful

situation; she was always having it proclaimed that the Edicts

were in force, but nobody cared. … It was all in vain unless

foreign troops came to enforce obedience, and these she had

neither power nor funds to procure. The King hesitated in his

usual fashion, and left the Regent to the torments of

powerlessness and uncertainty. Meanwhile the universal

excitement bore fatal fruit. Instead of the dignified

preachings and peaceful assemblies of May, in June and July

there were wild excesses and furious mobs. Orange had just

persuaded the Regent to permit the field preaching in the open

country, if they avoided the towns, when the first great

outbreak occurred in Antwerp. Two days after a great

procession, on the 18th of August, 1566, at which the Catholic

clergy of Antwerp had made a pompous display to the annoyance

of the numerous Protestants, the beautiful cathedral was

invaded by a furious mob, who destroyed without mercy all the

images, pictures, and objects of art that it contained. This

demolition of images, the stripping of churches, desecration

of chapels, and destruction of all symbols of the ancient

faith, spread from Antwerp to other places, Tournay,

Valenciennes, &c. It was done with a certain moderation, for

neither personal violence nor theft took place anywhere,

though innumerable costly articles were lying about. Still,

these fanatical scenes not only excited the ire of Catholics,

but of every religious man; in Antwerp, especially, the

seafaring mob had rushed upon everything that had been held

sacred for centuries. In her distress the Regent wished to

flee from Brussels, but Orange, Egmont, and Horn compelled her

to remain, and induced her to proclaim the Act of the 25th of

August, by which an armistice was decided on between Spain and

the Beggars. In this the Government conceded the abolition of

the Inquisition and the toleration of the new doctrines, and

the Beggars declared that for so long as this promise was kept

their league was dissolved. In consideration of this, the

first men in the country agreed to quell the disturbances in

Flanders, Antwerp, Tournay; and Malines, and to restore peace.

Orange effected this in Antwerp like a true statesman, who

knew how to keep himself above party spirit; but in Flanders,

Egmont, on the contrary, went to work like a brutal soldier;

he stormed against the heretics like Philip's Spanish

executioners, and the scales fell from the eyes of the

bitterly disappointed people. Meanwhile a decision had been

come to at Madrid. … When at length the irresolute King had

determined to proclaim an amnesty, though it was really rather

a proscription, and to promise indulgence, while he was

assuring the Pope by protocol before notaries that he never

would grant any, the news came of the image riots of August,

and a report from the Duchess in which she humbly begged the

King's pardon for having allowed a kind of religious peace to

be extorted from her, but she was entirely innocent; they had

forced it from her as a prisoner in her palace, and there was

one comfort, that the King was not bound by a promise made

only in her name. Philip's rage was boundless. … He was

resolved upon fearful revenge, even when he was writing that

he should know how to restore order in his provinces by means

of grace and mercy. … Well-informed as Orange was, he

understood the whole situation perfectly; he knew that while

the Regent was heaping flattery upon him, she and Philip were

compassing his destruction; that her only object could be to

keep the peace until the Spanish preparations were complete,

and meanwhile, if possible, to compromise him with the people.

He wrote to Egmont, and laid the dangers of their situation

before him, and communicated his resolve either to escape

Philip's revenge by flight, or to join with his friends in

armed resistance to the expected attack of the Spanish army.

But Egmont in his unhappy blindness had resolved to side with

the Government which was more than ever determined on his

destruction, and the meeting at Dendermonde, October, 1566,

when Orange consulted him, Louis of Nassau, and Hogstraaten,

as to u plan of united action, was entirely fruitless. …

Admiral Horn, who had staked large property in the service of

the Emperor and King, and had never received the least return

in answer to his just demands, gave up his office, and, like a

weary philosopher, retired into solitude. Left entirely alone,

Orange thought of emigrating; in short, the upper circle of

the previous party of opposition no longer existed. But it was

not so with the mad leaders of the Beggars. While the zealous

inhabitants of Valenciennes, incited by two of the most

dauntless Calvinistic preachers, undertook to defend

themselves against the royal troops with desperate bravery,

Count Brederode went about the country with a clang of sabres,

exciting disturbances in order to give the heretics at

Valenciennes breathing-time by a happy diversion. … All that

Philip wanted to enable him to gain the day was an

unsuccessful attempt at revolt. The attack upon images and the

Beggars' volunteer march did more for the Government than all

Granvella's system; … drove every one who favoured the

Catholics and loved peace into the arms of the Government.,

The reaction set in with the sanguinary defeat of the rebels

at Valenciennes, who never again even made an attempt at

resistance. Orange gave up the liberties of his country for

lost. … Stating that he could never take the new oath of

fealty which was required, because it would oblige him to

become the executioner of his Protestant countrymen, he

renounced his offices and dignities, … made a last attempt

to save his friend Egmont, … and retired to Dillenburg, the

ancient property of the family. He wished to be spared for

better times; he saw the storm coming, and was too cool-headed

to offer himself as the first sacrifice. In fact, just when he

was travelling towards Germany, Duke Alba [more commonly

called Alva], the hangman of the Netherlands, was on his way

to his destination." Alva arrived in August, 1567, with an

army of 10,000 carefully picked veterans, fully empowered to

make the Netherlands a conquered territory and deal with it as

such. His first important act was the treacherous seizure and

imprisonment of Egmont and Horn. Then the organization of

terror began. The imprisonment and the mockery of a trial of

the two most distinguished victims was protracted until the

5th of June, 1568, when they were beheaded in the great square

at Brussels.

L. Häusser,

The Period of the Reformation,

chapters 22-23.

ALSO IN:

J. L. Motley,

The Rise of the Dutch Republic,

part 2, chapters 6-10,

and part 3, chapters 1-2.

F. Schiller,

History of the Revolt of the Netherlands,

books 3-4.

{2261}

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1567.

The Council of Blood.

"In the same despatch of the 9th September [1567], in which

the Duke communicated to Philip the capture of Egmont and

Horn, he announced to him his determination to establish a new

court for the trial of crimes committed during the recent

period of troubles. This wonderful tribunal was accordingly

created with the least possible delay. It was called the

Council of Troubles, but it soon acquired the terrible name,

by which it will be forever known in history, of the

Blood-Council. It superseded all other institutions. Every

court, from those of the municipal magistracies up to the

supreme councils of the provinces, were forbidden to take

cognisance in future of any cause growing out of the late

troubles. The Council of State, although it was not formally

disbanded, fell into complete desuetude, its members being

occasionally summoned into Alva's private chambers in an

irregular manner, while its principal functions were usurped

by the Blood-Council. Not only citizens of every province, but

the municipal bodies, and even the sovereign provincial

Estates themselves, were compelled to plead, like humble

individuals, before this new and extraordinary tribunal. It is

unnecessary to allude to the absolute violation which was thus

committed of all charters, laws, and privileges, because the

very creation of the Council was a bold and brutal

proclamation that those laws and privileges were at an end.

… So well … did this new and terrible engine perform its

work, that in less than three months from the time of its

erection, 1,800 human beings had suffered death by its summary

proceedings; some of the highest, the noblest, and the most

virtuous in the land among the number; nor had it then

manifested the slightest indication of faltering in its dread

career. Yet, strange to say, this tremendous court, thus

established upon the ruins of all the ancient institutions of

the country, had not been provided with even a nominal

authority from any source whatever. The King had granted it no

letters patent or charter, nor had even the Duke of Alva

thought it worth while to grant any commissions, either in his

own name or as Captain-General, to any of the members

composing the board. The Blood-Council was merely an informal

club, of which the Duke was perpetual president, while the

other members were all appointed by himself. Of these

subordinate councillors, two had the right of voting, subject,

however, in all cases, to his final decision, while the rest

of the number did not vote at all. It had not, therefore, in

any sense, the character of a judicial, legislative, or

executive tribunal, but was purely a board of advice by which

the bloody labours of the Duke were occasionally lightened as

to detail, while not a feather's weight of power or of

responsibility was removed from his shoulders. He reserved for

himself the final decision upon all causes which should come

before the Council, and stated his motives for so doing with

grim simplicity. 'Two reasons,' he wrote to the King, 'have

determined me thus to limit the power of the tribunal; the

first that, not knowing its members, I might be easily

deceived by them; the second, that the men of law only condemn

for crimes which are proved; whereas your Majesty knows that

affairs of state are governed by very different rules from the

laws which they have here.' It being, therefore, the object of

the Duke to compose a body of men who would be of assistance

to him in condemning for crimes which could not be proved, and

in slipping over statutes which were not to be recognised, it

must be confessed that he was not unfortunate in the

appointments which he made to the office of councillors. …

No one who was offered the office refused it. Noircarmes and

Berlaymont accepted with very great eagerness. Several

presidents and councillors of the different provincial

tribunals were appointed, but all the Netherlanders were men

of straw. Two Spaniards, Del Rio and Vargas, were the only

members who could vote, while their decisions, as already

stated, were subject to reversal by Alva. Del Rio was a man

without character or talent, a mere tool in the hands of his

superiors, but Juan de Vargas was a terrible reality. No

better man could have been found in Europe, for the post to

which he was thus elevated. To shed human blood was, in his

opinion, the only important business and the only exhilarating

pastime of life. … It was the duty of the different

subalterns, who, as already stated, had no right of voting, to

prepare reports upon the cases. Nothing could be more summary.

Information was lodged against a man, or against a hundred

men, in one document. The Duke sent the papers to the Council,

and the inferior councillors reported at once to Vargas. If

the report concluded with a recommendation of death to the man

or the hundred men in question, Vargas instantly approved it,

and execution was done upon the man, or the hundred men,

within 48 hours. If the report had any other conclusion, it

was immediately sent back for revision, and the reporters were

overwhelmed with reproaches by the President. Such being the

method of operation, it may be supposed that the councillors

were not allowed to slacken in their terrible industry. The

register of every city, village, and hamlet throughout the

Netherlands showed the daily lists of men, women, and children

thus sacrificed at the shrine of the demon who had obtained

the mastery over this unhappy land. It was not often that an

individual was of sufficient importance to be tried—if trial

it could be called—by himself. It was found more expeditious

to send them in batches to the furnace. Thus, for example, on

the 4th of January, 84 inhabitants of Valenciennes were

condemned; on another day, 95 miscellaneous individuals from

different places in Flanders; on another, 46 inhabitants of

Malines; on another, 35 persons from different localities, and

so on. … Thus the whole country became a charnel-house; the

death-bell tolled hourly in every village; not a family but

was called to mourn for its dearest relatives, while the

survivors stalked listlessly about, the ghosts of their former

selves, among the wrecks of their former homes. The spirit of

the nation, within a few months after the arrival of Alva,

seemed hopelessly broken. The blood of its best and bravest

had already stained the scaffold; men to whom it had been

accustomed to look for guidance and protection, were dead, in

prison, or in exile. Submission had ceased to be of any avail,

flight was impossible, and the spirit of vengeance had

alighted at every fireside.

{2262}

The mourners went daily about the streets, for there was

hardly a house which had not been made desolate. The

scaffolds, the gallows, the funeral piles which had been

sufficient in ordinary times, furnished now an entirely

inadequate machinery for the incessant executions. Columns and

stakes in every street, the door-posts of private houses, the

fences in the fields, were laden with human carcases,

strangled, burned, beheaded. The orchards in the country bore

on many a tree the hideous fruit of human bodies. Thus the

Netherlands were crushed, and, but for the stringency of the

tyranny which had now closed their gates, would have been

depopulated."

J. L. Motley,

The Rise of the Dutch Republic,

part 3, chapter 1 (volume 2).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568.

Stupendous death-sentence of the Inquisition.

The whole population condemned.

"Early in the year, the most sublime sentence of death was

promulgated which has ever been pronounced since the creation

of the world. The Roman tyrant wished that his enemies' heads

were all upon a single neck, that he might strike them off at

a blow; the Inquisition assisted Philip to place the heads of

all his Netherland subjects upon a single neck, for the same

fell purpose. Upon the 16th February, 1568, a sentence of the

Holy Office condemned all the inhabitants of the Netherlands

to death as heretics. From this universal doom only a few

persons, especially named, were excepted. A proclamation of

the King, dated ten days later, confirmed this decree of the

Inquisition, and ordered it to be carried into instant

execution without regard to age, sex, or condition. This is

probably the most concise death-warrant that was ever framed.

Three millions of people, men, women, and children, were

sentenced to the scaffold in three lines; and as it was well

known that these were not harmless thunders, like some bulls

of the Vatican, but serious and practical measures which it

was intended should be enforced, the horror which they

produced may be easily imagined. It was hardly the purpose of

Government to compel the absolute completion of the wholesale

plan in all its length and breadth, yet in the horrible times

upon which they had fallen, the Netherlanders might be excused

for believing that no measure was too monstrous to be

fulfilled. At any rate, it was certain that when all were

condemned, any might at a moment's warning be carried to the

scaffold, and this was precisely the course adopted by the

authorities. … Under this new decree, the executions

certainly did not slacken. Men in the highest and the humblest

positions were daily and hourly dragged to the stake. Alva, in

a single letter to Philip, coolly estimated the number of

executions which were to take place immediately after the

expiration of Holy Week, 'at 800 heads.' Many a citizen,

convicted of a hundred thousand florins, and of no other

crime, saw himself suddenly tied to a horse's tail, with his

hands fastened behind him, and so dragged to the gallows. But

although wealth was an unpardonable sin, poverty proved rarely

a protection. Reasons sufficient could always be found for

dooming the starveling laborer as well as the opulent burgher.

To avoid the disturbances created in the streets by the

frequent harangues or exhortations addressed to the bystanders

by the victims on their way to the scaffold, a new gag was

invented. The tongue of each prisoner was screwed into an iron

ring, and then seared with a hot iron. The swelling and

inflammation, which were the immediate result, prevented the

tongue from slipping through the ring, and of course

effectually precluded all possibility of speech."

J. L. Motley,

The Rise of the Dutch Republic,

part 3, chapter 2 (volume 2).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572.

The arming of Revolt and beginning of War

by the Prince of Orange.

Alva's successes, brutalities, and senseless taxation.

Quarrels with England and destruction of Flemish trade.

"So unprecedented already was the slaughter that even in the

beginning of March 1568, when Alva had been scarcely six

months in the country, the Emperor Maximilian, himself a Roman

Catholic, addressed a formal remonstrance to the king on the

subject, as his dignity entitled him to do, since the

Netherlands were a part of the Germanic body. It received an

answer which was an insult to the remonstrant from its

defiance of truth and common sense, and which cut off all hope

from the miserable Flemings. Philip declared that what he had

done had been done 'for the repose of the Provinces,' … and

almost on the same day he published a new edict, confirming a

decree of the Inquisition which condemned all the inhabitants

of the Netherlands to death as heretics, with the exception of

a few persons who were named [see above]. … In their utter

despair, the Flemings implored the aid of the Prince of

Orange, who … had quitted the country. … He was now

residing at Dillenbourg, in Nassau, in safety from Philip's

threats, and from the formal sentence which, in addition to

the general condemnation of the whole people, the Council of

Blood had just pronounced against him by name. But he resolved

that in such an emergency it did not become him to weigh his

own safety against the claims his countrymen had on his

exertions. After a few weeks energetically spent in levying

troops and raising money to maintain them, he published a

document which he entitled his 'Justification,' and which

stated his own case and that of the Provinces with a most

convincing clearness; and at the end of April he took the

field at the head of a small force, composed of French

Huguenots, Flemish exiles, … and German mercenaries. …

Thus in the spring of 1568 began that terrible war which for

40 years desolated what, in spite of great natural

disadvantages, had hitherto been one of the most prosperous

countries of Europe. … To dwell on many of its details …

would require volumes. … And, indeed, the pitched battles

were few. At the outset [May 23, 1568] Count Louis of Nassau,

the prince's brother, defeated and slew Count Aremberg, the

Spanish governor of the province of Groningen, very nearly on

the spot [near the convent of Heiliger-Lee, or the Holy Lion]

on which, in the palmy days of Rome, the fierce valor of

Arminius had annihilated the legions whose loss was so deeply

imprinted on the heart of Augustus; and Alva had avenged the

disaster by so complete a rout of Louis at Jemmingen, that

more than half of the rebel army was slaughtered on the field,

and Louis himself only escaped a capture, which would have

delivered him to the scaffold, by swimming the Ems, and

escaping with a mere handful of troops, all that were left of

his army, into Germany. But after dealing this blow … Alva

rarely fought a battle in the open field.

{2263}

He preferred showing the superiority of his generalship by

defying the endeavours of the prince and his brothers to bring

him to action, miscalculating, indeed, the eventual

consequences of such tactics, and believing that the

protraction of the war must bring the rebels to his

sovereign's feet by the utter exhaustion of their resources;

while the event proved that it was Spain which was exhausted

by the contest, that kingdom being in fact so utterly

prostrated by continued draining of men and treasure which it

involved, that her decay may be dated from the moment when

Alva reached the Flemish borders. His career in the

Netherlands seemed to show that, warrior though he was,

persecution was more to his taste than even victory.

Victorious, indeed, he was, so far as never failing to reduce

every town which he besieged, and to baffle every design of

the prince which he anticipated. … Every triumph which he

gained was sullied by a ferocious and deliberate cruelty, of

which the history of no other general in the world affords a

similar example. … Whenever Alva captured a town, he himself

enjoined his troops to show no mercy either to the garrison or

to the peaceful inhabitants. Every atrocity which greed of

rapine, wantonness of lust, and blood-thirsty love of

slaughter could devise was perpetrated by his express

direction. … He had difficulties to encounter besides those

of his military operations, and such as he was less skilful in

meeting. He soon began to be in want of money. A fleet laden

with gold and silver was driven by some French privateers into

an English harbour, where Elizabeth at once laid her hands on

it. If it belonged to her enemies, she had a right, she said,

to seize it: if to her friends, to borrow it (she had not

quite decided in which light to regard the Spaniards, but the

logic was irresistible, and her grasp irremovable), and, to

supply the deficiency, Alva had recourse to expedients which

injured none so much as himself. To avenge himself on the

Queen, he issued a proclamation [March, 1569] forbidding all

commercial intercourse between the Netherlands and England;

… but his prohibition damaged the Flemings more than the

English merchants, and in so doing inflicted loss upon

himself. … For he at the same time endeavoured to compel the

States to impose, for his use, a heavy tax on every

description of property, on every transfer of property, and

even on every article of merchandise [the tenth penny, or ten

per cent.] as often as it should be sold: the last impost, in

the Provinces which were terrified into consenting to it, so

entirely annihilating trade that it even roused the

disapproval of his own council; and that, finding themselves

supported by that body, even those Provinces which had

complied, retracted their assent. … After a time [1572] he

was forced first to compromise his demands for a far lower sum

than that at which he had estimated the produce of his taxes,

and at last to renounce even that. He was bitterly

disappointed and indignant, and began to be weary of his

post."

C. D. Yonge,

Three Centuries of Modern History,

chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

J. L. Motley,

The Rise of the Dutch Republic,

part 3, chapters 2-7 (volume 2).

D. Campbell,

The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,

chapter 3 (volume 1).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572.

The Beggars of the Sea and their capture of Brill.

Rapid Revolution in Holland and Zealand, but wholly in the

name of the King and his Stadtholder, William of Orange.

The Provisional Government organized.

In the spring of 1572, Alva having re-established friendly

relations with Queen Elizabeth, all the cruisers of the

rebellious Netherlanders—"Beggars of the Sea" as they had

styled themselves—were suddenly expelled from English ports,

where they had previously found shelter and procured supplies.

The consequence was unexpected to those who brought it about,

and proved most favorable to the patriotic cause. Desperately

driven by their need of some harbor of refuge, the fleet of

these adventurers made an attack upon the important seaport of

Brill, took it with little fighting and held it stubbornly.

Excited by this success, the patriotic burghers of Flushing,

on the isle of Walcheren, soon afterwards rose and expelled

the Spanish garrison from their town. "The example thus set by

Brill and Flushing was rapidly followed. The first half of the

year 1572 was distinguished by a series of triumphs rendered

still more remarkable by the reverses which followed at its

close. … Enkhuizen, the key to the Zuyder Zee, the principal

arsenal, and one of the first commercial cities in the

Netherlands, rose against the Spanish Admiral, and hung out

the banner of Orange on its ramparts. The revolution effected

here was purely the work of the people—of the mariners and

burghers of the city. Moreover, the magistracy was set aside

and the government of Alva repudiated without shedding one

drop of blood, without a single wrong to person or property.

By the same spontaneous movement, nearly all the important

cities of Holland and Zealand raised the standard of him in

whom they recognized their deliverer. The revolution was

accomplished under nearly similar circumstances everywhere.

With one fierce bound of enthusiasm the nation shook, off its

chain. Oudewater, Dort, Harlem, Leyden, Gorcum, Loewenstein,

Gouda, Medenblik, Horn, Alkmaar, Edam, Monnikendam,

Purmerende, as well as Flushing, Veer, and Enkhuizen, all

ranged themselves under the government of Orange as lawful

stadholder for the King. Nor was it in Holland and Zealand

alone that the beacon fires of freedom were lighted. City

after city in Gelderland, Overyssel, and the See of Utrecht,

all the important towns of Friesland, some sooner, some later,

some without a struggle, some after a short siege, some with

resistance by the functionaries of government, some by

amicable compromise, accepted the garrisons of the Prince and

formally recognized his authority. Out of the chaos which a

long and preternatural tyranny had produced, the first

struggling elements of a new and a better world began to

appear. … Not all the conquests thus rapidly achieved in the

cause of liberty were destined to endure, nor were any to be

retained without a struggle. The little northern cluster of

republics, which had now restored its honor to the ancient

Batavian name, was destined, however, for a long and vigorous

life. From that bleak isthmus the light of freedom was to

stream through many years upon struggling humanity in Europe,

a guiding pharos across a stormy sea; and Harlem, Leyden,

Alkmaar—names hallowed by deeds of heroism such as have not

often illustrated human annals, still breathe as

trumpet-tongued and perpetual a defiance to despotism as

Marathon, Thermopylae, or Salamis.

{2264}

A new board of magistrates had been chosen in all the redeemed

cities by popular election. They were required to take an oath

of fidelity to the King of Spain, and to the Prince of Orange

as his stadholder; to promise resistance to the Duke of Alva,

the tenth penny, and the Inquisition; 'to support every man's

freedom and the welfare of the country; to protect widows,

orphans, and miserable persons, and to maintain justice and

truth.' Diedrich Sonoy arrived on the 2nd June at Enkhuizen.

He was provided by the Prince with a commission, appointing

him Lieutenant-Governor of North Holland or Waterland. Thus,

to combat the authority of Alva, was set up the authority of

the King. The stadholderate over Holland and Zealand, to which

the Prince had been appointed in 1559, he now reassumed. Upon

this fiction reposed the whole provisional polity of the

revolted Netherlands. … The people at first claimed not an

iota more of freedom than was secured by Philip's coronation

oath. There was no pretence that Philip was not sovereign, but

there was a pretence and a determination to worship God

according to conscience, and to reclaim the ancient political

'liberties' of the land. So long as Alva reigned, the Blood

Council, the Inquisition, and martial law, were the only codes

or courts, and every charter slept. To recover this practical

liberty and these historical rights, and to shake from their

shoulders a most sanguinary government, was the purpose of

William and of the people. No revolutionary standard was

displayed. The written instructions given by the Prince to his

lieutenant Sonoy were to 'see that the Word of God was

preached, without, however, suffering any hindrance to the

Roman Church in the exercise of its religion.' … The Prince

was still in Germany, engaged in raising troops and providing

funds."

J. L. Motley,

The Rise of the Dutch Republic,

part 3, chapters 6-7 (volume 2).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.

Capture of Mons by Louis of Nassau and

its recovery by the Spaniards.

Spanish massacres at Mechlin, Zutphen and Naarden.

The siege and capture of Haarlem.

"While William of Orange was in Germany, raising money and

troops, he still directed the affairs of the Netherlands. His

prospects were again brightened by the capture, by his gallant

brother Louis of Nassau, of the important city of Mons. …

This last startling blow forced Alva to immediate action. He

at once sent his son, Don Frederic, to lay siege to Mons. Soon

after, the Duke of Medina Cœli, Alva's successor as governor

of the Netherlands [to whom, however, Alva did not surrender

his authority], arrived safely with his fleet, but another

Spanish squadron fell with its rich treasures into the hands

of the rebels. Alva was now so pressed for money that he

agreed to abolish the useless tenth-penny tax, if the

states-general of the Netherlands would grant him a million

dollars a year. He had summoned the states of Holland to meet

at the Hague on the 15th of July, but they met at Dort to

renounce his authority, at the summons of William of Orange,

who had raised an army in Germany, but was without means to

secure the necessary three months' payment in advance. While

still owning allegiance to the king, the states recognized

Orange as stadtholder, empowered him to drive out the Spanish

troops, and to maintain religious freedom. … Treating the

Emperor Maximilian's peace orders as useless, the prince

marched his army of 24,000 men to the relief of Mons. Most of

the Netherland cities on the way accepted his authority, and

everything looked favorable for his success, when an

unforeseen and terrible calamity occurred. The French king,

Charles IX., whose troops had been routed before Mons [by the

Spaniards], had promised to furnish further aid to the

provinces. Admiral Coligny was to join the forces of Orange

with 15,000 men. The frightful massacre of St. Bartholomew in

Paris, on the 24th of August, … was a terrible blow to the

prince. It broke up all his plans. He had reached the

neighborhood of Mons, which he was trying to reinforce, when a

night attack was made by the Spaniards on his lines, September

11. … Obliged to leave his gallant brother Louis to his fate

in Mons, Orange narrowly escaped being killed on his retreat.

… Deserted by the cities that had been so earnest in his

cause, sorrowful, but not despairing for his country, William

had only his trust in God and his own destiny to sustain him.

As Holland was the only province that clung to the hero

patriot, he went there expecting and prepared to die for

liberty. Louis of Nassau was forced, on the 21st of September,

to abandon Mons to the Spaniards, who allowed Noircarmes …

to massacre and pillage the inhabitants contrary to the terms

of surrender. This wretch killed Catholics and Protestants

alike, in order to secure their riches for himself. … The

city of Mechlin, which had refused to admit a garrison of his

troops, was even more brutally ravaged by Alva in order to

obtain gold. … Alva's son, Don Frederic, now proved an apt

pupil of his father, by almost literally executing his command

to kill every man and burn every house in the city of Zutphen,

which had opposed the entrance of the king's troops. The

massacre was terrible and complete. The cause of Orange

suffered still more by the cowardly flight of his

brother-in-law, Count Van den Berg, from his post of duty in

the provinces of Gelderland and Overyssel. By this desertion

rugged Friesland was also lost to the patriot side. Holland

alone held out against the victorious Spaniards. The little

city of Naarden at first stoutly refused to surrender, but

being weak was obliged to yield without striking a blow. Don

Frederic's agent, Julian Romero, having promised that life and

property should be spared, the people welcomed him and his

soldiers at a grand feast on the 2d of December. Hardly was

this over when 500 citizens, who had assembled in the town

hall, were warned by a priest to prepare for death. This was

the signal for the entrance of the Spanish troops, who

butchered everyone in the building. They then rushed furiously

through the streets, pillaging and then setting fire to the

houses. As the inmates came forth, they were tortured and

killed by their cruel foes. … Alva wrote boastfully to the

king that 'they had cut the throats of the burghers and all

the garrison, and had not left a mother's son alive.' He

ascribed this success to the favor of God in permitting the

defence of so feeble a city to be even attempted. … As the

city of Haarlem was the key to Holland, Don Frederic resolved

to capture it at any cost. But the people were so bent upon

resistance that they executed two of their magistrates for

secretly negotiating with Alva. …

{2265}

Ripperda, the commandant of the Haarlem garrison, cheered

soldiers and people by his heroic counsels, and through the

efforts of Orange the city was placed under patriot rule.

Amsterdam, which was in the enemy's hands, was ten miles

distant, across a lake traversed by a narrow causeway, and the

prince had erected a number of forts to command the frozen

surface. As a thick fog covered the lake in these December

days, supplies of men, provisions, and ammunition were brought

into the city in spite of the vigilance of the besiegers. The

sledges and skates of the Hollanders were very useful in this

work. But against Don Frederic's army of 30,000 men, nearly

equalling the entire population of Haarlem, the city with its

extensive but weak fortifications had only a garrison of about

4,000. The fact that about 300 of these were respectable

women, armed with sword, musket, and dagger, shows the heroic

spirit of the people. The men were nerved to fresh exertions

by these Amazons, who, led by their noble chief, the Widow

Kenau Hasselaer, fought desperately by their side, both within

and without the works. The banner of this famous heroine, who

has been called the Joan of Arc of Haarlem, is now in the City

Hall. A vigorous cannonade was kept up against the city for

three days, beginning December 18, and men, women, and

children worked incessantly in repairing the shattered walls.

They even dragged the statues of saints from the churches to

fill up the gaps, to the horror of the superstitious

Spaniards. The brave burghers repelled their assaults with all

sorts of weapons. Burning coals and boiling oil were hurled at

their heads, and blazing pitch-hoops were skilfully caught

about their necks. Astonished by this terrible resistance,

which cost him hundreds of lives, Don Frederic resolved to

take the city by siege." On the last day of January. 1573, Don

Frederic having considerably shattered an outwork called the

ravelin, ordered a midnight assault, and the Spaniards carried

the fort. "They mounted the walls expecting to have the city

at their mercy. Judge of their amazement to find a new and

stronger fort, shaped like a half-moon, which had been

secretly constructed during the siege, blazing away at them

with its cannon. Before they could recover from their shock,

the ravelin, which had been carefully undermined, blew up, and

sent them crushed and bleeding into the air. The Spaniards

outside, terrified at these outbursts, retreated hastily to

their camp, leaving hundreds of dead beneath the walls. Two

assaults of veteran soldiers, led by able generals, having

been repelled by the dauntless burghers of Haarlem, famine

seemed the only means of forcing its surrender. Starvation in

fact soon threatened both besiegers and besieged. Don Frederic

wished to abandon the contest, but Alva threatened to disown

him as a son if he did so. … There was soon a struggle for

the possession of the lake, which was the only means of

conveying supplies to the besieged. In the terrible

hand-to-hand fight which followed the grappling of the rival

vessels, on the 28th of May, the prince's fleet, under Admiral

Brand, was totally defeated. … During the month of June the

wretched people of Haarlem had no food but linseed and

rapeseed, and they were soon compelled to eat dogs, cats,

rats, and mice. When these gave out they devoured shoe-leather

and the boiled hides of horses and oxen, and tried to allay

the pangs of hunger with grass and weeds. The streets were

full of the dead and the dying." Attempts at relief by Orange

were defeated. "As a last resort the besieged resolved to form

a solid column, with the women and children, the aged and

infirm, in the centre, to fight their way out; but Don

Frederic, fearing the city would be left in ruins, induced

them to surrender on the 12th of July, under promise of mercy.

This promise was cruelly broken by a frightful massacre of

2,000 people, which gave great joy to Alva and Philip."

A. Young,

History of the Netherlands,

chapters 10-11.

ALSO IN:

R. Watson,

History of Philip II.,

books 11-12.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.

Siege and deliverance of Alkmaar.

Displacement of Alva.

Battle of Mookerhyde and death of Louis of Nassau.

Siege and relief of Leyden.

The flooding of the land.

Founding of Leyden University.

After the surrender of Haarlem, a mutiny broke out among the

Spanish troops that had been engaged in the siege, to whom 28

months' arrears of pay were due. "It was appeased with great

difficulty at the end of seven weeks, when Alva determined to

make a decisive attack on Holland both by land and water, and

with this view commanded his son, Don Frederic di Toledo, to

march to the siege of Alkmaar, and repaired in person to

Amsterdam. … Don Frederic laid siege to Alkmaar at the head

of 16,000 able and efficient troops; within the town were

1,300 armed burghers and 800 soldiers, as many perhaps as it

was at that time capable of containing. With this handful of

men the citizens of Alkmaar defended themselves no less

resolutely than the Haarlemmers had done. The fierce

onslaughts of the Spaniards were beaten back with uniform

success on the part of the besieged; the women and girls were

never seen to shrink from the fight, even where it was

hottest, but unceasingly supplied the defenders with stones

and burning missiles, to throw amongst their enemies. … But

as there were no means of conveying reinforcements to the

besieged from without, and their supplies began to fail, they

resolved, after a month's siege, on the desperate measure of

cutting through the dykes. Some troops sent by Sonnoy having

effected this, and opened the sluices, the whole country was

soon deluged with water. Don Frederic, astounded at this novel

mode of warfare, and fearing that himself and his whole army

would be drowned, broke up his camp in haste, and fled, rather

than retreated, to Amsterdam. It seemed almost as though the

blessing which the Prince of Orange had promised his people

had come upon them. The capture of Geertruydenberg, about this

time, by one of his lieutenants, was followed by a naval

victory, as signal as it was important. The Admiral Bossu, to

whom was given the command of the [Spanish] fleet at

Amsterdam, having sailed through the Pampus with the design of

occupying the Zuyderzee, and thus making himself master of the

towns of North Holland, encountered the fleet of those towns,

consisting of 24 vessels, commanded by Admiral Dirkson,

stationed in the Zuyderzee to await his arrival." After

several days of skirmishing, the Dutch fleet forced a close

fight, "which lasted with little intermission from the

afternoon of the 11th of October to midday of the 12th, during

which time two of the royalist ships were sunk and a

third captured.

{2266}

"The remainder fled or surrendered, Bossu, himself, being

taken prisoner. "On intelligence of the issue of the battle,

Alva quitted Amsterdam in haste and secrecy. This success

delivered the towns of North Holland from the most imminent

danger, and rendered the possession of Amsterdam nearly

useless to the royalists." Alva was now forced to call a

meeting of the states-general, in the hope of obtaining a vote

of money. "Upon their assembling at Brussels, the states of

Holland despatched an earnest and eloquent address, exhorting

them to emancipate themselves from Spanish slavery and the

cruel tyranny of Alva, which the want of unanimity in the

provinces had alone enabled him to exercise. … Their

remonstrance appears to have been attended with a powerful

effect, since the states-general could neither by threats or

remonstrances be induced to grant the smallest subsidy. …

Alva, having become heartily weary of the government he had

involved in such irretrievable confusion, now obtained his

recall; his place was filled by Don Louis de Requesens, grand

commander of Castile. In the November of this year, Alva

quitted the Netherlands, leaving behind him a name which has

become a bye-word of hatred, scorn, and execration. … During

the six years that he had governed the Netherlands, 18,000

persons had perished by the hand of the executioner, besides

the numbers massacred at Naarden, Zutphen, and other conquered

cities." The first undertaking of the new governor was an

attempt to raise the siege of Middleburg, the Spanish garrison

in which had been blockaded by the Gueux for nearly two years;

but the fleet of 40 ships which he fitted out for the purpose

was defeated, at Romers-waale, with a loss of ten vessels.

"The surrender of Middleburg immediately followed, and with it

that of Arnemuyden, which put the Gueux in possession of the

principal islands of Zealand, and rendered them masters of the

sea." But these successes were counterbalanced by a disaster

which attended an expedition led from Germany by Louis of

Nassau, the gallant but unfortunate brother of the Prince of

Orange. His army was attacked and utterly destroyed by the

Spaniards (April 14, 1574) at the village of Mookerheyde, or

Mook, near Nimeguen, and both Louis and his brother Henry of

Nassau were slain. "After raising the siege of Alkmaar, the

Spanish forces, placed under the command of Francesco di

Valdez on the departure of Don Frederic di Toledo, had for

some weeks blockaded Leyden; but were recalled in the spring

of this year to join the rest of the army on its march against

Louis of Nassau. From that time the burghers of Leyden … had

not only neglected to lay up any fresh stores of corn or other

provision, but to occupy or destroy the forts with which the

enemy had encompassed the town. This fact coming to the

knowledge of Don Louis, he once more dispatched Valdez to

renew the siege at the head of 8,000 troops. … Mindful of

Haarlem and Alkmaar, the Spanish commander … brought no

artillery, nor made any preparations for assault, but, well

aware that there were not provisions in the town sufficient

for three months, contented himself with closely investing it

on all sides, and determined to await the slow but sure

effects of famine." In this emergency, the States of Holland

"decreed that all the dykes between Leyden and the Meuse and

Yssel should be cut through, and the sluices opened at

Rotterdam and Schiedam, by which the waters of those rivers,

overflowing the valuable lands of Schieland and Rhynland,

would admit of the vessels bringing succours up to the very

gates of Leyden. The damage was estimated at 600,000 guilders.

… The cutting through the dykes was a work of time and

difficulty, as well from the labour required as from the

continual skirmishes with the enemy. … Even when completed,

it appeared as if the vast sacrifice were utterly unavailing.

A steady wind blowing from the north-east kept back the

waters. … Meanwhile the besieged, who for some weeks heard

no tidings of their deliverers, had scarcely hope left to

enable them to sustain the appalling sufferings they endured.

… 'Then,' says the historian, who heard it from the mouths

of the sufferers, 'there was no food so odious but it was

esteemed a dainty.' … The siege had now lasted five months.

… Not a morsel of food, even the most filthy and loathsome,

remained … when, on a sudden, the wind veered to the

north-west, and thence to the south-west; the waters of the

Meuse rushed in full tide over the land, and the ships rode

triumphantly on the waves. The Gueux, attacking with vigour

the forts on the dykes, succeeded in driving out the garrisons

with considerable slaughter. … On the … 3rd of October …

Valdez evacuated all the forts in the vicinity. … In memory

of this eventful siege, the Prince and States offered the

inhabitants either to found an university or to establish a

fair. They chose the former; but the States … granted both:

the fair of Leyden was appointed to be held on the 1st of

October in every year, the 3rd being ever after held as a

solemn festival; and on the 8th of February in the next year,

the university received its charter from the Prince of Orange

in the name of King Philip. Both proved lasting monuments."

C. M. Davies,

History of Holland,

part 2, chapters 8-9 (volumes 1-2).

ALSO IN:

J. L. Motley,

The Rise of the Dutch Republic,

part 4, chapters 1-2 (volume 2).

W. T. Hewett,

The University of Leiden

(Harper's Magazine, March, 1881).

C. M. Yonge,

Cameos from English History,

series 5, chapter 16.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

Congress at Breda.

Offer of sovereignty to the English Queen.

Death of Requesens.

Mutiny of the Soldiery.

The Spanish Fury.

Alliance of Northern and Southern provinces under

the Pacification of Ghent and the Union of Brussels.

Arrival of Don John of Austria.

"The bankrupt state of Philip II.'s exchequer, and the

reverses which his arms had sustained, induced him to accept

… the proffered mediation of the Emperor Maximilian, which

he had before so arrogantly rejected, and a Congress was held

at Breda from March till June 1575. But the insurgents were

suspicious, and Philip was inflexible; he could not be induced

to dismiss his Spanish troops, to allow the meeting of the

States-General, or to admit the slightest toleration in

matters of religion; and the contest was therefore renewed

with more fury than ever. The situation of the patriots became

very critical when the enemy, by occupying the islands of

Duyveland and Schouwen, cut off the communication between

Holland and Zealand; especially as all hope of succour from

England had expired.

{2267}

Towards the close of the year envoys were despatched to

solicit the aid of Elizabeth, and to offer her, under certain

conditions, the sovereignty of Holland and Zealand. Requesens

sent Champagny to counteract these negociations, which ended

in nothing. The English Queen was afraid of provoking the

power of Spain, and could not even be induced to grant the

Hollanders a loan. The attitude assumed at that time by the

Duke of Alençon, in France, also prevented them from entering

into any negociations with that Prince. In these trying

circumstances, William the Silent displayed the greatest

firmness and courage. It was now that he is said to have

contemplated abandoning Holland and seeking with its

inhabitants a home in the New World, having first restored the

country to its ancient state of a waste of waters; a thought,

however, which he probably never seriously entertained, though

he may have given utterance to it in a moment of irritation or

despondency. … The unexpected death of Requesens, who

expired of a fever, March 5th 1576, after a few days' illness,

threw the government into confusion. Philip II. had given

Requesens a carte blanche to name his successor, but the

nature of his illness had prevented him from filling it up.

The government therefore devolved to the Council of State, the

members of which were at variance with one another; but Philip

found himself obliged to intrust it 'ad interim' with the

administration, till a successor to Requesens could be

appointed. Count Mansfeld was made commander-in-chief, but was

totally unable to restrain the licentious soldiery. The

Spaniards, whose pay was in arrear, had now lost all

discipline. After the raising of the siege of Leyden they had

beset Utrecht and pillaged and maltreated the inhabitants,

till Valdez contrived to furnish their pay. No sooner had

Requesens expired than they broke into open mutiny, and acted

as if they were entire masters of the country. After wandering

about some time and threatening Brussels, they seized and

plundered Alost, where they established themselves; and they

were soon afterwards joined by the Walloon and German troops.

To repress their violence, the Council of State restored to

the Netherlanders the arms of which they had been deprived,

and called upon them by a proclamation to repress force by

force; but these citizen-soldiers were dispersed with great

slaughter by the disciplined troops in various rencounters.

Ghent, Utrecht, Valenciennes, Maestricht were taken and

plundered by the mutineers; and at last the storm fell upon

Antwerp, which the Spaniards entered early in November, and

sacked during three days. More than 1,000 houses were burnt,

8,000 citizens are said to have been slain, and enormous sums

in ready money were plundered. The whole damage was estimated

at 24,000,000 florins. The horrible excesses committed in this

sack procured for it the name of the 'Spanish Fury.' The

government was at this period conducted in the name of the

States of Brabant. On the 5th of September, De Hèze, a young

Brabant gentleman who was in secret intelligence with the

Prince of Orange, had, at the head of 500 soldiers, entered

the palace where the Council of State was assembled, and

seized and imprisoned the members. William, taking advantage

of the alarm created at Brussels by the sack of Antwerp,

persuaded the provisional government to summon the

States-General, although such a course was at direct variance

with the commands of the King. To this assembly all the

provinces except Luxemburg sent deputies. The nobles of the

southern provinces, although they viewed the Prince of Orange

with suspicion, feeling that there was no security for them so

long as the Spanish troops remained in possession of Ghent,

sought his assistance in expelling them; which William

consented to grant only on condition that an alliance should

be effected between the northern and the southern, or Catholic

provinces of the Netherlands. This proposal was agreed to, and

towards the end of September Orange sent several thousand men

from Zealand to Ghent, at whose approach the Spaniards, who

had valorously defended themselves for two months under the

conduct of the wife of their absent general Mondragon,

surrendered, and evacuated the citadel. The proposed alliance

was now converted into a formal union by the treaty called the

Pacification of Ghent, signed November 8th 1576; by which it

was agreed, without waiting for the sanction of Philip, whose

authority however was nominally recognised, to renew the edict

of banishment against the Spanish troops, to procure the

suspension of the decrees against the Protestant religion, to

summon the States-General of the northern and southern

provinces, according to the model of the assembly which had

received the abdication of Charles V., to provide for the

toleration and practise of the Protestant religion in Holland

and Zealand, together with other provisions of a similar

character. About the same time with the Pacification of Ghent,

all Zealand, with the exception of the island of Tholen, was

recovered from the Spaniards. … It was a mistake on the part

of Philip II. to leave the country eight months with only an

'ad interim' government. Had he immediately filled up the

vacancy … the States could not have seized upon the

government, and the alliance established at Ghent would not

have been effected, by which an almost independent

commonwealth had been erected. But Philip seems to have been

puzzled as to the choice of a successor; and his selection, at

length, of his brother Don John of Austria [a natural son of

Charles V.], caused a further considerable delay. … The

state of the Netherlands compelled Don John to enter them, not

with the pomp and dignity becoming the lawful representative

of a great monarch, but stealthily, like a traitor or

conspirator. In Luxemburg alone, the only province which had

not joined the union, could he expect to be received; and he

entered its capital a few days before the publication of the

treaty of Ghent, in the disguise of a Moorish slave, and in

the train of Don Ottavio Gonzaga, brother of the Prince of

Melfi. Having neither money nor arms, he was obliged to

negociate with the provincial government in order to procure

the recognition of his authority. At the instance of the

Prince of Orange, the States insisted on the withdrawal of the

Spanish troops, the maintenance of the treaty of Ghent, an act

of amnesty for past offences, the convocation of the

States-General, and an oath from Don John that he would

respect all the charters and customs of the country. The new

governor was violent, but the States were firm, and in January

1577 was formed the Union of Brussels, the professed objects

of which were, the immediate expulsion of the Spaniards, and

the execution of the Pacification of Ghent; while at the same

time the Catholic religion and the royal authority were to be

upheld.

{2268}

This union, which was only a more popular repetition of the

treaty of Ghent, soon obtained numberless signatures. …

Meanwhile Rodolph II., the new Emperor of Germany, had offered

his mediation, and appointed the Bishop of Liege to use his

good offices between the parties; who, with the assistance of

Duke William of Juliers, brought, or seemed to bring, the new

governor to a more reasonable frame of mind. … Don John

yielded all the points in dispute, and embodied them in what

was called the Perpetual Edict, published March 12th, 1577.

The Prince of Orange suspected from the first that these

concessions were a mere deception."

T. H. Dyer,

History of Modern Europe,

book 3, chapters 7-9 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

Sir W. Stirling-Maxwell,

Don John of Austria,

volume 2, chapters 4-5.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

The administration of Don John.

Orange's well-founded distrust.

Emancipation of Antwerp.

Battle of Gemblours.

Death of Don John and appointment of Parma.

Corruption of Flemish nobles.

Submission of the Walloon provinces.

Pretensions of the Duke of Anjou.

Constitution and declared independence of the Dutch Republic.

"It now seemed that the Netherlands had gained all they asked

for, and that everything for which they had contended had been

conceded. The Blood Council of Alva had almost extirpated the

Reformers, and an overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of

the Low Countries, with the exception of the Hollanders and

Zelanders, belonged to the old Church, provided the

Inquisition was done away with, and a religious peace was

accorded. But Don John had to reckon with the Prince of

Orange. In him William had no confidence. He could not forget

the past. He believed that the signatures and concessions of

the governor and Philip were only expedients to gain time, and

that they would be revoked or set aside as soon as it was

convenient or possible to do so. … He had intercepted

letters from the leading Spaniards in Don John's employment,

in which, when the treaty was in course of signature, designs

were disclosed of keeping possession of all the strong places

in the country, with the object of reducing the patriots in

detail. … Above all, William distrusted the Flemish nobles.

He knew them to be greedy, fickle, treacherous, ready to

betray their country for personal advantage, and to ally

themselves blindly with their natural enemies. … As events

proved, Orange was in the right. Hence he refused to recognize

the treaty in his own states of Holland and Zeland. As soon as

it was published and sent to him, William, after conference

with these states, published a severe criticism on its

provisions. … In all seeming however Don John was prepared

to carry out his engagements. He got together with difficulty

the funds for paying the arrears due to the troops, and sent

them off by the end of April. He caressed the people and he

bribed the nobles. He handed over the citadels to Flemish

governors, and entered Brussels on May 1st. Everything pointed

to success and mutual good will. But we have Don John's

letters, in which he speaks most unreservedly and most

unflatteringly of his new friends, and of his designs on the

liberties of the Netherlands. And all the while that Philip

was soothing and flattering his brother, he had determined on

ruining him, and on murdering the man [Escovedo] whom that

brother loved and trusted. About this time, too, we find that

Philip and his deputy were casting about for the means by

which they might assassinate the Prince of Orange, 'who had

bewitched the whole people!' An attempt of Don John to get

possession of the citadel of Antwerp for himself failed, and

the patriots gained it. The merchants of Antwerp 'agreed to

find the pay still owing to the soldiers, on condition of

their quitting the city. But while they were discussing the

terms, a fleet of Zeland vessels came sailing up the Scheldt.

Immediately a cry was raised, 'The Beggars are coming,' and

the soldiers fled in dismay [August 1, 1577]. Then the

Antwerpers demolished the citadel, and turned the statue of

Alva again into cannon. After these events, William of Orange

put an end to negotiations with Don John. Prince William was

in the ascendant. But the Catholic nobles conspired against

him, and induced the Archduke Matthias, brother of the German

Emperor Rodolph, to accept the place of governor of the

Netherlands in lieu of Don John. He came, but Orange was made

the Ruwaard of Brabant, with full military power. It was the

highest office which could be bestowed on him. The 'Union of

Brussels' followed and was a confederation of all the

Netherlands. But the battle of Gemblours was fought in

February, 1578, and the patriots were defeated. Many small

towns were captured, and it seemed that in course of time the

governor would recover at least a part of his lost authority.

But in the month of September, Don John was seized with a

burning fever, and died on October 1st. … The new governor

of the Netherlands, son of Ottavio Farnese, Prince of Parma,

and of Margaret of Parma, sister of Philip of Spain, was a

very different person from any of the regents who had hitherto

controlled the Netherlands. He was, or soon proved himself to

be, the greatest general of the age, and he was equally,

according to the statesmanship of the age, the most

accomplished and versatile statesman. He had no designs beyond

those of Philip, and during his long career in the

Netherlands, from October, 1578, to December, 1592, he served

the King of Spain as faithfully and with as few scruples as

Philip could have desired. … Parma was religious, but he had

no morality whatever. … He had no scruple in deceiving,

lying, assassinating, and even less scruple in saying or

swearing that he had done none of these things. … He had an

excellent judgment of men, and indeed he had experience of the

two extremes, of the exceeding baseness of the Flemish nobles,

and of the lofty and pure patriotism of the Dutch patriots.

Nothing indeed was more unfortunate for the Dutch than the

belief which they entertained, that the Flemings who had been

dragooned into uniformity, could be possibly stirred to

patriotism. Alva had done his work thoroughly. It is possible

to extirpate a reformation. But the success of the process is

the moral ruin of those who are the subjects of the

experiment. Fortunately for Parma, there was a suitor for the

Netherland sovereignty, in the person of the very worst prince

of the very worst royal family that ever existed in Europe,

i. e., the Duke of Anjou, of the house of Valois.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1577-1578.

{2269}

This person was favoured by Orange, probably because he had

detected Philip's designs on France, and thought that national

jealousy would induce the French government, which was

Catherine of Medici, to favour the low countries. Besides,

Parma had a faction in every Flemish town, who were known as

the Malcontents, who were the party of the greedy and

unscrupulous nobles. And, besides Anjou, there was the party

of another pretender, John Casimir, of Poland. He, however,

soon left them. Parma quickly found in such dissensions plenty

of men whom he could usefully bribe. He made his first

purchases in the Walloon district, and secured them. The

provinces here were Artois, Hainault, Lille, Douay, and

Orchies. They were soon permanently reunited to Spain. On

January 20, 1570, the Union of Utrecht, which was virtually

the Constitution of the Dutch Republic, was agreed to. It was

greater in extent on the Flemish side than the Dutch Republic

finally remained, less on that of Friesland [comprising

Holland, Zeland, Gelderland, Zutphen, Utrecht, and the Frisian

provinces]. Orange still had hopes of including most of the

Netherland seaboard, and he still kept up the form of

allegiance to Philip. The principal event of the year was the

siege and capture of Maestricht [with the slaughter of almost

its entire population of 34,000]. … Mechlin also was

betrayed by its commander, De Bours, who reconciled himself to

Romanism, and received the pay for his treason from Parma at

the same time. In March, 1580, a similar act of treason was

committed by Count Renneberg, the governor of Friesland, who

betrayed its chief city, Groningen. … In the same year,

1580, was published the ban of Philip. This instrument, drawn

up by Cardinal Granvelle, declared Orange to be a traitor and

miscreant, made him an outlaw, put a heavy price on his head

(25,000 gold crowns), offered the assassin the pardon of any

crime, however heinous, and nobility, whatever be his rank.

… William answered the ban by a vigorous appeal to the

civilized world. … Renneberg, the traitor, laid siege to

Steenwyk, the principal fortress of Drenthe, at the beginning

of 1581. … In February, John Norris, the English general,

… relieved the town. Renneberg raised the siege, was

defeated in July by the same Norris, and died, full of

remorse, a few days afterwards. But the most important event

in 1581 was the declaration of Dutch Independence formally

issued at the Hague on the 26th of July. By this instrument,

Orange, though most unwillingly, felt himself obliged to

accept the sovereignty over Holland and Zeland, and whatever

else of the seven provinces was in the hands of the patriots.

The Netherlands were now divided into three portions. The

Walloon provinces in the south were reconciled to Philip and

Parma. The middle provinces were under the almost nominal

sovereignty of Anjou, the northern were under William. …

Philip's name was now discarded from public documents … ;

his seal was broken, and William was thereafter to conduct the

government in his own name. The instrument was styled an 'Act

of Abjuration.'"

J. E. T. Rogers,

The Story of Holland,

chapters 11-12.

ALSO IN:

J. L. Motley,

The Rise of the Dutch Republic,

part 5, chapters 4-5,

and part 6, chapters 1-4.

Sir W. Stirling-Maxwell,

Don John of Austria,

volume 2, chapters 8-10.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

Refusal of the sovereignty of the United Provinces by Orange.

Its bestowal upon the Duke of Anjou.

Base treachery of Anjou.

The "French Fury" at Antwerp.

Assassination of the Prince of Orange.

"What, then, was the condition of the nation, after this great

step [the Act of Abjuration] had been taken? It stood, as it

were, with its sovereignty in its hand, dividing it into two

portions, and offering it, thus separated, to two distinct

individuals. The sovereignty of Holland and Zealand had been

reluctantly accepted by Orange. The sovereignty of the United

Provinces had been offered to Anjou, but the terms of

agreement with that Duke had not yet been ratified. The

movement was therefore triple, consisting of an abjuration and

of two separate elections of hereditary chiefs; these two

elections being accomplished in the same manner by the

representative bodies respectively of the united provinces and

of Holland and Zealand. … Without a direct intention on the

part of the people or its leaders to establish a republic, the

Republic established itself. Providence did not permit the

whole country, so full of wealth, intelligence, healthy

political action—so stocked with powerful cities and an

energetic population, to be combined into one free and

prosperous commonwealth. The factious ambition of a few

grandees, the cynical venality of many nobles, the frenzy of

the Ghent democracy, the spirit of religious intolerance, the

consummate military and political genius of Alexander Farnese,

the exaggerated self-abnegation and the tragic fate of Orange,

all united to dissever this group of flourishing and kindred

provinces. The want of personal ambition on the part of

William the Silent inflicted, perhaps, a serious damage upon

his country. He believed a single chief requisite for the

united states; he might have been, but always refused to

become that chief; and yet he has been held up for centuries

by many writers as a conspirator and a self-seeking intriguer.

… 'These provinces,' said John of Nassau, 'are coming very

unwillingly into the arrangement with the Duke of Alençon

[soon afterwards made Duke of Anjou]. The majority feel much

more inclined to elect the Prince, who is daily, and without

intermission, implored to give his consent. … He refuses

only on this account—that it may not be thought that,

instead of religious freedom for the country, he has been

seeking a kingdom for himself and his own private advancement.

Moreover, he believes that the connexion with France will be

of more benefit to the country and to Christianity.' … The

unfortunate negotiations with Anjou, to which no man was more

opposed than Count John, proceeded therefore. In the meantime,

the sovereignty over the united provinces was provisionally

held by the national council, and, at the urgent solicitation

of the states-general, by the Prince. The Archduke Matthias,

whose functions were most unceremoniously brought to an end by

the transactions which we have been recording, took his leave

of the states, and departed in the month of October. … Thus

it was arranged that, for the present, at least, the Prince

should exercise sovereignty over Holland and Zealand; although

he had himself used his utmost exertions to induce those

provinces to join the rest of the United Netherlands in the

proposed election of Anjou.

{2270}

This, however, they sternly refused to do. There was also a

great disinclination felt by many in the other states to this

hazardous offer of their allegiance, and it was the personal

influence of Orange that eventually carried the measure

through. … By midsummer [1581] the Duke of Anjou made his

appearance in the western part of the Netherlands. The Prince

of Parma had recently come before Cambray with the intention

of reducing that important city. On the arrival of Anjou,

however, … Alexander raised the siege precipitately and

retired towards Tournay," to which he presently laid siege,

and which was surrendered to him in November.

J. L. Motley,

The Rise of the Dutch Republic,

part 6, chapters 4-5 (volume 3).

Meantime, the Duke of Anjou had visited England, paying court

to Queen Elizabeth, whom he hoped to marry, but who declined

the alliance after making the acquaintance of her suitor.

"Elizabeth made all the reparation in her power, by the

honours paid him on his dismissal. She accompanied him as far

as Canterbury, and sent him away under the convoy of the earl

of Leicester, her chief favourite; and with a brilliant suite

and a fleet of fifteen sail. Anjou was received at Antwerp

with equal distinction; and was inaugurated there on the 19th

of February [1582] as Duke of Brabant, Lothier, Limbourg, and

Guelders, with many other titles, of which he soon proved

himself unworthy. … During the rejoicings which followed

this inauspicious ceremony, Philip's proscription against the

Prince of Orange put forth its first fruits. The latter gave a

grand dinner in the chateau of Antwerp, which he occupied, on

the 18th of March, the birth-day of the duke of Anjou." As he

quitted the dining hall, he was shot in the cheek by a young

man who approached him with the pretence of offering a

petition, and who proved to be the tool of a Spanish merchant

at Antwerp, with whom Philip of Spain had contracted for the

procurement of the assassination. The wound inflicted was

severe but not fatal. "Within three months, William was able

to accompany the duke of Anjou in his visits to Ghent, Bruges,

and the other chief towns of Flanders; in each of which the

ceremony of inauguration was repeated. Several military

exploits now took place [the most important of them being the

capture of Oudenarde, after a protracted siege, by the Prince

of Parma]. … The duke of Anjou, intemperate, inconstant, and

unprincipled, saw that his authority was but the shadow of

power. … The French officers, who formed his suite and

possessed all his confidence, had no difficulty in raising his

discontent into treason against the people with whom he had

made a solemn compact. The result of their councils was a

deep-laid plot against Flemish liberty; and its execution was

ere-long attempted. He sent secret orders to the governors of

Dunkirk, Bruges, Termonde, and other towns, to seize on and

hold them in his name; reserving for himself the infamy of the

enterprise against Antwerp. To prepare for its execution, he

caused his numerous army of French and Swiss to approach the

city." Then, on the 17th of January, 1583, with his body guard

of 200 horse, he suddenly attacked and slew the Flemish guards

at one of the gates and admitted the troops waiting outside.

"The astonished but intrepid citizens, recovering from their

confusion, instantly flew to arms. All differences in religion

or politics were forgotten in the common danger to their

freedom. … The ancient spirit of Flanders seemed to animate

all. Workmen, armed with the instruments of their various

trades, started from their shops and flung themselves upon the

enemy. … The French were driven successively from the

streets and ramparts. … The duke of Anjou saved himself by

flight, and reached Termonde. His loss in this base enterprise

[known as the French Fury] amounted to 1,500; while that of

the citizens did not exceed 80 men. The attempts

simultaneously made on the other towns succeeded at Dunkirk

and Termonde; but all the others failed. The character of the

Prince of Orange never appeared so thoroughly great as at this

crisis. With wisdom and magnanimity rarely equalled and never

surpassed, he threw himself and his authority between the

indignation of the country and the guilt of Anjou; saving the

former from excess and the latter from execration. The

disgraced and discomfited duke proffered to the states excuses

as mean as they were hypocritical. … A new treaty was

negotiated, confirming Anjou in his former station, with

renewed security against any future treachery on his part. He

in the mean time retired to France," where he died, June 10,

1584. Exactly one month afterwards (July 10), Prince William

was murdered, in his house, at Delft, by Balthazar Gerard, one

of the many assassins whom Philip II. and Parma had so

persistently sent against him. He was shot as he placed his

foot upon the first step of the great stair in his house,

after dining in a lower apartment, and he died in a few

moments.

T. C. Grattan,

History of the Netherlands,

chapter 13.

ALSO IN:

J. A. Froude,

History of England: Reign of Elizabeth,

chapters 26, 29, 31-32 (volume 5-6).

D. Campbell,

The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,

chapter 4 (volume 1).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

Limits of the United Provinces and the Spanish Provinces.

The Republican constitution of the United Provinces,

and the organization of their government.

Disgraceful surrender of Ghent.

Practical recovery of Flanders and Brabant by the Spanish king.

At the time of the assassination of the Prince of Orange, "the

limit of the Spanish or 'obedient' Provinces, on the one hand,

and of the United Provinces on the other, cannot … be

briefly and distinctly stated. The memorable treason—or, as

it was called, the 'reconciliation' of the Walloon Provinces

in the year 1583-4—had placed the Provinces of Hainault,

Arthois, Douay, with the flourishing cities, Arras,

Valenciennes, Lille, Tournay, and others—all Celtic

Flanders, in short—in the grasp of Spain. Cambray was still

held by the French governor, Seigneur de Balagny, who had

taken advantage of the Duke of Anjou's treachery to the

States, to establish himself in an unrecognized but practical

petty sovereignty, in defiance both of France and Spain; while

East Flanders and South Brabant still remained a disputed

territory, and the immediate field of contest. With these

limitations, it may be assumed, for general purposes, that the

territory of the United States was that of the modern Kingdom

of the Netherlands, while the obedient Provinces occupied what

is now the territory of Belgium. …

{2271}

What now was the political position of the United Provinces at

this juncture? The sovereignty which had been held by the

Estates, ready to be conferred respectively upon Anjou and

Orange, remained in the hands of the Estates. There was no

opposition to this theory. … The people, as such, claimed no

sovereignty. … What were the Estates? … The great

characteristic of the Netherland government was the

municipality. Each Province contained a large number of

cities, which were governed by a board of magistrates, varying

in number from 20 to 40. This college, called the Vroedschap

(Assembly of Sages), consisted of the most notable citizens,

and was a self-electing body—a close corporation—the members

being appointed for life, from the citizens at large. Whenever

vacancies occurred from death or loss of citizenship, the

college chose new members—sometimes immediately, sometimes by

means of a double or triple selection of names, the choice of

one from among which was offered to the stadtholder [governor,

or sovereign's deputy] of the province. This functionary was

appointed by the Count, as he was called, whether Duke of

Bavaria or of Burgundy, Emperor, or King. After the abjuration

of Philip [1581], the governors were appointed by the Estates

of each Province. The Sage-Men chose annually a board of

senators, or schepens, whose functions were mainly judicial;

and there were generally two, and sometimes three,

burgomasters, appointed in the same way. This was the popular

branch of the Estates. But, besides this body of

representatives, were the nobles, men of ancient lineage and

large possessions, who had exercised, according to the general

feudal law of Europe, high, low, and intermediate jurisdiction

upon their estates, and had long been recognized as an

integral part of the body politic, having the right to appear,

through delegates of their order, in the provincial and in the

general assemblies. Regarded as a machine for bringing the

most decided political capacities into the administration of

public affairs, and for organizing the most practical

opposition to the system of religious tyranny, the Netherland

constitution was a healthy, and, for the age, an enlightened

one. … Thus constituted was the commonwealth upon the death

of William the Silent. The gloom produced by that event was

tragical. Never in human history was a more poignant and

universal sorrow for the death of any individual. The despair

was, for a brief season, absolute; but it was soon succeeded

by more lofty sentiments. … Even on the very day of the

murder, the Estates of Holland, then sitting at Delft, passed

a resolution 'to maintain the good cause, with God's help, to

the uttermost, without sparing gold or blood.' … The next

movement, after the last solemn obsequies had been rendered to

the Prince, was to provide for the immediate wants of his

family. For the man who had gone into the revolt with almost

royal revenues, left his estate so embarrassed that his

carpets, tapestries, household linen—nay, even his silver

spoons, and the very clothes of his wardrobe—were disposed of

at auction for the benefit of his creditors. He left eleven

children—a son and daughter by the first wife, a son and

daughter by Anna of Saxony, six daughters by Charlotte of

Bourbon, and an infant, Frederic Henry, born six months before

his death. The eldest son, Philip William, had been a captive

in Spain for seventeen years, having been kidnapped from

school, in Leyden, in the year 1567. He had already become …

thoroughly Hispaniolized under the masterly treatment of the

King and the Jesuits. … The next son was Maurice, then 17

years of age. … Grandson of Maurice of Saxony, whom he

resembled in visage and character, he was summoned by every

drop of blood in his veins to do life-long battle with the

spirit of Spanish absolutism, and he was already girding

himself for his life's work. … Very soon afterwards the

States General established a State Council, as a provisional

executive board, for the term of three months, for the

Provinces of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Friesland, and such

parts of Flanders and Brabant as still remained in the Union.

At the head of this body was placed young Maurice, who

accepted the responsible position, after three days'

deliberation. … The Council consisted of three members from

Brabant, two from Flanders, four from Holland, three from

Zeeland, two from Utrecht, one from Mechlin, and three from

Friesland—eighteen in all. They were empowered and enjoined

to levy troops by land and sea, and to appoint naval and

military officers; to establish courts of admiralty, to expend

the moneys voted by the States, to maintain the ancient

privileges of the country, and to see that all troops in

service of the Provinces made oath of fidelity to the Union.

Diplomatic relations, questions of peace and war, the

treaty-making power, were not entrusted to the Council,

without the knowledge and consent of the States General, which

body was to be convoked twice a year by the State Council. …

Alexander of Parma … was swift to take advantage of the

calamity which had now befallen the rebellious Provinces. …

In Holland and Zeeland the Prince's blandishments were of no

avail. … In Flanders and Brabant the spirit was less noble.

Those provinces were nearly lost already. Bruges [which had

made terms with the King early in 1584] seconded Parma's

efforts to induce its sister-city Ghent to imitate its own

baseness in surrendering without a struggle; and that

powerful, turbulent, but most anarchical little commonwealth

was but too ready to listen to the voice of the tempter. …

Upon the 17th August [1584] Dendermonde surrendered. … Upon

the 7th September Vilvoorde capitulated, by which event the

water-communication between Brussels and Antwerp was cut off,

Ghent, now thoroughly disheartened, treated with Parma

likewise; and upon the 17th September made its reconciliation

with the King. The surrender of so strong and important a

place was as disastrous to the cause of the patriots as it was

disgraceful to the citizens themselves. It was, however, the

result of an intrigue which had been long spinning. … The

noble city of Ghent—then as large as Paris, thoroughly

surrounded with moats, and fortified with bulwarks, ravelins,

and counterscarps, constructed of earth, during the previous

two years, at great expense, and provided with bread and meat,

powder and shot, enough to last a year—was ignominiously

surrendered. The population, already a very reduced and

slender one for the great extent of the place and its former

importance, had been estimated at 70,000.

{2272}

The number of houses was 35,000, so that, as the inhabitants

were soon farther reduced to one-half, there remained but one

individual to each house. On the other hand, the 25

monasteries and convents in the town were repeopled. … The

fall of Brussels was deferred till March, and that of Mechlin

(19th July, 1585), and of Antwerp [see below] (19th August,

1585), till Midsummer of the following year; but the surrender

of Ghent foreshadowed the fate of Flanders and Brabant. Ostend

and Sluys, however, were still in the hands of the patriots,

and with them the control of the whole Flemish coast. The

command of the sea was destined to remain for centuries with

the new republic."

J. L. Motley,

History of the United Netherlands,

chapter 1 (volume 1).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

The Siege and surrender of Antwerp.

Decay of the city.

"After the fall of Ghent, Farnese applied himself earnestly to

the siege of Antwerp, one of the most memorable recorded in

history. The citizens were animated in their defence by the

valour and talent of Ste Aldegonde. It would be impossible to

detail with minuteness in this general history the various

contrivances resorted to on either side for the attack and the

defence; and we must therefore content ourselves with briefly

adverting to that stupendous monument of Farnese's military

genius, the bridge which he carried across the Scheldt, below

Antwerp, in order to cut off the communication of the city

with the sea and the maritime provinces. From the depth and

wideness of the river, the difficulty of finding the requisite

materials, and of transporting them to the place selected in

the face of an enemy that was superior on the water, the

project was loudly denounced by Farnese's officers as

visionary and impracticable; yet in spite of all these

discouragements and difficulties, as the place seemed

unapproachable in the usual way, he steadily persevered, and

at last succeeded in an undertaking which, had he failed,

would have covered him with perpetual ridicule. The spot fixed

upon for the bridge was between Ordam and Kalloo, where the

river is both shallower and narrower than at other parts. The

bridge consisted of piles driven into the water to such

distance as its depth would allow; which was 200 feet on the

Flanders side and 900 feet on that of Brabant. The interval

between the piles, which was 12 feet broad, was covered with

planking; but at the extremities towards the centre of the

river the breadth was extended to 40 feet, thus forming two

forts, or platforms, mounted with cannon. There was still,

however, an interstice in the middle of between 1,000 and

1,100 feet, through which the ships of the enemy, favoured by

the wind and tide, or by the night, could manage to pass

without any considerable loss, and which it therefore became

necessary to fill up. This was accomplished by mooring across

it the hulls of 32 vessels, at intervals of about 20 feet

apart, and connecting them together with planks. Each vessel

was planted with artillery and garrisoned by about 30 men;

while the bridge was protected by a flota of vessels moored on

each side, above and below, at a distance of about 200 feet.

During the construction of the bridge, which lasted half a

year, the citizens of Antwerp viewed with dismay the progress

of a work that was not only to deprive them of their maritime

commerce, but also of the supplies necessary for their

subsistence and defence. At length they adopted a plan

suggested by Gianbelli, an Italian engineer, and resolved to

destroy the bridge by means of fire-ships, which seem to have

been first used on this occasion. Several such vessels were

sent down the river with a favourable tide and wind, of which

two were charged with 6,000 or 7,000 lbs. of gunpowder each,

packed in solid masonry, with various destructive missiles.

One of these vessels went ashore before reaching its

destination; the other arrived at the bridge and exploded with

terrible effect. Curiosity to behold so novel a spectacle had

attracted vast numbers of the Spaniards, who lined the shores

as well as the bridge. Of these 800 were killed by the

explosion, and by the implements of destruction discharged

with the powder; a still greater number were maimed and

wounded, and the bridge itself was considerably damaged.

Farnese himself was thrown to the earth and lay for a time

insensible. The besieged, however, did not follow up their

plan with vigour. They allowed Farnese time to repair the

damage, and the Spaniards, being now on the alert, either

diverted the course of the fire-ships that were subsequently

sent against them, or suffered them to pass the bridge through

openings made for the purpose. In spite of the bridge,

however, the beleaguered citizens might still have secured a

transit down the river by breaking through the dykes between

Antwerp and Lillo, and sailing over the plains thus laid under

water, for which purpose it was necessary to obtain possession

of the counter-dyke of Kowenstyn; but after a partial success,

too quickly abandoned by Hohenlohe and Ste Aldegonde, they

were defeated in a bloody battle which they fought upon the

dyke. Antwerp was now obliged to capitulate; and as Farnese

was anxious to put an end to so long a siege, it obtained more

favourable terms than could have been anticipated (August 17th

1585). The prosperity of this great commercial city received,

however, a severe blow from its capture by the Spaniards. A

great number of the citizens, as well as of the inhabitants of

Brabant and Flanders, removed to Amsterdam and Middelburg."

T. H. Dyer,

History of Modern Europe,

book 3, chapter 9 (volume 2).

The downfall of the prosperity of the great capital "was

instantaneous. The merchants and industrious citizens all

wandered away from the place which had been the seat of a

world-wide traffic. Civilization and commerce departed, and in

their stead were the citadel and the Jesuits."

J. L. Motley,

History of the United Netherlands,

chapter 5 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

F. Schiller,

Siege of Antwerp.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.

Proffered sovereignty of the United Provinces

declined by France and England.

Delusive English succors.

The queen's treachery and Leicester's incompetency.

Useless battle at Zutphen.

"It was natural that so small a State, wasted by its

protracted struggles, should desire, more earnestly than ever,

an alliance with some stronger power; and it was from among

States supposed to have sympathies with Protestants, that such

an alliance was sought. From the Protestant countries of

Germany there was no promise of help; and the eyes of the

Dutch diplomatists were therefore turned towards France and

England. In France, the Huguenots, having recovered from St.

Bartholomew, now enjoyed toleration; and were a rising and

hopeful party, under the patronage of Henry of Navarre.

{2273}

If the king of France would protect Holland from Philip, and

extend to its people the same toleration which he allowed his

own subjects, Holland offered him the sovereignty of the

united provinces. This tempting offer was declined: for a new

policy was now to be declared, which united France and Spain

in a bigoted crusade against the Protestant faith. The League,

under the Duke de Guise, gained a fatal ascendency over the

weak and frivolous king, Henry III., and held dominion in

France. … Nor was the baneful influence of the League

confined to France: it formed a close alliance with Philip and

the Pope, with whom it was plotting the overthrow of

Protestant England, the subjection of the revolted provinces

of Spain, and the general extirpation of heresy throughout

Europe. … The only hope of the Netherlands was now in

England, which was threatened by a common danger; and envoys

were sent to Elizabeth with offers of the sovereignty, which

had been declined by France. So little did the Dutch statesmen

as yet contemplate a republic, that they offered their country

to any sovereign, in return for protection. Had bolder

counsels prevailed, Elizabeth might, at once, have saved the

Netherlands, and placed herself at the head of the Protestants

of Europe. She saw her own danger, if Philip should recover

the provinces: but she held her purse-strings with the grasp

of a miser: she dreaded an open rupture with Spain; and she

was unwilling to provoke her own Catholic subjects. Sympathy

with the Protestant cause, she had none. … She desired to

afford as much assistance as would protect her own realm

against Philip, at the least possible cost, without

precipitating a war with Spain. She agreed to send men and

money: but required Flushing, Brill, and Rammekens to be held

as a security for her loans. She refused the sovereignty of

the States: but she despatched troops to the Netherlands, and

sent her favourite, the Earl of Leicester, to command them. As

she had taken the rebellious subjects of Spain under her

protection, Philip retaliated by the seizure of British ships.

Spanish vengeance was not averted, while the Netherlands

profited little by her aid."

Sir T. E. May,

Democracy in Europe,

chapter 11 (volume 2).

Leicester sailed for the Hague in the middle of December,

1585, having been preceded by 8,000 English troops, eager to

prevent or revenge the fall of Antwerp. "Had there been good

faith and resolution, and had Lord Grey, or Sir Richard

Bingham, or Sir John Norris been in command, 20,000 Dutch and

English troops might have taken the field in perfect

condition. The States would have spent their last dollar to

find them in everything which soldiers could need. They would

have had at their backs the enthusiastic sympathy of the

population, while the enemy was as universally abhorred; and

Parma, exhausted by his efforts in the great siege, with his

chest empty, and his ranks thinned almost to extinction, could

not have encountered them with a third of their numbers. A

lost battle would have been followed by a renewed revolt of

the reconciled Provinces, and Elizabeth, if she found peace so

necessary to her, might have dictated her own conditions." But

months passed and nothing was done, while Queen Elizabeth was

treacherously negotiating with agents of Spain. In the summer

of 1586, "half and more than half of the brave men who had

come over in the past September were dead. Their places were

taken by new levies gathered in haste upon the highways, or by

mutinous regiments of Irish kernes, confessed Catholics, and

led by a man [Sir William Stanley] who was only watching an

opportunity to betray his sovereign. … Gone was now the

enthusiasm which had welcomed the landing of Leicester. In the

place of it was suspicion and misgiving, distracted councils,

and divided purposes. Elizabeth while she was diplomatising

held her army idle. Parma, short-handed as he was, treated

with his hand upon his sword, and was for ever carving slice

on slice from the receding frontiers of the States. At the

time of Leicester's installation he was acting on the Meuse.

He held the river as far as Venloo. Venloo and Grave were in

the hands of the patriots, both of them strong fortresses, the

latter especially. … After the fall of Antwerp these two

towns were Parma's next object. The siege of Grave was formed

in January. In April Colonel Norris and Count Hohenlohe forced

the Spanish lines and threw in supplies; but Elizabeth's

orders prevented further effort. Parma came before the town in

person in June, and after a bombardment which produced little

or no effect, Grave, to the surprise of everyone, surrendered.

Count Hemart, the governor, was said to have been corrupted,

by his mistress. Leicester hanged him; but Hemart's gallows

did not recover Grave or save Venloo, which surrendered also

three weeks later. The Earl, conscious of the disgrace, yet

seeing no way to mend it, … was willing at last to play into

his mistress's hands. He understood her [Queen Elizabeth] at

last, and saw what she was aiming at. 'As the cause is now

followed,' he wrote to her on the 27th of June, 'it is not

worth the cost or the danger. … They [the Netherlanders]

would rather have lived with bread and drink under your

Majesty's protection than with all their possessions under the

King of Spain. It has almost broken their hearts to think your

Majesty should not care any more for them. But if you mean

soon to leave them they will be gone almost before you hear of

it. I will do my best, therefore, to get into my hands three

or four most principal places in North Holland, so as you

shall rule these men, and make war and peace as you list. Part

not with Brill for anything. With these places you can have

what peace you will in an hour, and have your debts and

charges readily answered. But your Majesty must deal

graciously with them at present, and if you mean to leave them

keep it to yourself.' … No palliation can be suggested, of

the intentions to which Leicester saw that she was still

clinging, and which he was willing to further in spite of his

oath to be loyal to the States. … The incapacity of

Leicester … was growing evident. He had been used as a lay

figure to dazzle the eyes of the Provinces, while both he and

they were mocked by the secret treaty. The treaty was hanging

fire. … The Queen had … so far opened her eyes as to see

that she was not improving her position by keeping her army

idle; and Leicester, that he might not part with his

government in entire disgrace, having done absolutely nothing,

took the field for a short campaign in the middle of August

[1586].

{2274}

Parma had established himself in Gelderland, at Zutphen, and

Duesberg. The States held Deventer, further down the Issel;

but Deventer would probably fall as Grave and Venloo had

fallen if the Spaniards kept their hold upon the river;

Leicester therefore proposed to attempt to recover Zutphen.

Everyone was delighted to be moving. … The Earl of Essex,

Sir William Russell, Lord Willoughby, and others who held no

special commands, attached themselves to Leicester's staff;

Sir Philip Sidney obtained leave of absence from Flushing; Sir

John Norris and his brother brought the English contingent of

the States army; Sir William Stanley had arrived with his

Irishmen; and with these cavaliers glittering about him, and

9,000 men, Leicester entered Gelderland. Duesberg surrendered

to him without a blow; Norris surprised a fort outside

Zutphen, which commanded the river and straitened the

communications of the town." Parma made an attempt, on the

morning of September 22, to throw supplies into the town, and

Leicester's knights and gentlemen, forewarned of this project

by a spy, "Volunteered for an ambuscade to cut off the convoy.

… Parma brought with him every man that he could spare, and

the ambuscade party were preparing unconsciously to encounter

4,000 of the best troops in the world. They were in all about

500. … The morning was misty. The waggons were heard coming,

but nothing could be seen till a party of horse appeared at

the head of the train where the ambuscade was lying. Down

charged the 500, much as in these late years 600 English

lancers charged elsewhere, as magnificently and as uselessly.

… Never had been a more brilliant action seen or heard of,

never one more absurd and profitless. For the ranks of the

Spanish infantry were unbroken, the English could not touch

them, could not even approach them, and behind the line of

their muskets the waggons passed steadily to the town. … A

few, not many, had been killed; but among those whose lives

had been flung away so wildly was Philip Sidney. He was struck

by a musket ball on his exposed thigh, as he was returning

from his last charge," and died a few weeks later. "Parma

immediately afterwards entered Zutphen unmolested. …

Leicester's presence was found necessary in England. With the

natural sympathy of one worthless person for another, he had

taken a fancy to Stanley, and chose to give him an independent

command; and leaving the government to the Council of the

States, and the army again without a chief, he sailed in

November for London."

J. A. Froude,

History of England: The Reign of Elizabeth,

chapter 33 (volume 6).

ALSO IN:

Correspondence of Leicester during his

Government of the Low Countries

(Camden Society 27).

W. Gray,

Life and Times of Sir Philip Sidney,

chapter 10.

C. R. Markham,

The Fighting Veres,

chapters 7-8.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1587-1588.

The ruin of the Spanish Provinces.

Great prosperity of the United Provinces.

Siege and capture of Sluys.

The last of Leicester.

"Though the United Provinces were distracted by domestic

dissensions and enfeebled by mutual distrust, their condition,

compared with that portion of the Netherlands reduced under

the yoke of Spain, was such as to afford matter of deep

gratulation and thankfulness. The miseries of war had visited

the latter unhappy country in the fullest measure; multitudes

of its inhabitants had fled in despair; and the sword, famine,

and pestilence, vied with each other in destroying the

remainder. … The rich and smiling pastures, once the

admiration and envy of the less favoured countries of Europe,

were now no more; woods, roads, and fields, were confounded in

one tangled mass of copse and brier. In the formerly busy and

wealthy towns of Flanders and Brabant, Ghent, Antwerp, and

Bruges, members of noble families were seen to creep from

their wretched abodes in the darkness of night to beg their

bread, or to search the streets for bones and offal. A

striking and cheering contrast is the picture presented by the

United Provinces. The crops had, indeed, failed there also,

but the entire command of the sea which they preserved, and

the free importation of corn, secured plentiful supplies. …

They continued to carry on, under Spanish colours, a lucrative

half-smuggling traffic, which the government of that nation

found it its interest to connive at and encourage. The war,

therefore, instead of being, as usual, an hindrance to

commerce, rather gave it a new stimulus; the ports were

crowded with vessels. … Holland and Zealand had now for more

than ten years been delivered from the enemy. … The security

they thus offered, combined with the freedom of religion, and

the activity of trade and commerce, drew vast multitudes to

their shores; the merchants and artisans expelled, on account

of their religion, from the Spanish Netherlands, transferred

thither the advantages of their enterprise and skill. … The

population of the towns became so overflowing that it was

found impossible to build houses fast enough to contain it.

… The miserable condition of the Spanish Netherlands, and

the difficulty of finding supplies for his troops, caused the

Duke of Parma to delay taking the field until late in the

summer [1587]; when, making a feint attack upon Ostend, he

afterwards … commenced a vigorous siege of Sluys. In order

to draw him off from this undertaking, Maurice, with the Count

of Hohenlohe, marched towards Bois-le-Duc. … The danger of

Sluys hastened the return of the Earl of Leicester to the

Netherlands, who arrived in Ostend with 7,000 foot and 500

horse. … Sluys had been besieged seven weeks, and the

garrison was reduced from 1,600 men to scarcely half that

number, when Leicester made an attempt to master the fort of

Blankenburg, in the neighbourhood of the enemy's camp; but on

intelligence that Parma was approaching to give him battle, he

hastily retreated to Ostend," and Sluys was surrendered. "The

loss of Sluys exasperated the dissensions between Leicester

and the States into undisguised and irreconcilable hostility."

He was soon afterwards recalled to England, and early in the

following year the queen required him to resign his command

and governorship in the Netherlands. In the meantime, the

English queen had reopened negotiations with Parma, who

occupied her attention while his master, Philip II. of Spain,

was preparing the formidable Armada which he launched against

England the next year

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1588.

C. M. Davies,

History of Holland,

part 3, chapters 2-3 (volume 2).

{2275}

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.

Successes of Prince Maurice.

Departure of Parma to France.

His death.

Appointment of Archduke Albert to the Government.

"The destruction of the great Spanish Armada by the English in

1588 infused new hopes into all the enemies of Spain, and

animated the Dutch with such courage, that Maurice led his

army against that of the Duke of Parma, and forced him to

raise the siege of Bergen-op-Zoom, at that time garrisoned by

a portion of Leicester's army under the command of Sir Francis

Vere. … The young Stadtholder was induced by this success to

surprise the Castle of Blyenbeck, which was yielded to his

arms in 1589; and the following year [March 1] he got

possession of Breda by a 'ruse de guerre,'"—having introduced

70 men into the town by concealing them in a boat laden with

turf. "The Duke of Parma was now recalled from the Low

Countries into France [see FRANCE: A. D. 1590], and the old

Peter Ernest, Count de Mansfeld, succeeded to the government

of the Low Countries. … Maurice defeated the Spanish army in

the open field at Caervorden, and took Nimeguen [October 21,

1591] and Zutphen [May 30, 1591; also, Deventer, June 10, of

the same year]. … These successes added greatly to the

reputation of Count Maurice, who now made considerable

progress, so that in the year 1591 the Dutch saw their

frontiers extended, and had well-grounded hopes of driving the

Spaniards out of Friesland in another campaign. … The death

of the Prince of Parma [which occurred December 3, 1592]

delivered the Confederates from a formidable adversary; but

old Count Mansfeld, at the head of an army of 30,000 men, took

the field against them. Maurice, however, in 1593,

notwithstanding this covering force, sat down before

Gertruydenberg, advantageously situated on the frontier of

Brabant." The siege was regarded as a masterpiece of the

military art of the day, and the city was brought to surrender

at the end of three months. "With the useful aid of Sir

Francis Vere and the English, Maurice afterwards took

Gronenburg and Grave, which formed part of his own patrimony.

The Duke of Parma was succeeded in the government of the

Netherlands by the Archduke Albert, a younger son of the

Emperor Maximilian, who was married to Isabella, daughter of

King Philip."

Sir E. Cust,

Lives of the Warriors of the Thirty Years' War:

Maurice of Orange-Nassau,

pages 25-28.

ALSO IN:

C. R. Markham,

The Fighting Veres,

part 1, chapters 10-15.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1597.

Spanish operations in Northern France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609.

Steady decline of Spanish power.

Sovereignty of the provinces made over to the Infanta

Isabella and the Archduke, her husband.

Death of Philip II.

Negotiations for peace.

A twelve years' truce agreed upon.

Acknowledgment of the independence of the republic.

"Philip's French enterprise had failed. The dashing and

unscrupulous Henry of Navarre had won his crown, by conforming

to the Catholic faith. …

See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

Great was the shock given by his politic apostacy to the

religious sentiments of Europe: but it was fatal to the

ambition of Philip; and again the Netherlands could count upon

the friendship of a king of France. Their own needs were

great: but the gallant little republic still found means to

assist the Protestant champion against their common enemy, the

king of Spain. In the Netherlands the Spanish power was

declining. The feeble successors of Parma were no match for

Maurice of Nassau and the republican leaders: the Spanish

troops were starving and mutinous: the provinces under Spanish

rule were reduced to wretchedness and beggary. Cities and

fortresses fell, one after another, into the hands of the

stadtholder. The Dutch fleet joined that of England in a raid

upon Spain itself, captured and sacked Cadiz [see SPAIN: A. D.

1596], raised the flag of the republic on the battlements of

that famous city; and left the Spanish fleet burning in the

harbour. Other events followed, deeply affecting the fortunes

of the republic. Philip at length made peace with Henry of

Navarre, and was again free to coerce his revolted provinces.

But his accursed rule was drawing to a close. In 1598 he made

over the sovereignty of the Netherlands to the Infanta

Isabella and her affianced husband, the Archduke Albert, who

had cast aside his cardinal's hat, his archbishopric, and his

priestly vows of celibacy, for a consort so endowed. Philip

had ceased to reign in the Netherlands; and a few months

afterwards [September 13, 1598] he closed his evil life, in

the odour of sanctity. … The tyrant was dead: the little

republic, which he had scourged so cruelly, was living and

prosperous. … Far different was the lot of the ill-fated

provinces still in the grasp of the tyrant. The land lay waste

and desolate: its inhabitants had tied to England or Holland,

or were reduced to want and beggary. … That the republic

should have outlived its chief oppressor was an event of happy

augury: but years of trial and danger were still to be passed

through. The victory of Nieuport [gained July 2, 1600, by an

army of Dutch and English over the superior forces of the

Archduke Albert] raised Prince Maurice's fame, as a soldier,

to its highest point; and the gallant defence of Ostend, for

upwards of three years [against a siege, conducted by the

Spanish general Spinola, to which its garrison finally

succumbed in 1604, when the town was a heap of ruins, and

after 100,000 men are said to have been sacrificed on both

sides] … proved that the courage and endurance of his

soldiers had not declined during the protracted war [while

Sluys was taken by the Prince the same year]. At sea the Dutch

fleets won new victories over the Spaniards and Portuguese;

and privateers made constant ravages upon the enemy's

commerce. But there were also failures and reverses, on the

side of the republic, dissensions among its leaders, and

anxieties concerning the attitude of foreign States. And thus,

with varied fortunes, this momentous war had now continued for

upwards of forty years. … On both sides there was a desire

for peace. The Dutch would accept nothing short of

unconditional independence: the Spaniards almost despaired of

reducing them to subjection, while they dreaded more

republican victories at sea, and the extension of Dutch

maritime enterprise in the East. Overtures for peace were

first made cautiously and secretly by the archdukes ['this was

the title of the archduke and archduchess'], and received by

the States with grave distrust. Jealous and haughty was the

bearing of the republic, in the negotiations which ensued. The

states-general, in full session, represented Holland, and

received the Spanish envoys. The independence of the States

was accepted, on both sides, as the basis of any treaty: but,

as a preliminary to the negotiations, the republic insisted

upon its formal recognition, as a free and equal State, in

words dictated by itself. …

{2276}

At length an armistice was signed, in order to arrange the

terms of a treaty of peace. It was a welcome breathing time:

but peace was still beset with difficulties and obstacles. The

Spaniards were insincere: they could not bring themselves to

treat seriously, and in good faith, with heretics and rebels:

they desired the re-establishment of the Church of Rome; and

they claimed the exclusive right of trading with the East and

West Indies. The councils of the republic were also divided.

Barneveldt, the civilian, was bent upon peace: Prince Maurice,

the soldier, was burning for the renewal of the war. But

Barneveldt and the peace party prevailed, and negotiations

were continued. Again and again, the armistice was renewed:

but a treaty of peace seemed as remote as ever. At length

[April 9, 1609], after infinite disputes, a truce for twelve

years was agreed upon. In form it was a truce, and not a

treaty of peace: but otherwise the republic gained every point

upon which it had insisted. Its freedom and independence were

unconditionally recognised: it accepted no conditions

concerning religion: it made no concessions in regard to its

trade with the Indies. The great battle for freedom was won:

the republic was free: its troubles and perils were at an end.

Its oppressors had been the first to sue for peace: their

commissioners had treated with the states-general at the

Hague; and they had yielded every point for which they had

been waging war for nearly half a century."

Sir T. E. May,

Democracy in Europe,

chapter 11 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

C. M. Davies,

History of Holland,

part 3, chapters 3-4 (volume 2).

J. L. Motley,

History of the United Netherlands,

chapters 30-52 (volumes 3-4).

Douglas Campbell,

The Puritan in Holland England, and America,

chapter 18 (volume 2).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.

Rise and growth of Eastern trade.

Formation of the Dutch East India Company.

"Previous to their assertion of national independence, the

commerce of the Dutch did not extend beyond the confines of

Europe. But new regions of traffic were now to open to their

dauntless enterprise. It was in 1594 that Cornelius Houtman,

the son of It brewer at Gouda, returned from Lisbon, where,

having passed the preceding year, he had seen the gorgeous

produce of the East piled on the quays of the Tagus. His

descriptions fired the emulation of his friends at Amsterdam,

nine of whom agreed to join stock and equip a little flotilla

for a voyage round the Cape of Good Hope; Houtman undertook

the command, and thus the marvellous commerce of the Dutch in

India began. The influence which their trade with India and

their settlements there exerted in maturing and extending the

greatness of the Dutch, has often been overrated. It was a

source, indeed, of infinite pride, and for a time of rapid and

glittering profit; but it was attended with serious drawbacks,

both of national expenditure and national danger. … From the

outset they were forced to go armed. The four ships that

sailed on the first voyage of speculation from Amsterdam, in

1595, were fitted out for either war or merchandise. They were

about to sail into hitherto interdicted waters; they knew that

the Portuguese were already established in the Spice Islands,

whither they were bound; and Portugal was then a dependency of

Spain. On their arrival at Java, they had, consequently, to

encounter open hostility both from Europeans and the natives

whom the former influenced against them. At Bali, however,

they were better received; and, in 1597, they reached home

with a rich cargo of spices and Indian wares. It was a proud

and joyous day in Amsterdam when their return was known. …

From various ports of Zealand and Holland 80 vessels sailed

the following year to America, Africa, and India. Vainly the

Portuguese colonists laboured to convince the native princes

of the East that the Dutch were a mere horde of pirates with

whom no dealings were safe. Their businesslike and punctilious

demeanour, and probably, likewise, the judiciously selected

cargoes with which they freighted their ships outwards,

whereby they were enabled to offer better terms for the silk,

indigo, and spice they wished to buy, rapidly disarmed the

suspicion of several of the chiefs. … In 1602 the celebrated

East India Company was formed under charter granted by the

States-General,—the original capital being 6,000,000

guilders, subscribed by the merchants of Delft, Rotterdam,

Hoorn, Enkhuysen, Middleberg, but above all Amsterdam. They

established factories at many places, both on the continent of

India and in the islands; but their chief depot was fixed at

Bantam," until, dissatisfied with certain taxes imposed on

them by the lord of Bantam, they looked elsewhere for a

station. "The sovereign of Java gladly offered them a

settlement not above 100 miles distant, with full permission

to erect such buildings as they chose, and an engagement that

pepper (the chief spice thence exported) should be sent out of

his dominions toll-free. These terms were accepted. Jocatra, a

situation very propitious for traffic, was chosen as the site

of their future factory. Warehouses of stone and mortar

quickly rose; and dwellings, to the number of 1,000, were in a

short time added. All nations had leave to settle and trade

within its walls; and this was the origin of Batavia. In six

years the Company sent out 46 vessels, of which 43 returned in

due course laden with rich cargoes. … By the books of the

Company it appeared that, during the next eleven years, they

maintained 30 ships in the Eastern trade, manned by 5,000

seamen. … Two hundred per cent. was divided by the

proprietors of the Company's stock on their paid-up capital in

sixteen years. … But of all the proud results of their

Indian commerce, that which naturally afforded to the Dutch

the keenest sense of exultation, was the opportunity it

afforded them of thoroughly undermining the once exclusive

trade of Spain, not with foreign nations merely, but with her

own colonies, and even at home. The infatuated policy of her

government had prepared the way for her decline. … In the

space of a few years the Dutch had taken and rifled 11 Spanish

galleons, 'carkets and other huge ships, and made about 40 of

them unserviceable.' So crippled was their colonial trade

that, even for their own use, the Spaniards were obliged to

buy nutmegs, cloves, and mace, from their hated rivals."

W. T. McCullagh,

Industrial History of Free Nations,

chapter 13 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

D. McPherson,

Annals of Commerce,

volume 2, pages 206-296.

J. Yeats,

Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,

part 3, chapters 3-4.

{2277}

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

Calvinistic persecution of Arminianism.

The hunting down of John of Barneveldt by Prince Maurice.

Synod of Dort.

Calvin's doctrine of predestination was strongly expressed in

what was called the Heidelberg Catechism. "A synod of the

pastors of Holland had decreed that this must be signed by all

their preachers, and be to them what the Thirty-nine Articles

are to the English Church and the Confession of Augsburg to

the Lutherans. Many preachers hesitated to pledge themselves

to doctrines that they did not think Scriptural nor according

to primitive faith, and still more, not accordant with the

eternal mercy of God. Of these Jacob Hermann, a minister of

Amsterdam, or as he Latinised his name, Arminius, was the

foremost, and under his influence a number of clergy refused

their signature. The University of Leyden in 1603 chose

Arminius as their Professor of Theology. The opposite party,

in great wrath, insisted on holding a synod, and the

States-General gave permission, but at first only on condition

that there should be a revision of the confession of faith and

catechism. The ministers refused, but the States-General

insisted, led by John Barneveldt, then Advocate and Keeper of

the Seals, who declared in their name that as 'foster fathers

and protectors of the churches to them every right belonged.'

It was an Erastian sentiment, but this opinion was held by all

reformed governments, including the English, and Barneveldt

spoke in the hope of mitigating Calvinistic violence. The

Advocate of the States-General was in fact their mouthpiece.

They might vote, but no one expressed their decisions at home

or abroad save the Advocate; and Barneveldt, both from

position and character, was thus the chief manager of civil

affairs, and an equal if not a superior power to Maurice of

Nassau, the Stadtholder and commander-in-chief, and recently,

by the death of his elder brother, Prince of Orange. The

question had even been mooted of giving him the sovereignty,

but to this Barneveldt was strongly averse. Maurice knew very

little about the argument, and his real feelings were

Arminian, though jealousy of Barneveldt made him favour the

opposite party, whose chief champion was Jacob Gomer, or

Gomerus as he called himself. King James, though really

holding with the Arminians, disliked Barneveldt, and therefore

threw all the weight of England into the scale against them.

Arguments were held before Maurice and before the university,

in which three champions on the one side were pitted against

three on the other, but nothing came of them but a good deal

of audacious profanity, till Arminius, in ministering to the

sick during a visitation of the plague at Amsterdam, caught

the disease and died. He was so much respected that the

University of Leyden pensioned his widow. They chose a young

Genevese, named Conrad Voorst or Vorstius, as his successor.

Voorst had written two books, one on the nature of God,

Tractatus Theologicus de Deo, and the other, Exegesis

Apologetica, in which (by Fuller's account) there was a

considerable amount of materialism, and likewise what amounted

to a denial of the Divine Omniscience, being no doubt a

reaction from extreme Calvinism. King James met with the book,

and was horrified at its statements. He conceived himself

bound to interfere both as protector to the States—which he

said had been cemented with English blood—and because the

University of Leyden was much frequented by the youth of

England and Scotland, who often completed their legal studies

there. He ordered Sir Ralf Winwood, his ambassador at the

Hague, to deliver a sharp remonstrance to the States, and to

read them a catalogue of the dangerous and blasphemous errors

that he had detected, recommending the States to protest

against the appointment, and burn the books. Barneveldt was

much distressed, and uncertain whether James really was

speaking out of zeal for orthodoxy, or to have an excuse for a

quarrel. Letters and arguments passed without number. …

Leyden supported the professor it had invited, and, together

with Barneveldt, felt that to expel a man whom they had

chosen, at the bidding of a foreign sovereign, was almost

accepting a yoke like that of the Inquisition. … Maurice, on

the other hand, was glad to set the English King against

Barneveldt, and to represent that support of the foes of

strict Calvinism meant treachery to the Republic and a

betrayal to Spain. Winwood, on the King's part, insisted on

Vorstius's dismissal and banishment. … Maurice's own

preacher, Uytenbogen, wrote a remonstrance on behalf of the

Arminians, who were therefore sometimes termed Remonstrants,

while the Gomerists, from their answer, were called

Counter-Remonstrants. Unfortunately, political jealousy of

Barneveldt on the part of Maurice caused the influence of

Uytenbogen to decline. Most of the preachers and of the

populace held to the Counter-Remonstrants and their

old-fashioned Calvinism, most of the nobles and magistrates

were Remonstrants. The question began to branch into a second,

namely, whether the state had power to control the faith of

all its subjects, and whether when it convoked a synod it

could control its decisions, or was bound to enforce them

absolutely and without question. … Whichever party was

predominant in a place turned the other out of church. Appeals

were made to the Stadtholder, and he became angry. The

States-General at large, with Barneveldt to speak for them,

were Remonstrant; the states of Holland were

Counter-Remonstrant; and one of the questions thus at issue

was how far the power of the general government outweighed

that of a particular state. … By steps here impossible to

follow, Maurice destroyed the ascendency of Barneveldt, and

the reports that the old statesman was playing into the hands

of Spain grew more and more current. The magistrates of the

Arminian persuasion found themselves depending for protection

on the Waartgelders, a sort of burgher militia, who

endeavoured to keep the peace between the furious mobs who

struggled on either side. Accusations flew about freely that

now Maurice, now Barneveldt wanted the sovereignty. England

favoured the former; and after Henri IV. was dead, French

support little availed the latter, but rather did him harm.

Maurice did not scruple to raise the popular cry that there

were two factions in Holland, for Orange or for Spain, though

he must have known that there never had been a more steady foe

of Spain than the old statesman. The public, however,

preferred the general to the statesman, and bit by bit Maurice

succeeded in exchanging Remonstrant magistrates for

Counter-Remonstrant, or, as Barneveldt explained the matter to

Sir Dudley Carleton, who had become ambassador from England,

Puritan for double Puritan. … Sunday, the 17th of July,

1617, Uytenbogen preached against the assembly of a national

synod, knowing well that it would only confirm and narrow the

cruel doctrine. Maurice, who was bent on the synod came out in

a rage. …

{2278}

Barneveldt on this moved the States-General to refuse their

consent to the synod as inconsistent with their laws. This was

carried by a majority, and was called the Sharp Resolve. …

The High Council by a majority of one set aside the Sharp

Resolve, and decided for the synod. Barneveldt had a severe

illness, during which Maurice's influence made progress,

assisted by detestable accusations that the Advocate was in

league with the Spaniards. At last Maurice mastered Utrecht,

hitherto the chief hold of Arminianism. He disbanded the

Waartgelders, and when the States-General came together in the

summer of 1618, he had all prepared for sweeping his

adversaries from his path. On the 29th of August, as

Barneveldt was going to take his place at the States-General,

he was told by a chamberlain that the Prince wished to speak

with him, and in Maurice's ante-room was arrested by a

lieutenant of the guard and locked up. In exactly the same

manner was arrested his friend and supporter Pensionary

Rambolt Hoogenboets, who had protested against the decree by

which the High Council reversed that of the States-General,

and Hugo Van Groot, or, as he called himself, Hugo Grotius,

one of the greatest scholars who ever lived, especially in

jurisprudence, and a strong adherent of the Advocate. … The

synod met at Dordrecht [or Dort] in January, 1619, and lasted

till April. The Calvinists carried the day completely, and

Arminians were declared heretics, schismatics, incapable of

preaching, or of acting as professors or schoolmasters, unless

they signed the Heidelberg Catechism and Netherland

Confession, which laid down the hard-and-fast doctrine that

predestination excluded all free will on man's part, but

divided the human race into vessels of wrath and vessels of

mercy, without power on their own part to reverse the doom.

… The trial of Barneveldt was going on at the same time with

the Synod of Dordrecht after he had been many months in

prison. Twenty-four commissioners were appointed, twelve from

Holland, and two from each of the other states, and most of

them were personal enemies of the prisoner. Before them he was

examined day by day for three months, without any indictment;

no witnesses, no counsel on either side; nor was he permitted

pen and ink to prepare his defence, nor the use of his books

and papers." Barneveldt and his family protested against the

flagrant injustice and illegality of the so-called trial, but

refused to sue for pardon, which Maurice was determined they

should do. "It was submission that he wanted, not life"; but

as the submission was not yielded he coldly exacted the life.

Barneveldt was condemned and sentenced to be beheaded by the

sword. The sentence was executed on the same day it was

pronounced, May 12, 1619. Grotius was condemned to perpetual

imprisonment, but made his escape, by the contrivance of his

wife, in 1621.

C. M. Yonge,

Cameos from English History,

series 6, chapter 9.

ALSO IN:

J. L. Motley,

Life and Death of John of Barneveld,

chapters 14-22 (volume 2).

J. Arminius,

Works, etc.; edited by Nichols,

volume 1.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D.1608-1620.

Residence of the exiled Independents who afterwards founded

Plymouth Colony in New England.

See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1609.

The founding of the Bank of Amsterdam.

See MONEY AND BANKING: 17TH CENTURY.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1609.

Henry Hudson's voyage of exploration.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1609.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1610-1614.

Possession taken of New Netherland (New York).

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1621.

Incorporation of the Dutch West India Company.

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

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

End of the Twelve Years Truce.

Renewal of war.

Death of Prince Maurice.

Reversion of the sovereignty of the Spanish Provinces to

the king of Spain.

"In 1621, the twelve years' truce being expired, the King of

Spain and the Archdukes offered to renew it, on the condition

that the States would acknowledge their ancient sovereigns,

one of whom, the Archduke Albert, died this year. Even if the

States had been inclined to negotiate, the will of Maurice was

in the ascendant, and the war was renewed. The Dutch, it is

true, were now entirely insulated. James of England was making

overtures to Spain and being cajoled. France, who had wished

to save Barneveldt, was unfriendly in consequence of the

manner in which her intercession had been treated. The Dutch

party which was opposed to Maurice was exasperated, and the

great counsellor was no more there to advise his country in

its emergencies. The safety of Holland lay in the fact that

the wars of religion were being waged on a wider and more

distant field, for a larger stake, and with larger armies. Not

content with murdering Barneveldt, Maurice took care to ruin

his family. But at last, and just before his death in 1625,

Maurice, in the bitterness of disappointment, said, 'As long

as the old rascal was alive, we had counsels and money; now we

can find neither one nor the other.' … The memory of

Barneveldt was avenged, even though his reputation has not

been rehabilitated. Frederic Henry, half-brother of Maurice,

was at once made Captain and Admiral-General of the States,

and soon after Stadtholder. … Very speedily the controversy

which had threatened to tear Holland asunder was silenced by

mutual consent, except in synods and presbyteries. In a few

years, Holland became, as far as the government was concerned,

the most tolerant country in the world, the asylum of those

whom bigotry hunted from their native land. Hence it became

the favourite abode of those wealthy and enterprising Jews,

who greatly increased its wealth by aiding its external and

internal commerce."

J. E. T. Rogers,

Story of Holland,

chapter 26.

"Marquis Spinola commenced the campaign by the siege of.

Bergen-op-Zoom, with a considerable Spanish army, in 1622, but

Maurice was enabled to meet him with the united forces of

Mansfeld, Brunswick [see GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623], and his

own, and obliged the Marquis to raise the siege. He afterwards

encountered Don Gonsalvo de Cordova, who endeavoured to stay

their passage into Germany with a Spanish force near Fleurus;

but he also was defeated. After this, however, Prince Maurice

could effect nothing considerable, but maintained his ground

solely by acting on the defensive during the entire year 1623.

… He could not prevent the capture [by Spinola] of Breda,

one of the strongest fortifications of the Low Countries. …

The mortification at being unable to relieve this place during

a long blockade of six months preyed upon the mind of Prince

Maurice, whose health had already begun to give way. … An

access of fever obliged him to quit the field and withdraw to

the Hague, where he died in 1625, at the age of 58 years."

Sir E. Cust,

Lives of the Warriors of the Thirty Years' War:

Maurice of Orange-Nassau,

page 47.

{2279}

The new Stadtholder, Prince Frederic Henry, made every effort

to raise the siege of Breda, but without success, and the

place was surrendered (June 2, 1625) to the Spaniards. In the

next year little was accomplished on either side; but in 1627

the Prince took Grol, after a siege of less than one month. In

1628 the Dutch Admiral Piet Heyn captured one of the Spanish

silver-fleets, with a cargo, largely pure silver, valued at

12,000,000 florins. In 1629 the king of Spain and the

Archduchess made overtures of peace, with offers of a renewed

truce for 24 years. "But no sooner did the negotiations become

public than they encountered general and violent opposition,"

especially from the West India Company, which found the war

profitable, and from the ministers of the church. At the same

time the operations of the war assumed more activity. The

Prince laid siege to Bois-le-Duc, a Brabant town deemed

impregnable, and the Spaniards, to draw him away, invaded

Guelderland, and captured Amersfoort, near Utrecht. They laid

waste the country, and were compelled to retire, without

interrupting the siege of Bois-le-Duc, which presently was

surrendered. In 1631 the Prince undertook the siege of

Dunkirk, which had long been a rendezvous of pirates,

troublesome to the commerce of all the surrounding nations;

but on the approach of a Spanish relieving force, the deputies

of the States, who had authority over the commander, required

him to relinquish the undertaking. In 1632, the Prince

achieved a great success, in the siege and reduction of

Maestricht, which he accomplished, notwithstanding his lines

were attacked by a Spanish army of 24,000 men, and by an army

from Germany, under the Imperial general Pappenheim, who

brought 16,000 men to assist in raising the siege. In the face

of these two armies, Maestricht was forced to capitulate, and

the fall of Limburg followed. Peace negotiations were reopened

the same year, but came to nothing, and they were followed

shortly by the death of the Archduchess Isabella. "At her

death, the Netherlands, in pursuance of the terms of the

surrender made by Philip II., reverted to the King of Spain,

who placed the government, after it had been administered a

short time by a commission, in the hands of the Marquis of

Aitona, commander-in-chief of the army, until the arrival of

his brother Ferdinand, cardinal and archbishop of Toledo

[known as 'the Cardinal Infant'], whom he had, during the

lifetime of the Archduchess, appointed her successor."

C. M. Davies,

History of Holland,

part 3, chapter 6 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

C. R. Markham,

The Fighting Veres,

part 2, chapter 4.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1623.

The massacre of Amboyna.

See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1624-1661.

Conquests in Brazil and their loss.

See BRAZIL: A. D. 1510-1661.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1625.

The Protestant alliance in the Thirty Years War.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1635.

Alliance with France against Spain and Austria.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

The Cardinal Infant in the government

of the Spanish Provinces.

His campaigns against the Dutch and French.

Invasion of France.

Dutch capture of Breda.

In 1635, the Archduchess Isabella having recently died, it was

thought expedient in Spain "that a member of the royal family

should be intrusted with the administration of the Netherlands

[Spanish Provinces]. This appointment was accordingly

conferred on the Cardinal Infant [Ferdinand, son of Philip

III.], who was at that time in Italy, where he had collected a

considerable army. With this force, amounting to about 12,000

men, he had passed in the preceding year through Germany, on

his route to the Netherlands, and, having formed a junction

with the Imperialists, under the King of Hungary, he greatly

contributed to the victory gained over the Swedes and German

Protestants, at Nordlingen. …

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

The Cardinal Infant entered on the civil and military

government of the Spanish Netherlands nearly at the time when

the seizure of the Elector of Treves had called forth from

France an open declaration of war. By uniting the newly raised

troops which he had brought with him from Italy to the veteran

legions of the provinces, he found himself at the head of a

considerable military force. At the same time, an army of

20,000 French was assembled under the inspection of their king

at Amiens, and was intrusted to Chatillon, and Mareschal Brezé

the brother-in-law of Richelieu. … It was intended, however,

that this army should form a junction with the Dutch at

Maestricht, after which the troops of both nations should be

placed under the orders of Frederic Henry, Prince of Orange,

who had inherited all the military talents of his ancestors.

In order to counteract this movement, the Cardinal Infant

separated his army into two divisions. One was ordered to

confront the Dutch, and the other, under Prince Thomas of

Savoy, marched to oppose the progress of the French. This

latter division of the Spaniards encountered the enemy at

Avein, in the territory of Liege; but though it had taken up a

favourable position, it was totally defeated, and forced to

retreat to Namur. The French army then continued its march

with little farther interruption, and effected its intended

union with the Dutch in the neighbourhood of Maestricht. After

this junction, the Prince of Orange assumed the command of the

allied army, which now stormed and sacked Tillemont, where

great cruelties were committed. … The union of the two

armies spread terror throughout the Spanish Netherlands, and

the outrages practised at Tillemont gave the Catholics a

horror at the French name and alliance. … The Flemings,

forgetting their late discontents with the Spanish government,

now made the utmost efforts against their invaders. … The

Spanish prince … contrived to elude a general engagement.

… His opponents … were obliged to employ their arms in

besieging towns. It was believed for some time that they

intended to invest Brussels, but the storm fell on Louvain."

The Emperor now sent from Germany a force of 18,000 men, under

Piccolomini, "to the succour of the Cardinal Infant.

{2280}

The slowness of all the operations of the Prince of Orange

afforded sufficient time for these auxiliaries to cut off the

French supplies of provisions, and advance to the relief of

Louvain. On the intelligence of their approach, the

half-famished French abandoned the siege, and, after suffering

severely in their retreat, retired to recruit at Ruremonde.

The Dutch afforded them no assistance, and showed them but

little sympathy in their disasters. Though the Dutch hated

Spain, they were jealous of France, and dreaded an increase of

its power in the Netherlands. … Mareschals Chatillon and

Brezé, who were thus in a great measure the victims of the

policy of their allies, were under the necessity of leading

back beyond the Meuse, to Nimeguen, the wretched remains of

their army, now reduced to 9,000 men. … After the departure

of the French, the exertions of the Prince of Orange were

limited, during this season, to an attempt for the recovery of

the strong fortress of Skink, which had recently been reduced

by the Spaniards. The Cardinal Infant, availing himself of the

opportunity thus presented to him, quickly regained, by aid of

the Austrian reinforcements, his superiority in the field. He

took several fortresses from the Dutch, and sent to the

frontiers of France detachments which levied contributions

over great part of Picardy and Champagne. … Encouraged by

these successes, Olivarez [the Spanish minister] redoubled his

exertions, and now boldly planned invasions of France from

three different quarters"—to enter Picardy on the north,

Burgundy on the east, and Guienne at the south. "Of all these

expeditions, the most successful, at least for a time, was the

invasion of Picardy, which, indeed, had nearly proved fatal to

the French monarchy. By orders of the Cardinal Infant, his

generals, Prince Thomas of Savoy, Piccolomini, and John de

Vert, or Wert, … began their march at the head of an army

which exceeded 30,000 men, and was particularly strong in

cavalry. … No interruption being … offered by the Dutch,

the Spanish generals entered Picardy [1636], and seized almost

without resistance on La Capelle and Catelet, which the French

ministry expected would have occupied their arms for some

months. The Count de Soissons, who was already thinking more

of his plots against Richelieu than the defence of his

country, did nothing to arrest the progress of the Spaniards,

till they arrived at the Somme," and there but little. They

forced the passage of the river with slight difficulty, and

"occupied Roye, to the south of the Somme, on the river Oise;

and having thus obtained an entrance into France, spread

themselves over the whole country lying between these rivers.

The smoke of the villages to which they set fire was seen from

the heights in the vicinity of Paris; and such in that capital

was the consternation consequent on these events that it seems

probable, had the Spanish generals marched straight on Paris,

the city would have fallen into their hands." But Prince

Thomas was not bold enough for the exploit, and prudently

"receded with his army to form the siege of Corbie. This town

presented no great resistance to his arms, but the time

occupied by its capture allowed the Parisians to recover from

their consternation, and to prepare the means of defence."

They raised an army of 60,000 men, chiefly apprentices and

artisans of the capital, before which Prince Thomas was

obliged to retreat. "The French quickly recovered all those

fortified places in Picardy which had been previously lost by

the incapacity, or, as Richelieu alleged, by the treachery of

their governors. But they could not prevent the Spaniards from

plundering and desolating the country as they retired. … The

Cardinal Infant was obliged to remain on the defensive for

some time after his retreat from Picardy to the Netherlands,

which were anew invaded by a French force, under the Cardinal

La Valette, a younger son of the Duke d'Epernon. But even

while restricting his operations to defence, the Infant could

not prevent the capture by the French of Ivry and Landreci in

Hainault. While opposing the enemy in that quarter, he

received intelligence of an unexpected attempt on Breda by the

Dutch [1637]. He immediately hastened to its relief; but the

Prince of Orange having rapidly collected 6,000 or 7,000

peasants, whom he had employed in forming intrenchments and

drawing lines of circumvallation, was so well fortified on the

arrival of the Cardinal Infant, who had crossed the Scheldt at

Antwerp, and approached with not fewer than 25,000 men, that

that Prince, in despair of forcing the enemy's camp, or in any

way succouring Breda, marched towards Guelderland. In that

province he took Venlo and Ruremonde; but Breda, as he had

anticipated, surrendered to the Dutch after a siege of nine

weeks. … Its capture greatly relieved the Dutch in Brabant,

who now, for many years, had been checked by an enemy in the

heart of their territories. … Early in the year 1638, the

Infant resumed offensive operations, and again rendered

himself formidable to his enemies. He frustrated the attempts

which the Dutch had concerted against Antwerp. … In person

he beat off the army of the Prince of Orange, who had invested

Gueldres; and, about the same time, his active generals;

Prince Thomas of Savoy and Piccolomini, compelled the French

to raise the siege of St. Omer."

J. Dunlop,

Memoirs of Spain from 1621 to 1700,

volume 1, chapter 4.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1643.

Invasion of France by the Spaniards and their defeat at Rocroi.

Loss of Thionville and the line of the Moselle.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643; and 1643.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.

French campaign in Flanders, under Orleans and Enghien (Conde).

Siege and capture of Dunkirk.

"In 1645, Orleans led the [French] army into Flanders, and

began the campaign with the capture of Mardyck. A few weeks of

leisurely siege resulted in the conquest of some towns, and by

the first of September Gaston sought rest at the Court. As it

was now well towards the end of the season, the Hollanders

were at last ready to cooperate, and they joined the French

under Gassion and Rantzau. But the allied armies did little

except march and countermarch, and at the end of the year the

Spaniards surprised the French garrison at Mardyck and retook

the only place of importance they had lost. … Gaston was,

however, well content even with the moderate glory of such

warfare. In 1646 he commanded an army of 35,000 men, one

portion of which was led by Enghien himself. The Hollanders

were under arms unusually early, but they atoned for this by

accomplishing nothing. The French laid siege to Courtrai,

which in due time surrendered, and they then spent three weeks

in a vigorous siege of Mardyck.

{2281}

This place was finally captured for the second time in

fourteen months. It was now late in August, and Orleans was

ready to rest from a campaign which had lasted three months.

… By the departure of Gaston the Duke of Enghien was left

free to attempt some important movement, and his thoughts

turned upon the capture of the city of Dunkirk. Dunkirk was

situated on the shore of the North Sea, in a position that

made it alike important and formidable to commerce. … Its

harbor leading to a canal in the city where a fleet might

safely enter, and its position near the shores of France and

the British Channel, had rendered it a frequent retreat for

pirates. The cruisers that captured the ships of the merchants

of Havre and Dieppe, or made plundering expeditions along the

shores of Picardy and Normandy, found safe refuge in the

harbor of Dunkirk. Its name was odious through northern

France, alike to the shipper and the resident of the towns

along the coast. The ravages of the pirates of Dunkirk are

said to have cost France as much as a million a year. … The

position of Dunkirk was such that it seemed to defy attack,

and the strangeness and wildness of its approaches added

terror to its name. It was surrounded by vast plains of sand,

far over which often spread the waters of the North Sea, and

its name was said to signify the church of the dunes. Upon

them the fury of the storms often worked strange changes. What

had seemed solid land would be swallowed up in some tempest.

What had been part of the ocean would be left so that men and

wagons could pass over what the day before had been as

inaccessible as the Straits of Dover. An army attempting a

siege would find itself on these wild dunes far removed from

any places for supplies, and exposed to the utmost severity of

storm and weather. Tents could hardly be pitched, and the

changing sands would threaten the troops with destruction. The

city was, moreover, garrisoned by 3,000 soldiers, and by 3,000

of the citizens and 2,000 sailors. … The ardor of Enghien

was increased by these difficulties, and he believed that with

skill and vigor the perils of a siege could be overcome. This

plan met the warm approval of Mazarin. … Enghien advanced

with his army of about 15,000 men, and on the 10th of

September the siege began. It was necessary to prevent

supplies being received by sea. Tromp, excited to hearty

admiration of the genius of the young general, sailed with ten

ships into the harbor, and cut off communications. Enghien, in

the meantime, was pressing the circumvallation of the city

with the utmost vigor. … Half fed, wet, sleepless, the men

worked on, inspired by the zeal of their leader. Piccolomini

attempted to relieve the city, but he could not force

Enghien's entrenchments, except by risking a pitched battle,

and that he did not dare to venture. Mines were now carried

under the city by the besiegers, and a great explosion made a

breach in the wall. The French and Spanish met, but the smoke

and confusion were so terrible that both sides at last fell

back in disorder. The French finally discovered that the

advantage was really theirs, and held the position. Nothing

now remained but a final and bloody assault, but Leyde did not

think that honor required him to await this. He agreed that if

he did not receive succor by the 10th of October, the city

should be surrendered. Piccolomini dared not risk the last

army in Flanders in an assault on Enghien's entrenchments,

and, on October 11th, the Spanish troops evacuated the town. A

siege of three weeks had conquered obstacles of man and

nature, and destroyed the scourge of French commerce."

J. B. Perkins,

France under [Richelieu and] Mazarin,

chapter 8 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

Lord Mahon,

Life of Condé,

chapter 2.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1646-1648.

Final Negotiation of Peace between Spain and the

United Provinces.

"The late campaign had been so unfortunate [to the Spaniards]

that they felt their only possibility of obtaining reasonable

terms, or of continuing the war with the hope of a change in

fortune, was to break the alliance between Holland and

France. A long debt of gratitude, assistance rendered in the

struggle with Spain when assistance was valuable, the treaty

of 1635 renewed in 1644, forbade Holland making a peace,

except jointly with France. On the other hand, the

States-General were weary of war, and jealous of the power and

ambition of the French. … This disposition was skilfully

fostered by the Spanish envoys. Pau and Knuyt,

plenipotentiaries from Holland to the Congress at Münster

[where, in part, the negotiations of the Peace of Westphalia

were in progress—see GERMANY: A. D. 1648], were gained to the

Spanish interest, as Mazarin claimed, by the promise to each

of 100,000 crowns. But, apart from bribes, the Spanish used

Mazarin's own plans to alarm the Hollanders. … It was

intimated to the Hollanders that France was about to make a

separate peace, that the Spanish Netherlands were to be given

her, and that perhaps with the hand of the infanta might be

transferred what claims Spain still made on the allegiance of

the United Provinces. The French protested in vain they had

never thought of making any treaty unless Holland joined, and

that the proposed marriage of Louis with the infanta had been

idle talk, suggested by the Spanish for the purpose of

alarming the States-General. The Hollanders were suspicious,

and they became still more eager for peace. … In the spring

of 1646, seventy-one proposed articles had been submitted to

the Spanish for their consideration. The French made repeated

protests against these steps, but the States-General insisted

that they were only acting with such celerity as should enable

them to have the terms of their treaty adjusted as soon as

those of the French. The successes of 1646 and the capture of

Dunkirk quickened the desires of the United Provinces for a

treaty with their ancient enemy. … In December, 1646,

articles were signed between Spain and Holland, to be inserted

in the treaty of Münster, when that should be settled upon,

though the States-General still declared that no peace should

be made unless the terms were approved by France. Active

hostilities were again commenced in 1647, but little progress

was made in Flanders during this campaign. Though the

Hollanders had not actually made peace with Spain, they gave

the French no aid. … On January 30, 1648, the treaty was at

last signed. 'One would think,' wrote Mazarin, 'that for

eighty years France had been warring with the provinces, and

Spain had been protecting them. They have stained their

reputation with a shameful blemish.'

{2282}

It was eighty years since William of Orange had issued his

proclamation inviting all the Netherlands to take up arms 'to

oppose the violent tyranny of the Spaniards.' Unlike the truce

of 1609, a formal and final peace was now made. The United

Provinces were acknowledged as free and sovereign states. At

the time of the truce the Spaniards had only treated with them

'in quality of, and as holding them for independent

provinces.' By a provision which had increased the eagerness

for peace of the burghers and merchants of the United

Provinces, it was agreed that the Escaut [Scheldt] should be

closed. The wealth and commerce of Antwerp were thus

sacrificed for the benefit of Amsterdam. The trade with the

Indies was divided between the two countries. Numerous

commercial advantages were secured and certain additional

territory was ceded to the States-General."

J. B. Perkins,

France under [Richelieu and] Mazarin,

chapter 8 (volume 1).

"It had … become a settled conviction of Holland that a

barrier of Spanish territory between the United Provinces and

France was necessary as a safeguard against the latter. But

the idea of fighting to maintain that barrier had not yet

arisen, though fighting was the outcome of the doctrine. All

that the United Provinces now did, or could do, was simply to

back out of the war with Spain, sit still, and look passively

upon the conflict between her and France for possession of the

barrier, until it should please the two belligerents to make

peace."

J. Geddes,

History of the Administration of John De Witt,

book 2, chapter 1, section 1 (volume 1).

NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1647-1648.

The Spanish war with France.

Siege and Battle of Lens.

"While Condé was at the head of the army of the Netherlands,

it at least suffered no disaster; but, while he was affording

the enemy a triumph in Spain [by his failure at Lerida,—the

army which he left behind him was equally unfortunate].

See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.

As he had taken some regiments with him to Spain, it did not

exceed 16,000 men; and in 1647 was commanded by the two

marshals, Gassion and Rantzau," who exercised the command on

alternate days. Both were brave and skilful officers, but they

were hostile to one another, and Rantzau was, unfortunately, a

drunkard. "The Spanish army had been raised to 22,000 men, and

besides being superior in numbers to them, was now under the

command of a singularly active leader, the Archduke Leopold.

He took town after town before their face; and towards the end

of June laid siege to Landrecies. The danger of so important a

place stimulated Mazarin to send some strong battalions,

including the royal guards, to reinforce the army: and the two

marshals made skilful dispositions to surprise the Spanish

camp. By a night march of great rapidity, they reached the

neighbourhood of the enemy without their presence being

suspected; but the next morning, when the attack was to be

made, it was Rantzau's turn to command; and he was too

helplessly drunk to give the necessary orders. Before he had

recovered his consciousness daylight had revealed his danger

to the archduke, and he had taken up a position in which he

could give battle with advantage. Greatly mortified, the

French were forced to draw off, and leave Landrecies to its

fate. As some apparent set-off to their losses, they succeeded

in taking Dixmude, and one or two other unimportant towns, and

were besieging Lens, when Gassion was killed; and though, a

few days afterwards, that town was taken, its capture made but

small amends. … Though the war was almost at an end in

Germany, Turenne was still in that country; and, therefore,

the next year there was no one who could be sent to replace

Gassion but Condé and Grammont, who fortunately for the

prince, was his almost inseparable comrade and adviser. …

Though 16,000 men had been thought enough for Gassion and

Rantzau, 30,000 were now collected to enable Condé to make a

more successful campaign. The archduke had received no

reinforcements, and had now only 18,000 men to make head

against him; yet with this greatly inferior force he, for a

while, balanced Condé's successes; losing Ypres, it is true,

but taking Courtrai and Furnes, and defeating and almost

annihilating a division with which the prince had detached

Rantzau to make an attempt upon Ostend. At last, in the middle

of August, he laid siege to Lens, the capture of which had, as

we have already mentioned, been the last exploit of the French

army in the preceding campaign, and which was now retaken

without the garrison making the slightest effort at

resistance. But, just as the first intelligence of his having

sat down before it reached Condé, he was joined by the Count

d'Erlach with a reinforcement of 5,000 men from the German

army; and he resolved to march against the archduke in the

hope of saving" the place. "He arrived in sight of the town on

the 20th of August, a few hours after it had surrendered; and

he found the archduke's victorious army in a position which,

eager as he was for battle, he could not venture to attack.

For Leopold had 18,000 men under arms, and the force that

Condé had been able to bring with him did not exceed 14,000,

with 18 guns. For the first time in his life he decided on

retreating;" but early in the retreat his army was thrown into

disorder by an attack from the archduke's cavalry, commanded

by General Beck. "All was nearly lost, when Grammont turned

the fortune of the day. He was in the van, but the moment that

he learnt what was taking place behind him, he halted the

advanced guard, and leading it back towards the now triumphant

enemy, gave time for those regiments which had been driven in

to rally behind the firm line which he presented. … It soon

came to be a contest of hard fighting, unvaried by manœuvres

on either side; and in hard fighting no troops could stand

before those who might be lead by Condé. … At last victory

declared for him in every part of his line. He had sustained a

heavy loss himself, but less than that of the enemy, who left

3,000 of their number slain upon the field; while 5,000

prisoners, among whom was Beck himself, struck down by a

mortal wound, and nearly all their artillery and baggage,

attested the reality and greatness of his triumph."

C. D. Yonge,

History of France under the Bourbons,

chapter 10 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

Sir E. Cust,

Lives of the Warriors of the Civil Wars,

part 1, pages 149-152.

{2283}

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1647-1650.

Suspension of the Stadtholdership.

Supremacy of the States of Holland.

The fourth stadtholder, William II., who succeeded his father,

Frederick Henry, in 1647, "was young and enterprising, and not at

all disposed to follow the pacific example of his father. …

His attempt at a coup d'état only prepared the way for an

interregnum. … He was brother-in-law to the Elector of

Brandenburg … and son-in-law to Charles I. of England and

Henrietta Maria, the sister of Louis XIII. … The proud

descendant of the Stuarts, the Princess Mary, who had been

married to him when hardly more than a child, thought it

beneath her not to be the wife of a sovereign, and encouraged

her husband not to be satisfied to remain merely 'the official

of a republic.' Thus encouraged, the son of Frederick Henry

cherished the secret purpose of transforming the elective

stadtholdership into an hereditary monarchy. … He needed

supreme authority to enable him to render assistance to

Charles I. … Finding in the opposition of the States an

insurmountable obstacle to his wish of intervention, he sought

the support of France, … and was now ready to come to an

understanding with Mazarin to break the treaty of Munster and

wrest the Netherlands from Spain. Mazarin promised in return

to help him to assert his authority over the States. … But

if William desired war, the United Provinces, and in

particular the province of Holland, could not dispense with

peace. … The States of Holland … fixed the period for the

disbanding of the twenty-nine companies whose dismissal had

been promised to them. After twelve days of useless

deliberations they issued definite orders to that effect. The

step had been provoked, but it was precipitate and might give

rise to a legal contest as to their competency. The Prince of

Orange, therefore, eager to hasten a struggle from which he

expected an easy victory, chose to consider the resolution of

the States of Holland as a signal for the rupture of the

Union, and the very next day solemnly demanded reparation from

the States-General, who in their turn issued a counter order.

The Prince made skilful use of the rivalry of power between

the two assemblies to obtain for himself extraordinary powers

which were contrary to the laws of the Confederation. By the

terms of the resolution, which was passed by only four

provinces, of which two were represented by but one deputy

each, he was authorised to take all measures necessary for the

maintenance of order and peace, and particularly for the

preservation of the Union. 'The States-General consequently

commissioned him to visit the town councils of Holland,

accompanied by six members of the States-General and of the

Council of State, with all the pomp of a military escort,

including a large number of officers. He was charged to

address them with remonstrances and threats intended to

intimidate the provincial States.' This was the first act of

the coup d'état that he had prepared, and his mistake was

quickly shown him." The Prince gained nothing by his

visitation of the towns. At Amsterdam he was not permitted to

enter the place with his following, and he returned to the

Hague especially enraged against that bold and independent

city. He planned an expedition to take it by surprise; but the

citizens got timely warning and his scheme was baffled. He had

succeeded, however, in arresting and imprisoning six of the

most influential deputies of the Assembly of Holland, and his

attitude was formidable enough to extort some concessions from

the popular party, by way of compromise. A state of suspicious

quiet was restored for the time, which William improved by

renewing negotiations for a secret treaty with France.

"Arrogating to himself already the right to dispose as he

pleased of the republic, he signed a convention with Count

d'Estrades, whom he had summoned to the Hague. By this the

King of France and the Prince of Orange engaged themselves 'to

attack conjointly the Netherlands on May 1, 1651, with an army

of 20,000 foot and 10,000 horse, to break at the same time

with Cromwell, to re-establish Charles II. as King of England,

and to make no treaty with Spain excepting in concert with

each other.' The Prince of Orange guaranteed a fleet of 50

vessels besides the land contingent, and in return for his

co-operation was promised the absolute possession of the city

of Antwerp and the Duchy of Brabant or Marquisate of the Holy

Roman Empire. William thus interested France in the success of

his cause by making ready to resume the war with Spain, and

calculated, as he told his confidants, on profiting by her

assistance to disperse the cabal opposed to him. … The

internal pacification amounted then to no more than a truce,

when three months later the Prince of Orange, having

over-fatigued and heated himself in the chase, was seized with

small-pox, of which in a few days he died. He was thus carried

off at the age of 24, in the full force and flower of his age,

leaving only one son, born a week after his father's death.

… His attempt at a coup d'état was destined to press heavily

and long upon the fate of the posthumous son, who had to wait

22 years before succeeding to his ancestral functions. It

closed the succession to him for many years, by making the

stadtholdership a standing menace to the public freedom. …

The son of William II., an orphan before his birth, and named

William like his father, seemed destined to succeed to little

more than the paternal name. … Three days after the death of

William II., the former deputies, whom he had treated as state

prisoners and deprived of all their offices, were recalled to

take their seats in the Assembly. At the same time the

provincial Town Councils assumed the power of nominating their

own magistrates, which had almost always been left to the

pleasure of the Stadtholder, and thus obtained the full

enjoyment of municipal freedom. The States of Holland, on

their side, grasped the authority hitherto exercised in their

province by the Prince of Orange, and claimed successively all

the rights of sovereignty. The States of Zealand … exhibited

the same eagerness to free themselves from all subjection. …

Thus, before declaring the stadtholdership vacant, the office

was deprived of its prerogatives. To complete this

transformation of the government, the States of Holland took

the initiative in summoning to the Hague a great assembly of

the Confederation, which met at the beginning of the year

1651. … The congress was called upon to decide between two

forms of constitution. The question was whether the United

Provinces should be a republic governed by the States-General,

or whether the government should belong to the States of each

province, with only a reservation in favour of the obligations

imposed by the Act of Union. Was each province to be sovereign

in itself, or subject to the federal power?" The result was a

suspension and practical abolition of the stadtholdership.

"Freed from the counterbalancing power of the Stadtholder,

Holland to a great extent absorbed the federal power, and was

the gainer by all that that power lost. …

{2284}

The States of Holland, … destined henceforward to be the

principal instrument of government of the republic, was

composed partly of nobles and partly of deputies from the

towns. … The Grand Pensionary was the minister of the States

of Holland. He was appointed for five years, and represented

them in the States-General. … Called upon by the vacancy in

the stadtholdership to the government of the United Provinces,

without any legal power of enforcing obedience, Holland

required a statesman who could secure this political supremacy

and use it for her benefit. The nomination of John de Witt as

Grand Pensionary placed at her service one of the youngest

members of the assembly."

A. L. Pontalis,

John de Witt,

chapters 1-2 (volume 1).

NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1648.

Still held to form a part of the Empire.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

NETHERLANDS: (United Provinces): A. D. 1648-1665.

Prosperity and pre-eminence of the Dutch Republic.

The causes.

"That this little patch of earth, a bog rescued from the

waters, warred on ever by man and by the elements, without

natural advantages except those of contact with the sea,

should in the middle of the seventeenth century have become

the commercial centre of Europe, is one of the phenomena of

history. But in the explanation of this phenomenon history has

one of its most instructive lessons. Philip II. said of

Holland, 'that it was the country nearest to hell.' Well might

he express such an opinion. He had buried around the walls of

its cities more than three hundred thousand Spanish soldiers,

and had spent in the attempt at its subjugation more than two

hundred million ducats. This fact alone would account for his

abhorrence, but, in addition, the republic was in its every

feature opposed to the ideal country of a bigot and a despot.

The first element which contributed to its wealth, as well as

to the vast increase of its population, was its religious

toleration. … This, of course, was as incomprehensible to a

Spanish Catholic as it was to a High-Churchman or to a

Presbyterian in England. That Lutherans, Calvinists,

Anabaptists, Jews, and Catholics should all be permitted to

live under the same government seemed to the rest of Europe

like flying in the face of Providence. Critics at this time

occasionally said that the Hollanders cared nothing for

religion; that with them theology was of less account than

commerce. To taunts like these no reply was needed by men who

could point to their record of eighty years of war. This war

had been fought for liberty of conscience, but more than all,

as the greater includes the less, for civil liberty. During

its continuance, and at every crisis, Catholics had stood side

by side with Protestants to defend their country, as they had

done in England when the Spanish Armada appeared upon her

coast. It would have been a strange reward for their fidelity

to subject them, as Elizabeth did, to a relentless

persecution, upon the pretext that they were dangerous to the

State. In addition to the toleration, there were other causes

leading to the marvellous prosperity of the republic, which

are of particular interest to Americans. In 1659, Samuel Lamb,

a prominent and far-seeing London merchant, published a

pamphlet, in the form of a letter to Cromwell, urging the

establishment of a bank in England similar to the one at

Amsterdam. In this pamphlet, which Lord Somers thought worthy

of preservation, the author gives the reasons, as they

occurred to him, which accounted for the vast superiority of

Holland over the rest of Europe as a commercial nation. … As

the foundation of a bank for England was the subject of the

letter, the author naturally lays particular stress upon that

factor, but the other causes which he enumerates as explaining

the great trade of the republic are the following: First. The

statesmen sitting at the helm in Holland are many of them

merchants, bred to trade from their youth, improved by foreign

travel, and acquainted with all the necessities of commerce.

Hence, their laws and treaties are framed with wisdom. Second.

In Holland when a merchant dies, his property is equally

divided among his children, and the business is continued and

expanded, with all its traditions and inherited experience. In

England, on the contrary, the property goes to the eldest son,

who often sets up for a country gentleman, squanders his

patrimony, and neglects the business by which his father had

become enriched. Third. The honesty of the Hollanders in their

manufacturing and commercial dealings. When goods are made up

in Holland, they sell everywhere without question, for the

purchaser knows that they are exactly as represented in

quality, weight, and measure. Not so with England's goods. Our

manufacturers are so given to fraud and adulteration as to

bring their commodities into disgrace abroad. 'And so the

Dutch have the pre-eminence in the sale of their manufactures

before us, by their true making, to their very files and

needles.' Fourth. The care and vigilance of the government in

the laying of impositions so as to encourage their own

manufactures; the skill and rapidity with which they are

changed to meet the shifting wants of trade; the encouragement

given by ample rewards from the public treasury for useful

inventions and improvements; and the promotion of men to

office for services and not for favor or sinister ends. Such

were the causes of the commercial supremacy of the Dutch as

they appeared to an English merchant of the time, and all

modern investigations support his view. … Sir Joshua

[Josiah] Child, writing a few years later ['A New Discourse of

Trade, page 2, and after—1665], gives a fuller explanation of

the great prosperity of the Netherland Republic. He evidently

had Lamb's pamphlet before him, for he enumerates all the

causes set forth by his predecessor. In addition, he gives

several others, as to some of which we shall see more

hereafter. Among these are the general education of the

people, including the women, religious toleration, care of the

poor, low custom duties and high excise, registration of

titles to real estate, low interest, the laws permitting the

assignment of debts, and the judicial system under which

controversies between merchants can be decided at one fortieth

part of the expense in England. … Probably, no body of men

governing a state were ever more enlightened and better

acquainted with the necessities of legislation than were these

burghers, merchants, and manufacturers who for two centuries

gave laws to Holland. It was largely due to the intelligence

displayed by these men that the republic, during the

continuance of its war, was enabled to support a burden of

taxation such as the world has rarely seen before or since.

{2285}

The internal taxes seem appalling. Rents were taxed

twenty-five per cent.; on all sales of real estate two and a

half per cent. were levied, and on all collateral inheritances

five per cent. On beer, wine, meat, salt, spirits, and all

articles of luxury, the tax was one hundred per cent., and on

some articles this was doubled. But this was only the internal

taxation, in the way of excise duties, which were levied on

everyone, natives and foreigners alike. In regard to foreign

commodities, which the republic needed for its support, the

system was very different. Upon them there was imposed only a

nominal duty of one per cent., while wool, the great staple

for the manufacturers, was admitted free. Here the statesmen

of the republic showed the wisdom which placed them, as

masters of political economy, at least two centuries in

advance of their contemporaries."

D. Campbell,

The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,

volume 2, pages 324-331.

ALSO IN:

W. T. McCullagh,

Industrial History of Free Nations,

volume 2: The Dutch, chapter 12.

NETHERLANDS: (The United Provinces): A. D. 1651-1660.

The rule of Holland, and her Grand Pensionary, John de Witt.

"The Republic had shaken off the domination of a person; it

now fell under the domination of a single province. Holland

was overwhelmingly preponderant in the federation. She

possessed the richest, most populous, and most powerful towns.

She contributed more than one-half of the whole federal

taxation. She had the right of naming the ambassadors at

Paris, Stockholm, and Vienna. The fact that the States General

met on her territory—at the Hague—necessarily gave her

additional influence and prestige. … With the Stadtholder's

power that of the States General also, as representing the

idea of centralisation, had largely disappeared. The

Provincial Estates of Holland, therefore, under the title of

'Their High Mightinesses,' became the principal power—to

such an extent, indeed, that the term 'Holland' had by the

time of the Restoration [the English Restoration, A. D. 1660]

become synonymous among foreign powers with the whole

Republic. Their chief minister was called 'The Grand

Pensionary,' and the office had been since 1653 filled by one

of the most remarkable men of the time, John de Witt. John de

Witt therefore represented, roughly speaking, the power of the

merchant aristocracy of Holland, as opposed to the claims of

the House of Orange, which were supported by the 'noblesse,'

the army, the Calvinistic clergy, and the people below the

governing class. Abroad the Orange family had the sympathy of

monarchical Governments. Louis XIV. despised the Government of

'Messieurs les Marchands,' while Charles II., at once the

uncle and the guardian of the young Prince of the house of

Orange, the future William III. of England, and mindful of

the scant courtesy which, to satisfy Cromwell, the Dutch had

shown him in exile, was ever their bitter and unscrupulous

foe. The empire of the Dutch Republic was purely commercial

and colonial, and she held in this respect the same position

relatively to the rest of Europe that England holds at the

present day."

O. Airy,

The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,

chapter 9.

ALSO IN:

J. Geddes,

History of the Administration of John de Witt,

volume 1.

NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1652.

Recovery of Dunkirk and Gravelines.

Invasion of France. See FRANCE: A. D. 1652.

NETHERLANDS: (The United Provinces): A. D. 1652.

First Settlement at the Cape of Good Hope.

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

NETHERLANDS: (The United Provinces): A. D. 1652-1654.

War with the English Commonwealth.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1652-1654.

NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1653-1656.

Campaigns of Condé in the service of Spain against France.

See FRANCE: A. D 1653-1656.

NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1657-1658.

England in alliance with France in the Franco-Spanish War.

Loss of Dunkirk and Gravelines.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.

NETHERLANDS: (Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1659.

Cessions of territory to France by the Treaty of the Pyrenees.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1664.

The seizure of New Netherland by the English.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1665-1666.

War with England renewed.

"A formal declaration of war between Holland and England took

place in March, 1665. The English nation, jealous of the

commercial prosperity of Holland, eagerly seconded the views

of the king against that country, and in regard to the war a

remarkable degree of union prevailed throughout Great Britain.

Such, however, was not the case with the Dutch, who were very

much divided in opinion, and had many reasons to be doubtful

of the support of France. One of the grand objects of Charles

II. was undoubtedly … to restore his nephew the Prince of

Orange to all the power which had been held by his ancestors

in the United Provinces. But between Holland and England there

existed, besides numerous other most fertile causes of

discord, unsettled claims, upon distant territories, rival

colonies in remote parts of the world, maritime jealousy and

constant commercial opposition. These were national motives

for hostility, and affected a large body of the Dutch people.

But, on the other hand, considerations of general interest

were set aside by the political factions which divided the

United Provinces, and which may be classed under the names of

the Republican and the Monarchical parties. The Monarchical

party was, of course, that which was attached to the interests

of the House of Orange. … In the end of 1664, 130 Dutch

merchantmen had been captured by England; acts of hostility

had occurred in Guinea, at the Cape de Verd, [in New

Netherland], and in the West Indies: but Louis [XIV. of

France] had continued to avoid taking any active part against

Great Britain, notwithstanding all the representations of De

Witt, who on this occasion saw in France the natural ally of

Holland. On the 13th of June [1665], however, a great naval

engagement took place between the Dutch fleet, commanded by

Opdam and Van Tromp, and the English fleet, commanded by the

Duke of York and Prince Rupert. Opdam was defeated and killed;

Van Tromp saved the remains of his fleet; and on the very same

day a treaty was concluded between Arlington [the English

minister] and an envoy of the Bishop of Munster, by which it

was agreed that the warlike and restless prelate should invade

the United Provinces with an army of 20,000 men, in

consideration of sums of money to be paid by England.

{2286}

This treaty at once called Louis into action, and he notified

to the Bishop of Munster that if he made any hostile movement

against the States of Holland he would find the troops of

France prepared to oppose him. This fact was announced to the

States by D'Estrades on the 22nd of July, together with the

information that the French monarch was about to send to their

assistance a body of troops by the way of Flanders. … Still,

however, Louis hung back in the execution of his purposes,

till the aspect of affairs in the beginning of 1666 forced him

to declare war against England, on the 26th of January in that

year, according to the terms of his treaty with Holland. …

The part that France took in the war was altogether

insignificant, and served but little to free the Dutch from

the danger in which they were placed. That nation itself made

vast efforts to obtain a superiority at sea; and in the

beginning of June, 1666, the Dutch fleet, commanded by De

Ruyter and Van Tromp, encountered the English fleet, under

Monk and Prince Rupert, and a battle which lasted for four

days, with scarcely any intermission, took place. It would

seem that some advantage was gained by the Dutch; but both

fleets were tremendously shattered, and retired to the ports

of their own country to refit. Shortly after, however, they

again encountered, and one of the most tremendous naval

engagements in history took place, in which the Dutch suffered

a complete defeat; 20 of their first-rate men-of-war were

captured or sunk; and three admirals, with 4,000 men, were

killed on the part of the States. The French fleet could not

come up in time to take part in the battle, and all that Louis

did was to furnish De Witt with the means of repairing the

losses of the States as rapidly as possible. The energy of the

grand pensionary himself, however, effected much more than the

slow and unwilling succour of the French king. With almost

superhuman exertion new fleets were made ready and manned,

while the grand pensionary amused the English ministers with

the prospect of a speedy peace on their own terms; and at a

moment when England was least prepared, De Ruyter and

Cornelius de Witt appeared upon the coast, sailed up the

Thames, attacked and took Sheerness, and destroyed a great

number of ships of the line. A multitude of smaller vessels

were burnt; and the consternation was so great throughout

England, that a large quantity of stores and many ships were

sunk and destroyed by order of the British authorities

themselves, while De Ruyter ravaged the whole sea-coast from

the mouth of the Thames to the Land's End. The negotiations

for peace, which had commenced at Breda, were now carried on

upon terms much more advantageous to Holland, and were

speedily concluded; England, notwithstanding the naval glory

she had gained, being fully as much tired of the war as the

States themselves. A general treaty was signed on the 25th of

July."

G. P. R. James,

Life and Times of Louis XIV.,

volume 2, chapter 6.

"The thunder of the Dutch guns in the Medway and the Thames

woke England to a bitter sense of its degradation. The dream

of loyalty was roughly broken. 'Everybody now-a-days,' Pepys

tells us, 'reflect upon Oliver and commend him: what brave

things he did, and made all the neighbour princes fear him.'

But Oliver's successor was coolly watching this shame and

discontent of his people with the one aim of turning it to his

own advantage."

J. R. Green,

History of the English People,

book 8, chapter 1 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

C. D. Yonge,

History of the British Navy,

volume 2, chapter 5.

NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1667.

The claims and conquests of Louis XIV.

The War of the Queen's Rights.

In 1660 Louis XIV., king of France, was married to the Infanta

of Spain, Maria Theresa, daughter of Philip IV., who solemnly

renounced at the time, for herself and her posterity, all

rights to the Spanish crown. The insincerity and hollowness of

the renunciation was proved terribly at a later time by the

long "war of the Spanish succession." Meantime Louis

discovered other pretended rights in his Spanish wife on which

he might found claims for the satisfaction of his territorial

greed. These rested on the fact that she was born of her

father's first marriage, and that a customary right in certain

provinces of the Spanish Netherlands gave daughters of a first

marriage priority of inheritance over sons of a second

marriage. At the same time, in the laws of Luxembourg and

Franche-Comté, which admitted all children to the partition of

an inheritance, he found pretext for claiming, on behalf of

his wife, one fourth of the former and one third of the

principality last named. Philip IV. of Spain died in

September, 1665, leaving a sickly infant son under the regency

of an incapable and priest-ruled mother, and Louis began

quickly to press his claims. Having made his preparations on a

formidable scale, he sent forth in May, 1667, to all the

courts of Europe, an elaborate "Treatise on the Rights of the

Most Christian Queen over divers States of the monarchy of

Spain," announcing at the same time his intention to make a

"journey" in the Catholic Netherlands—the intended journey

being a ruthless invasion, in fact, with 50,000 men, under the

command of the great marshal-general, Turenne. The army began

its march simultaneously with the announcement of its purpose,

crossing the frontier on the 24th of May. Town after town was

taken, some without resistance and others after a short, sharp

siege, directed by Vauban, the most famous among military

engineers. Charleroi was occupied on the 2d of June; Tournay

surrendered on the 24th; two weeks later Douai fell; Courtrai

endured only four days of siege and Oudenarde but two; Lille

was a more difficult prize and held Turenne and the king

before it for twenty days. "All Walloon Flanders had again

become French at the price of less effort and bloodshed than

it had cost, in the Middle Ages, to force one of its places.

… September 1, the whole French army was found assembled

before the walls of Ghent." But Ghent was not assailed, the

French army being greatly fatigued and much reduced by the

garrisoning of the conquered places. Louis, accordingly,

returned to Saint-Germain, and Turenne, after taking Alost,

went into winter quarters. Before the winter passed great

changes of circumstance had occurred. The Triple Alliance of

England, Holland and Sweden had been formed, Louis had made

his secret treaty at Vienna with the Emperor, for the

partitioning of the Spanish dominions, and his further

"journey" in the Netherlands was postponed.

H. Martin,

History of France: Age of Louis XIV.

(translated by M. L. Booth),

volume 1, chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

A. F. Pontalis,

John de Witt,

chapter 7 (volume 1).

{2287}

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1668.

The Triple Alliance with England and Sweden

against the French king.

"The rapid conquests of the French king in Flanders during the

last summer had drawn the eyes of Europe towards the seat of

war in that country. The pope, Clement IX., through pity for

the young king of Spain, and the States, alarmed at the

approach of the French arms to their frontier, offered their

mediation. To both Louis returned the same answer, that he

sought nothing more than to vindicate the rights of his wife;

that he should be content to retain possession of the

conquests which he had already made, or to exchange them

either for Luxembourg, or Franche-comté, with the addition of

Aire, St. Omer, Donai, Cambrai, and Charleroi, to strengthen

his northern frontier. … But Spain was not sufficiently

humbled to submit to so flagrant an injustice. … If it was

the interest of England, it was still more the interest of the

States, to exclude France from the possession of Flanders.

Under this persuasion, sir William Temple, the resident at

Brussels, received instructions to proceed to the Hague and

sound the disposition of de Witt; and, on his return to

London, was despatched back again to Holland with the proposal

of a defensive alliance, the object of which should be to

compel the French monarch to make peace with Spain on the

terms which he had previously offered. … Temple acted with

promptitude and address: … he represented the danger of

delay; and, contrary to all precedent at the Hague, in the

short space of five days—had the constitutional forms been

observed it would have demanded five weeks—he negotiated

[January, 1668] three treaties which promised to put an end to

the war, or, if they failed in that point, to oppose at least

an effectual barrier to the further progress of the invader.

The first was a defensive alliance by which the two nations

bound themselves to aid each other against any aggressor with

a fleet of forty men of war, and an army of 6,400 men, or with

assistance in money in proportion to the deficiency in men; by

the second, the contracting powers agreed by every means in

their power to dispose France to conclude a peace with Spain

on the alternative already offered, to persuade Spain to

accept one part of that alternative before the end of May,

and, in case of a refusal, to compel her by war, on condition

that France should not interfere by force of arms. These

treaties were meant for the public eye: the third was secret,

and bound both England and the States, in case of the refusal

of Louis, to unite with Spain in the war, and not to lay down

their arms till the peace of the Pyrenees were confirmed. On

the same day the Swedish ambassadors gave a provisional, and

afterwards a positive assent to the league, which from that

circumstance obtained the name of the Triple Alliance. Louis

received the news of this transaction with an air of haughty

indifference. … In consequence of the infirm state of

Charles II. of Spain, he had secretly concluded with the

emperor Leopold an 'eventual' treaty of partition of the

Spanish monarchy on the expected death of that prince, and

thus had already bound himself by treaty to do the very thing

which it was the object of the allied powers to effect. …

The intervention of the emperor, in consequence of the

eventual treaty, put an end to the hesitation of the Spanish

cabinet; the ambassadors of the several powers met at

Aix-la-Chapelle [April-May, 1668]; Spain made her choice; the

conquered towns in Flanders were ceded to Louis, and peace was

re-established between the two crowns. … The States could

ill dissemble their disappointment. They never doubted that

Spain, with the choice in her hands, would preserve Flanders,

and part with Franche-comté. … The result was owing, it is

said, to the resentment of Castel-Rodrigo [the governor of the

Spanish Netherlands], who, finding that the States would not

join with England to confine France within its ancient limits,

resolved to punish them by making a cession, which brought the

French frontier to the very neighbourhood of the Dutch

territory."

J. Lingard,

History of England,

volume 11, chapter 6.

"Dr. Lingard, who is undoubtedly a very able and well-informed

writer, but whose great fundamental rule of judging seems to

be that the popular opinion on a historical question cannot

possibly be correct, speaks very slightingly of this

celebrated treaty [of the Triple Alliance]. … But grant that

Louis was not really stopped in his progress by this famous

league; still it is certain that the world then, and long

after, believed that he was so stopped; and that this was the

prevailing impression in France as well as in other countries.

Temple, therefore, at the very least, succeeded in raising the

credit of his country, and lowering the credit of a rival

power."

Lord Macaulay,

Sir William Temple (Essays).

ALSO IN:

O. Airy,

The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,

chapter 14.

Sir W. Temple,

Letters, January 1668

(Works, volume 1).

L. von Ranke,

History of England, 17th Century,

book 15, chapter 4 (volume 3).

A. F. Pontalis,

John de Witt,

chapter 7 (volume 1).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1670.

Betrayed to France by the English king.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1668-1670.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1672-1674.

The war with France and England.

Murder of the DeWitts.

Restoration of the Stadtholdership.

"The storm that had been prepared in secret for Holland began

to break in 1672. France and England had declared war at once

by land and sea, without any cause of quarrel, except that

Louis declared that the Dutch insulted him, and Charles

complained that they would not lower their flag to his, and

that they refused the Stadtholdership to his nephew, William

of Orange. Accordingly, his fleet made a piratical attack on

the Dutch ships returning from Smyrna, and Louis, with an

immense army, entered Holland. … They [the French] would

have attempted the passage of the Yssel, but the Dutch forces,

under the Prince of Orange, were on the watch, and turned

towards the Rhine, which was so low, in consequence of a

drouth, that 2,000 adventurous cavalry were able to cross,

half wading, half swimming, and gained a footing on the other

side." This "passage of the Rhine" was absurdly celebrated as

a great military exploit by the servile flatterers of the

French king. "The passage thus secured, the King crossed the

river the next day on a bridge of boats, and rapidly overran

the adjoining country, taking the lesser towns, and offering

to the Republic the most severe terms, destructive of their

independence, but securing the nominal Stadtholdership to the

Prince of Orange.

{2288}

The magistrates of Amsterdam had almost decided on carrying

the keys to Louis, and the Grand Pensionary himself was ready

to yield; but William, who preferred ruling a free people by

their own choice to being imposed on them by the conqueror,

still maintained that perseverance would save Holland, that

her dykes, when opened, would admit floods that the enemy

could not resist, and that they had only to be firm. The

spirit of the people was with him, and in Amsterdam,

Dordrecht, and the other cities, there were risings with loud

outcries of 'Orange boven,' Up with Orange, insisting that he

should be appointed Stadtholder. The magistracy confirmed the

choice, but Cornelius de Witt, too firm to yield to a popular

cry, refused to sign the appointment, and thus drew on himself

the rage of the people. He was arrested under an absurd

accusation of having bribed a man to assassinate the Prince,

and … [after torture] was sentenced to exile, whereupon his

brother [the Grand Pensionary] announced that he should

accompany him; but while he was with him in his prison at [the

Hague], the atrocious mob again arose [August 20, 1672], broke

open the doors, and, dragging out the two brothers, absolutely

tore them limb from limb."

C. M. Yonge,

Landmarks of History,

part 3, chapter 4, part 6.

The Prince of Orange, profiting by the murder of the De Witts,

rewarded the murderers, and is smirched by the deed, whether

primarily responsible for it or not; but the power which it

secured to him was used ably for Holland. The dykes had

already been cut, on the 18th of June, and "the sea poured in,

placing a waste of water between Louis and Amsterdam, and the

province of Holland at least was saved. The citizens worked

with the intensest energy to provide for their defence. …

Every fourth man among the peasantry was enlisted; mariners

and gunners were drawn from the fleet." Meantime, on the 7th

of June, the fleet itself, under De Ruyter, had been

victorious, in Southwold Bay, or Solebay, over the united

fleets of England and France. The victory was indecisive, but

it paralyzed the allied navy for a season, and prevented a

contemplated descent on Zealand. "All active military

operations against Holland were now necessarily at an end.

There was not a Dutch town south of the inundation which was

not in the hands of the French; and nothing remained for the

latter but to lie idle until the ice of winter should enable

them to cross the floods which cut them off from Amsterdam.

Leaving Turenne in command, Louis therefore returned to St.

Germain on August 1." Before winter came, however, the alarm

of Europe at Louis' aggressions had brought about a coalition

of the Emperor Leopold and the Elector of Brandenburg, to

succor the Dutch States. Louis was forced to call Turenne with

16,000 men to Westphalia and Condé with 17,000 to Alsace. "On

September 12 the Austrian general Montecuculi, the Duke of

Lorraine, and the Grand Elector effected their junction,

intending to cross the Rhine and join William;" but Turenne,

by a series of masterly movements, forced them to retreat,

utterly baffled, into Franconia and Halberstadt. The Elector

of Brandenburg, discouraged, withdrew from the alliance, and

made peace with Louis, June 6, 1673. The spring of 1673 found

the French king advantageously situated, and his advantages

were improved. Turning on the Spaniards in their Belgian

Netherlands, he laid siege to the important stronghold of

Maestricht and it was taken for him by the skill of Vauban, on

the 30th of June. But while this success was being scored, the

Dutch, at sea, had frustrated another attempt of the

Anglo-French fleet to land troops on the Zealand coast. On the

7th of June, and again on the 14th, De Ruyter and Van Tromp

fought off the invaders, under Prince Rupert and D'Estrees,

driving them back to the Thames. Once more, and for the last

time, they made their attempt, on the 21st of August, and were

beaten in a battle near the Zealand shore which lasted from

daylight until dark. The end of August found a new coalition

against Louis formed by treaties between Holland, Spain, the

Emperor and the Duke of Lorraine. A little later, the Prince

of Orange, after capturing Naarden, effected a junction near

Bonn with Montecuculi; who had evaded Turenne. The Electors of

Treves and Mayence thereupon joined the coalition and Cologne

and Munster made peace. By this time, public opinion in

England had become so angrily opposed to the war that Charles

was forced to arrange terms of peace with Holland,

notwithstanding his engagements with Louis. The tide was now

turning fast against France. Denmark had joined the coalition.

In March it received the Elector Palatine; in April the Dukes

of Brunswick and Lüneburg came into the league; in May the

Emperor procured from the Diet a declaration of war in the

name of the Empire, and on the 1st of July the Elector of

Brandenburg cast in his lot once more with the enemies of

France. To effectually meet this new league of his foes, Louis

resolved with heroic promptitude to abandon his conquests in

the Netherlands. Maestricht and Grave, alone, of the places he

had taken, were retained. But Holland still refused to make

peace on the terms which the French king proposed, and held

her ground in the league.

O. Airy,

The English Reformation and Louis XIV.,

chapter 19.

ALSO IN:

F. P. Guizot,

History of France,

chapter 44 (volume 5).

C. D. Yonge,

History of France under the Bourbons,

chapter 15 (volume 2).

A. F. Pontalis,

John de Witt,

chapters 12-14 (volume 2).

Sir W. Temple,

Memoirs,

part 2 (works, volume 2).

See, also,

NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1673.

Reconquest of New Netherland from the English.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1673-1678.

Fresh conquests by Louis XIV.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678;

also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1674.

The Treaty of Westminster.

Peace with England.

Relinquishment of New Netherland.

An offer from the Dutch to restore New Netherland to England

"was extorted from the necessities of the republic, and its

engagement with Spain. With the consent of the States General,

the Spanish ambassador offered advantageous articles to the

British government. Charles, finding that Louis refused him

further supplies, and that he could not expect any from

Parliament, replied that he was willing to accept reasonable

conditions. … Sir William Temple was summoned from his

retirement, and instructed to confer with the Spanish

ambassador at London, the Marquis del Fresno, to whom the

States General had sent full powers.

{2289}

In three days all the points were arranged; and a treaty was

signed at Westminster [February 19, 1674] by Arlington and

four other commissioners on the part of Great Britain, and by

Fresno on the part of the United Netherlands. The honor of the

flag, which had been refused by De Witt, was yielded to

England; the Treaty of Breda was revived; the rights of

neutrals guaranteed; and the commercial principles of the

Triple Alliance renewed. By the sixth article it was

covenanted that 'all lands, islands, cities, havens, castles

and fortresses, which have been or shall be taken by one party

from the other, during the time of this last unhappy war,

whether in Europe or elsewhere, and before the expiration of

the times above limited for the duration of hostilities, shall

be restored to the former Lord and Proprietor in the same

condition they shall be in at the time that this peace shall

be proclaimed.' This article restored New Netherland to the

King of Great Britain. The Treaty of Breda had ceded it to him

on the principle of 'uti possidetis.' The Treaty of

Westminster gave it back to him on the principle of reciprocal

restitution. Peace was soon proclaimed at London and at the

Hague. The treaty of Westminster delivered the Dutch from fear

of Charles, and cut off the right arm of Louis, their more

dreaded foe. England, on her part, slipped out of a disastrous

war. … By the treaty of Westminster the United Provinces

relinquished their conquest of New Netherland to the King of

England. The sovereign Dutch States General had treated

directly with Charles as sovereign. A question at once arose

at Whitehall about the subordinate interest of the Duke of

York. It was claimed by some that James's former American

proprietorship was revived. … The opinion of counsel having

been taken, they advised that the duke's proprietorship had

been extinguished by the Dutch conquest, and that the king was

now alone seized of New Netherland, by virtue of the Treaty of

Westminster. … A new patent to the Duke of York was

therefore sealed. By it the king again conveyed to his brother

the territories he had held before, and granted him anew the

absolute powers of government he had formerly enjoyed over

British subjects, with the like additional authority over 'any

other person or persons' inhabiting his province. Under the

same description of boundaries, New Jersey, and all the

territory west of the Connecticut River, together with Long

Island and the adjacent islands, and the region of Pemaquid,

were again included in the grant. The new patent did not, as

has been commonly, but erroneously stated, 'recite and confirm

the former.' It did not in any way allude to that instrument.

It read as if no previous English patent had ever existed. …

As his colonial lieutenant and deputy, the duke, almost

necessarily, appointed Major Edmund Andros, whom the king had

directed in the previous March to receive New Netherland from

the Dutch."

J. R. Brodhead,

History of the State of New York,

volume 2, chapters 5-6.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1674-1678.

Continued war of the Coalition against France.

"The enemies of France everywhere took courage. … Louis XIV.

embraced with a firm glance the whole position, and, well

advised by Turenne, clearly took his resolution. He understood

the extreme difficulty of preserving his conquests, and the

facility moreover of making others more profitable, while

defending his own frontier. To evacuate Holland, to indemnify

himself at the expense of Spain, and to endeavor to treat

separately with Holland while continuing the war against the

House of Austria,—such was the new plan adopted; an

excellent plan, the very wisdom of which condemned so much the

more severely the war with Holland. … The places of the

Zuyder-Zee were evacuated in the course of December by the

French and the troops of Munster. … The evacuation of the

United Provinces was wholly finished by spring. … Louis

resolved to conquer Franche-Comté in person; while Turenne

covered Alsace and Lorraine, Schomberg went to defend

Roussillon, and Condé labored to strengthen the French

positions on the Meuse, by sweeping the enemy from the

environs of Liege and Maestricht. On the ocean, the defensive

was preserved." Louis entered Franche-Comté at the beginning

of May with a small army of 8,000 infantry and 5,000 or 6,000

cavalry, but with Vauban, the great master of sieges, to do

his serious work for him. A small corps had been sent into the

country in February, and had already taken Gray, Vesoul and

Lons-le-Saulnier. Besançon was now reduced by a short siege;

Dole surrendered soon afterward, and early in July the

subjugation of the province was complete. "The second conquest

of Franche-Comté had cost a little more trouble than the

first; but it was definitive. The two Burgundies were no more

to be separated, and France was never again to lose her

frontier of the Jura. … The allies, from the beginning of

the year, had projected a general attack against France. They

had debated among themselves the design of introducing two

great armies, one from Belgium into Champagne, the other from

Germany into Alsace and Lorraine; the Spaniards were to invade

Roussillon; lastly, the Dutch fleet was to threaten the coasts

of France and attempt some enterprise there. The tardiness of

the Germanic diet to declare itself" frustrated the first of

these plans. Condé, occupying a strong position near

Charleroi, from which the allies could not draw him, took

quick advantage of an imprudent movement which they made, and

routed them by a fierce attack, at the village of Seneffe

(August 11, 1674). But William of Orange rallied the flying

forces—Dutch, German and Spanish now fighting side by

side—so successfully that Condé was repulsed with terrible

loss in the end, when he attempted to make his victory

complete. The battle was maintained, by the light of the moon,

until midnight, and both armies withdrew next morning, badly

crippled. Turenne meantime, in June, had crossed the Rhine at

Philippsburg and encountered the Imperialists, on the 16th,

near Sinsheim, defeated them there and driven them beyond the

Neckar. The following month, he again crossed the river and

inflicted upon the Palatinate the terrible destruction which

made it for the time being a desert, and which is the black

blot on the fame of the great soldier. "Turenne ordered his

troops to consume and waste cattle, forage, and harvests, so

that the enemy's army, when it returned in force, as he

foresaw it would do, could find nothing whereon to subsist."

In September the city of Strasburg opened its gates to the

Imperialists and gave them the control of its fortified

bridge, crossing the Rhine.

{2290}

Turenne, hastening to prevent the disaster, but arriving too

late, attacked his enemies, October 4, at the village of

Ensisheim and gained an inconclusive victory. Then followed,

before the close of the year, the most famous of the military

movements of Turenne. The allies having been heavily

reinforced, he retired before them into Lorraine, meeting and

gathering up reinforcements of his own as he moved. Then, when

he had completely deceived them as to his intentions, he

traversed the whole length of the Vosges with his army, in

December, and appeared suddenly at Belfort, finding their

forces scattered and entirely unprepared. Defeating them at

Mülhausen December 29, and again at Colmar, January 5, he

expelled them from Alsace, and offered to Strasburg the

renewal of its neutrality, which the anxious city was glad to

accept. "Thus ended this celebrated campaign, the most

glorious, perhaps, presented in the military history of

ancient France. None offers higher instruction in the study of

the great art of war." In the campaign of 1675, which opened

in May, Turenne was confronted by Montecuculi, and the two

masterly tacticians became the players of a game which has

been the wonder of military students ever since. "Like two

valiant athletes struggling foot to foot without either being

able to overthrow the other, Turenne and Montecuculi manœuvred

for six weeks in the space of a few square leagues [in the

canton of Ortnau, Swabia] without succeeding in forcing each

other to quit the place." At length, on the 27th of July,

Turenne found an opportunity to attack his opponent with

advantage, in the defile of Salsbach, and was just completing

his preparations to do so, when a cannon-ball from one of the

enemy's batteries struck him instantly dead. His two

lieutenants, who succeeded to the command, could not carry out

his plans, but fought a useless bloody battle at Altenheim and

nearly lost their army before retreating across the Rhine.

Condé was sent to replace Turenne. Before he arrived,

Strasburg had again given its bridge to the Imperialists and

they were in possession of Lower Alsace; but no important

operations were undertaken during the remainder of the year.

In other parts of the wide war field the French suffered

disaster. Marshal de Crequi, commanding on the Moselle, was

badly defeated at Konsaarbrück, August 11, and Treves, which

he defended, was lost a few weeks later. The Swedes, also,

making a diversion in the north, as allies of France, were

beaten back, at Fehrbellin.

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

But next year (1676) Louis recovered all his prestige. His

navy, under the command of Duquesne and Tourville, fought the

Dutch and Spaniards on equal terms, and defeated them twice in

the Mediterranean, on the Sicilian coast. On land the main

effort of the French was directed against the Netherlands.

Condé, Bouchain and Aire were taken by siege; and Maestricht

was successfully defended against Orange, who besieged it for

nearly eight weeks. But Philippsburg, the most important

French post on the Rhine, was lost, surrendering to the Duke

of Lorraine. Early in 1677, Louis renewed his attacks on the

Spanish Netherlands and took Valenciennes March 17, Cambrai

April 4, and Saint-Omer April 20, defeating the Prince of

Orange at Cassel (April 11) when he attempted to relieve the

latter place. At the same time Crequi, unable to defend Lower

Alsace, destroyed it—burning the villages, leaving the

inhabitants to perish—and prevented the allies, who

outnumbered him, from making any advance. In November, when

they had gone into winter-quarters, he suddenly crossed the

Rhine and captured Freiburg. The next spring (1678) operations

began early on the side of the French with the siege of Ghent.

The city capitulated, March 9, after a short bombardment. The

Spanish governor withdrew to the citadel, but "surrendered, on

the 11th, that renowned castle built by Charles V. to hold the

city in check. The city and citadel of Ghent had not cost the

French army forty men." Ypres was taken the same month.

Serious negotiations were now opened and the Peace of

Nimeguen, between France and Holland, was signed August 11,

followed early the next year by a general peace. The Prince of

Orange, who opposed the peace, fought one bootless but bloody

battle at Saint-Denis, near Mons, on the 14th of August, three

days after it had been signed.

H. Martin,

History of France: Age of Louis XIV.

(translated by M. L. Booth),

volume 1, chapters 5-6.

"It may be doubted whether Europe has fully realised the

greatness of the peril she so narrowly escaped on this

occasion. The extinction of political and mental freedom,

which would have followed the extinction of the Dutch

Republic, would have been one of the most disastrous defeats

of the cause of liberty and enlightenment possible in the then

condition of the world. … The free presses of Holland gave

voice to the stilled thought and agony of mankind. And they

were the only free presses in the world. But Holland was not

only the greatest book mart of Europe, it was emphatically the

home of thinkers and the birthplace of ideas. … The two men

then living to whose genius and courage the modern spirit of

mental emancipation and toleration owes its first and most

arduous victories were Pierre Bayle and John Locke. And it is

beyond dispute that if the French King had worked his will on

Holland, neither of them would have been able to accomplish

the task they did achieve under the protection of Dutch

freedom. They both were forced to seek refuge in Holland from

the bigotry which hunted them down in their respective

countries. All the works of Bayle were published in Holland,

and some of the earliest of Locke's writings appeared there

also; and if the remainder saw the light afterwards in

England, it is only because the Dutch, by saving their own

freedom, were the means of saving that of England as well. …

At least, no one can maintain that if Holland had been

annihilated in 1672, the English revolution could have

occurred in the form and at the time it did."

J. C. Morison,

The Reign of Louis XIV.

(Fortnightly Review, March, 1874).

ALSO IN:

H. M. Hozier,

Turenne,

chapters 12-13.

T. O. Cockayne,

Life of Turenne.

Lord Mahon,

Life of Condé,

chapter 12.

See, also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1689.

Invasion of England by the Prince of Orange.

His accession to the English throne.

See ENGLAND A. D. 1688 (JULY-NOVEMBER),

to 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1689-1696.

The War of the League of Augsburg, or the Grand Alliance

against Louis XIV.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, to 1695-1696.

{2291}

NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D; 1690-1691.

The Battle of Fleurus and the loss of Mons.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1692.

The Naval Battle of La Hogue.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.

NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1692.

The loss of Namur and the Battle of Steenkerke.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1692.

NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1693.

The Battle of Neerwinden.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).

NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1694-1696.

Campaigns without battles.

The recovery of Namur.

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

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1697.

The Peace of Ryswick.

French conquests restored.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

A. D. 1698-1700.

The question of the Spanish Succession.

The Treaties of Partition.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

NETHERLANDS: (The Spanish Provinces): A. D. 1701.

Occupied by French troops.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1702.

The Second Grand Alliance against France and Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702;

and ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702.

The War of the Spanish Succession: The Expedition to Cadiz.

The sinking of the treasure ships in Vigo Bay.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1702.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

The War of the Spanish Succession:

Marlborough's first campaigns.

"The campaign [of 1702] opened late in the Low Countries,

owing, doubtless, to the death of king William. The elector of

Bavaria, and his brother the elector of Cologne, took part

with France. About the middle of April, the prince of

Nassau-Saarbruck invested Keyserwerth, a place belonging to

the latter elector, on the Rhine; whilst Lord Athlone, with

the Dutch army, covered the siege, in pursuance of the advice

of Lord Marlborough to the states. The place was strong; the

French Marshal Boufflers made efforts to relieve it; after a

vigorous defence, it was carried by assault, with dreadful

carnage, about the middle of June. Boufflers, unable to

relieve Keyserwerth, made a rapid, march to throw himself

between Athlone and Nimeguen, with the view to carry that

place by surprise; was defeated by a forced and still more

rapid march of the Dutch, under Athlone, to cover it; and

moved upon Cleves, laying the country waste with wanton

barbarity along his line of march. Marlborough now arrived to

take the command in chief. It was disputed with him by

Athlone, who owed his military rank and the honours of the

peerage to the favour of king William. Certain representatives

of the states, who attended the army under the name of field

deputies, thwarted him by their caution and incompetency; the

Prussian and Hanoverian contingents refused to move without

the orders of their respective sovereigns. Lord Marlborough,

with admirable temper and adroitness, and, doubtless, with the

ascendant of his genius, surmounted all these obstacles. The

Dutch general cheerfully served under him; the confederates

were reconciled to his orders; he crossed the Meuse in pursuit

of the French; came within a few leagues of Boufflers' lines;

and, addressing the Dutch field deputies who accompanied him,

said, in a tone of easy confidence, 'I will now rid you of

these troublesome neighbours.' Boufflers accordingly

retreated,—abandoning Spanish Guelderland, and exposing

Venloo, Ruremonde, and even Liege, which he had made a

demonstration to cover. The young duke of Burgundy, grandson

of Louis XIV., and elder brother of the king of Spain, had

commanded the French army in name. He now returned to

Versailles; and Boufflers could only look on, whilst

Marlborough successively captured Venloo, Ruremonde, and

Liege. The navigation of the Meuse and communication with

Maestricht was now wholly free; the Dutch frontier was secure;

and the campaign terminated with the close of October. … The

duke of Marlborough resumed his command in the Low Countries

about the middle of spring. He found the French strong and

menacing on every side. Marshal Villars had, like Marlborough,

fixed the attention of Europe for the first time in the late

campaign. He obtained a splendid victory over the prince of

Baden at Fredlingen, near the Black Forest. That prince lost

3,000 men, his cannon and the field. … Villars opened this

year's campaign by taking Kehl, passed through the Black

Forest into Bavaria, and formed a junction with the elector;

whilst the prince of Baden was kept in check by a French army

under marshal Tallard. … The imperial general, Count Styrum

was now moving to join the prince of Baden with 20,000 men.

Villars persuaded the elector to cross the Danube and prevent

this junction; attacked the imperialists in the plain of

Hochstedt near Donawert; and put them to the rout. The capture

of Augsburg followed: the road was open to Vienna, and the

emperor thought of abandoning the capital. … Holland was

once more threatened on her frontier. Marshal Villeroi,

liberated by exchange, was again at the head of an army, and,

in conjunction with Boufflers, commenced operations for

recovering the ground and the strong places from which

Marlborough had dislodged the French on the Meuse. The

campaign had opened at this point of the theatre of war with

the capture of Rheinberg. It was taken by the Prussians before

the duke of Marlborough arrived. The duke's first operation

was the capture of Bonne. He returned to the main army with

the view to engage the French under Villeroi. That marshal

abandoned his camp, and retired within his lines of defence on

the approach of the English general. Marlborough was prevented

from attacking the French by the reluctance of the Dutch

generals and the positive prohibition of the Dutch field

deputies. … The only fruit of Marlborough's movement was the

easy capture of Huy. Boufflers obtained the slight advantage

of surprising and defeating the Dutch general Opdam near

Antwerp. Marlborough, still embarrassed by the Dutch field

deputies, to whose good intentions and limited views he bowed

with a facility which only proves the extent of his

superiority, closed the campaign with the acquisition of

Limburg and Guelders. … In the beginning of … [1704] the

emperor, threatened by the French and Bavarians in the very

capital of the empire, implored aid from the queen; and on the

19th of April, the duke of Marlborough left England to enter

upon a campaign memorable for … [the] victory of Blenheim.

… On his arrival at the Hague, he proposed to the states

general to alarm France for her frontier by a movement on the

Moselle.

{2292}

Their consent even to this slight hazard for their own

security, was not easily obtained. Villeroi, who commanded in

Flanders, soon lost sight of him; so rapid or so well masked

were his movements; Tallard, who commanded on the Moselle,

thought only of protecting the frontier of France; and

Marlborough, to the amazement of Europe, whether enemies or

allies, passed in rapid succession the Rhine, the Maine, and

the Necker. Intercepted letters, and a courier from the prince

of Baden, apprised him that the French were about to join the

Bavarians through the defiles of the Black Forest, and march

upon Vienna. He now threw off the mask, sent a courier to the

states, acquainting them that he was marching to the succour

of the empire by order of the queen of England, and trusted

they would permit their troops to share the glory of his

enterprise. The pensionary Heinsius alone was in his

confidence; and the states, though taken by surprise, conveyed

to him their sanction and confidence with the best grace. He

met Prince Eugene for the first time at Mindlesheim.

Marlborough and Eugene are henceforth associated in the career

of war and victory."

Sir J. Mackintosh,

The History of England,

volume 9, chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

L. Creighton,

Life of Marlborough,

chapters 6-7.

G. Saintsbury,

Marlborough,

chapter 5.

W. Coxe,

Memoirs of Marlborough,

chapters 11-22 (volume 1).

J. H. Burton,

History of the Reign of Queen Anne,

chapters 5-6 (volume 1).

Sec, also,

GERMANY: A. D. 1702, and 1703.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1704.

The War of the Spanish Succession:

The campaign on the Danube and victory at Blenheim.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1705.

The War of the Spanish Succession: A campaign spoiled.

After his campaign in Bavaria, with its great victory on the

field of Blenheim (see GERMANY: A. D. 1704), Marlborough

passed the winter in England and returned in the spring of

1705 to the Low Countries, where he had planned to lead,

again, the campaign of the year. Prince Eugene was now in

Italy, and the jealous, incapable Prince Louis of Baden,

commanding the German army, was the coadjutor on whom he must

depend. The latter assented to Marlborough's plans and

promised co-operation. The Dutch generals and deputies also

were reluctantly brought over to his views, which contemplated

an invasion of France on the side of the Moselle. "Slight as

were the hopes of any effective co-operation which Prince

Louis gave, they were much more than he accomplished. When the

time came he declared himself sick, threw up his command and

set off to drink the waters of Schlangenbad. Count de Frise

whom he named in his place brought to Marlborough only a few

ragged battalions, and, moreover, like his principal, showed

himself most jealous of the English chief. … Marlborough

nevertheless took the field and even singly desired to give

battle. But positive instructions from Versailles precluded

Villars [the commander of the French] from engaging. He

intrenched himself in an extremely strong position at Sirk,

where it was impossible for an inferior army to assail him.

And while the war was thus unprosperous on the Moselle, there

came adverse tidings from the Meuse. Marshal Villeroy had

suddenly resumed the offensive, had reduced the fortress of

Huy, had entered the city and invested the citadel of Liege."

Marlborough, on this news, being applied to for immediate aid

by the Dutch General Overkirk—the ablest and best of his

colleagues—"set out the very next day on his march to Liege,

leaving only a 'sufficient force as he hoped for the security

of Treves." Villeroy "at once relinquished his design upon the

citadel of Liege and fell back in the direction of Tongres, so

that Marlborough and Overkirk effected their junction with

ease. Marlborough took prompt measures to re-invest the

fortress of Huy, and compelled it to surrender on the 11th of

July. Applying his mind to the new sphere before him,

Marlborough saw ground to hope that, with the aid of the Dutch

troops, he might still make a triumphant campaign. The first

object was to force the defensive lines that stretched across

the country from near Namur to Antwerp, protected by numerous

fortified posts and covered in other places by rivers and

morasses, … now defended by an army of at least 60,000 men,

under Marshal Villeroy and the Elector of Bavaria. Marlborough

laid his plans before Generals Overkirk and Slangenberg as

also those civilian envoys whom the States were wont to

commission at their armies. But he found to his sorrow that

for jealousy and slowness a Dutch deputy was fully a match for

a German Margrave." He obtained with great difficulty a

nominal assent to his plans, and began the execution of them;

but in the very midst of his operations, and when one division

of the Dutch troops had successfully crossed the river Dyle,

General Slangenberg and the deputies suddenly drew back and

compelled a retreat. Then Marlborough's "fertile genius

devised another scheme—to move round the sources of the river

[Dyle] and to threaten Brussels from the southern side. … On

the 15th off August he began his march, as did also Overkirk

in a parallel direction, and in two days they reached Genappe

near the sources of the Dyle. There uniting in one line of

battle they moved next morning towards Brussels by the main

chaussée, or great paved road; their head-quarters that day

being fixed at Frischermont, near the borders of the forest of

Soignies. On the French side the Elector and Villeroy,

observing the march of the allies, had made a corresponding

movement of their own for the protection of the capital. They

encamped behind the small stream of the Ische, their right and

rear being partly covered by the forest. Only the day before

they had been joined by Marsin from the Rhine, and they agreed

to give battle sooner than yield Brussels. One of their main

posts was at Waterloo. … It is probable, had a battle now

ensued, that it would have been fought on the same, or nearly

the same ground as was the memorable conflict a hundred and

ten years afterwards. … But the expected battle did not take

place." Once more the Dutch deputies and General Slangenberg

interfered, refusing to permit their troops to engage; so that

Marlborough was robbed of the opportunity for winning a

victory which he confidently declared would have been greater

than Blenheim. This practically ended the campaign of the

year, which had been ruined and wasted throughout by the

stupidity, the cowardice and the jealousies of the Dutch

deputies and the general who counselled them.

Earl Stanhope,

History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,

chapter 6.

In Spain, a campaign of more brilliancy was carried on by

Charles Mordaunt, Earl of Peterborough, in Catalonia.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1705.

{2293}

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

The War of the Spanish Succession:

The Battle of Ramillies and its results.

"The campaign of 1706 was begun unusually late by Marlborough,

his long stay on the Continent in the winter and his English

political business detaining him in London till the end of

April, and when he finally landed at the Hague his plans were

still coloured by the remembrance of the gratuitous and

intolerable hindrances which he had met with from his allies.

… He had made up his mind to operate with Eugene in Italy,

which, if he had done, there would probably have been seen

what has not been seen for nearly two thousand years—a

successful invasion of France from the southeast. But the

kings of Prussia and Denmark, and others of the allies whom

Marlborough thought he had propitiated, were as recalcitrant

as the Dutch, and the vigorous action of Villars against the

Margrave of Baden made the States-General more than ever

reluctant to lose their sword and shield. So Marlborough was

condemned to action on his old line of the Dyle, and this time

fortune was less unkind to him. Secret overtures were made

which induced him to threaten Namur, and as Namur was of all

posts in the Low Countries that to which the French attached

most importance, both on sentimental and strategical grounds,

Villeroy was ordered to abandon the defensive policy which he

had for nearly two years been forced to maintain, and to fight

at all hazards. Accordingly the tedious operations which had

for so long been pursued in this quarter were exchanged at

once for a vigorous offensive and defensive, and the two

generals, Villeroy with rather more than 60,000 men,

Marlborough with that number or a little less, came to blows

at Ramillies (a few miles only from the spot where the lines

had been forced the year before) on May 23, 1706, or scarcely

more than a week after the campaign had begun. Here, as

before, the result is assigned by the French to the fault of

the general. … The battle itself was one completely of

generalship, and of generalship as simple as it was masterly.

It was in defending his position, not in taking it up, that

Villeroy lost the battle. … Thirteen thousand of the French

and Bavarians were killed, wounded, and taken, and the loss of

the allies, who had been throughout the attacking party, was

not less than 4,000 men. … The Dutch, who bore the burden of

the attack on Ramillies, had the credit of the day's fighting

on the allied side, as the Bavarian horse had on that of the

French. In hardly any of Marlborough's operations had he his

hands so free as at Ramillies, and in none did he carry off a

completer victory. … The strong places of Flanders fell

before the allied army like ripe fruit. Brussels surrendered

and was occupied on the fourth day after the battle, May 28.

Louvain and Malines had fallen already. The French garrison

precipitately left Ghent, and the Duke entered it on June 2.

Oudenarde came in next day; Antwerp was summoned, expelled the

French part of its garrison, and capitulated on September 7.

And a vigorous siege in less than a month reduced Ostend,

reputed one of the strongest places in Europe. In six weeks

from the battle of Ramillies not a French soldier remained in

a district which the day before that battle had been occupied

by a network of the strongest fortresses and a field army of

80,000 men. The strong places on the Lys and the Dender,

tributaries of the Scheldt, gave more trouble, and Menin, a

small but very important position, cost nearly half the loss

of Ramillies before it could be taken. But it fell, as well as

Dendermonde and Ath, and nothing but the recrudescence of

Dutch obstruction prevented Marlborough from finishing the

campaign with the taking of Mons, almost the last place of any

importance held by the French north of their own frontier, as

that frontier is now understood. But the difficulties of all

generals are said to begin on the morrow of victory, and

certainly the saying was true in Marlborough's case. … The

Dutch were, before all things, set on a strong barrier or zone

of territory, studded with fortresses in their own keeping,

between themselves and France: the Emperor naturally objected

to the alienation of the Spanish-Austrian Netherlands. The

barrier disputes were for years the greatest difficulty which

Marlborough had to contend with abroad, and the main theme of

the objections to the war made by the adverse party at home.

… It was in the main due, no doubt, to these jealousies and

hesitations, strengthened by the alarm caused by the loss of

the battle of Almanza in Spain, and by the threatened invasion

of Germany under Villars, that made the campaign of 1707 an

almost wholly inactive one. … The campaign of this year is

almost wholly barren of any military operations interesting to

anyone but the mere annalist of tactics."

G. Saintsbury,

Marlborough,

chapter 6.

In Spain, several sharp changes of fortune during two years

terminated in a disastrous defeat of the allies at Almanza in

April, 1707, by the Duke of Berwick.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1706 and 1707;

see, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1706-1711.

Earl Stanhope,

History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,

chapter 7 and 9.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.

The War of the Spanish Succession: Oudenarde and Malplaquet.

To the great satisfaction of Marlborough, Prince Eugene of

Savoy was sent by the Emperor to co-operate with him, in the

spring of 1708. The two generals met in April to discuss

plans; after which Eugene returned into Germany to gather up

the various contingents that would compose his army. He

encountered many difficulties and delays, and was unable to

bring his forces to the field until July. Marlborough,

meantime, had been placed in a critical situation. "For whilst

the English commander and Eugene had formed the plan to unite

and overwhelm Vendome, the Court of Versailles had, on its

side, contemplated the despatch of a portion of the Army of

the Rhine, commanded by the Elector of Bavaria and the Duke of

Berwick, so to reinforce Vendome that he might overwhelm

Marlborough, and Berwick was actually on his march to carry

out his portion of the plan." Prince Eugene crossed the

Moselle on the 28th June, "reached Düren the 3rd July, and

learning there that affairs were critical, hastened with an

escort of Hussars, in advance of his army, to Brussels. On his

arrival there, the 6th, he learned that the French had

attacked and occupied the city of Ghent, and were then

besieging the castle."

{2294}

The two commanders having met at Assche, to concert their

movements, made haste to throw: "a reinforcement into the

fortress of Oudenarde, then besieged by the French; and,

convinced now that the conquest of that fortress by Vendome

would give him an unassailable position, they pushed forward

their troops with all diligence to save it. The two armies

united on the 8th. On the 9th they set out for Oudenarde, and

crossed the Dender on the 10th. Before daybreak of the 11th

Marlborough despatched General Cadogan with a strong corps to

the Scheldt, to throw bridges over that river near Oudenarde

and to reconnoitre the enemy. The main army followed at 7

o'clock." In the battle which ensued, Vendome was hampered by

the equal authority of the Duke of Burgundy—the king's

grandson—who would not concur with his plans. "One after

another the positions occupied by the French soldiers were

carried. Then these took advantage of the falling night to

make a retreat as hurried and disorderly as their defence had

been wanting in tenacity. In no pitched battle, indeed, have

the French soldiers less distinguished themselves than at

Oudenarde. Fighting under a divided leadership, they were

fighting virtually without leadership, and they knew it. The

Duke of Burgundy contributed as much as either Marlborough or

Eugene to gain the battle of Oudenarde for the Allies." The

French army, losing heavily in the retreat, was rallied

finally at Ghent. "The Allies, meanwhile, prepared to take

advantage of their victory. They were within a circle

commanded by three hostile fortresses, Ypres, Lille, and

Tournay. After some consideration it was resolved, on the

proposition of Eugene, that Lille should be besieged." The

siege of Lille, the capital of French Flanders, fortified by

the utmost skill and science of Vauban, and held by a garrison

of 10,000 men under Marshal Boufflers, was a formidable

undertaking. The city was invested on the 13th of August, and

defended heroically by the garrison: but Vendome, who would

have attacked the besiegers, was paralyzed by the royal youth

who shared his command. Lille, the town, was surrendered on

the 22d of October and its citadel on the 9th of December. The

siege of Ghent followed, and the capitulation of that city, on

the 2d of January, 1709, closed the campaign. "The winter of

1709 was spent mainly in negotiations. Louis XIV. was

humiliated, and he offered peace on terms which the Allies

would have done well to accept." Their demands, however, rose

too high, and the war went on. "It had been decided that the

campaign in the Netherlands should be continued under the same

skilful generals who had brought that of 1708 to so successful

an issue. … On the 23rd of [June] … the allied army,

consisting of 110,000 men, was assembled between Courtray and

Menin. Marlborough commanded the left wing, about 70,000

strong; Eugene the right, about 40,000. Louis, on his side,

had made extraordinary efforts. But even with these he had

been able to put in the field an army only 80,000 strong

[under Marshal Villars]. … Villars had occupied a position

between Douai and the Lys, and had there thrown up lines, in

the strengthening of which he found daily employment for his

troops." Not venturing to attack the French army in its strong

position, Marlborough and Eugene began operations by laying

siege to Tournay. The town was yielded to them on the 30th of

July and the citadel on the 3d of September. They next turned

their attention to Mons, which the French thought it necessary

to save at any cost. The attempt which the latter made to

drive the allied army from the position it had gained between

themselves and Mons had its outcome in the terribly bloody

battle of Malplaquet—"the bloodiest known till then in modern

history. The loss of the victors was greater than that of the

vanquished. That of the former amounted to from 18,000 to

20,000 men: the French admitted a loss of 7,000, but German

writers raise it to 15,000. Probably it did not exceed 11,000.

… The results … were in no way proportionate to its cost.

The French army retreated in good order, taking with it all

its impedimenta, to a new position as strong as the former.

There, under Berwick, who was sent to replace Villars, it

watched the movements of the Allies. These resumed, indeed,

the siege of Mons [which surrendered on the 20th of October].

… But this was the solitary result of the victory."

Colonel G. B. Malleson,

Prince Eugene of Savoy,

chapters 10-11.

ALSO IN:

W. Coxe,

Memoirs of Marlborough,

chapters 66-83 (volumes 4-5).

H. Martin,

History of France: Age of Louis XIV.

(translated by M. L. Booth),

volume 2, chapters 5-6.

J. W. Gerard,

Peace of Utrecht,

chapters 17-19.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D, 1709.

The Barrier Treaty with England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1709.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1710-1712.

The War of the Spanish Succession:

The last campaigns of Marlborough.

"As soon as it became clear that the negotiations [at

Gertruydenberg] would lead to nothing, Eugene and Marlborough

at once began the active business of the campaign. …

Marlborough began … with the siege of Douai, the possession

of which would be of the greatest importance to him. … In

spite of Villars' boasts the French were unable to prevent the

capture of Douai. … The campaign of 1710 was full of

disappointment to Marlborough. He had hoped to carry the war

into the heart of France. But after Douai fell, Villars so

placed his army that [Marlborough] … was obliged to content

himself with the capture of Bethune, St. Venant, and Aire.

Heavy rains and a great deal of illness among his troops

prevented further operations. Besides this, his energy was

somewhat paralysed by the changes which had taken place in

England," where the Duchess of Marlborough and the Whig party

had lost the favor of the Queen, and the Tory opponents of

Marlborough and the war had come into power.

L. Creighton,

Life of Marlborough,

chapters 15-16.

"In 1711, in a complicated series of operations round Arras,

Marlborough, who was now alone, Eugene having been recalled to

Vienna, completely outgeneraled Villars and broke through his

lines. But he did not fight, and the sole result of the

campaign was the capture of Bouchain at the cost of some

16,000 men, while no serious impression was made on the French

system of defence. … Lille had cost 14,000; Tournay a number

not exactly mentioned, but very large; the petty place of Aire

7,000. How many, malcontent Englishmen might well ask

themselves, would it cost before Arras, Cambrai, Hesdin,

Calais, Namur, and all the rest of the fortresses that studded

the country, could be expected to fall? … Marlborough had

himself, so to speak, spoilt his audience.

{2295}

He had given them four great victories in a little more than

five years; it was perhaps unreasonable, but certainly not

unnatural, that they should grow fretful when he gave them

none during nearly half the same time. … The expense of the

war was frightening men of all classes in England, and,

independently of the more strictly political considerations,

… it will be seen that there was some reason for wishing

Marlborough anywhere but on or near the field of battle. He

was got rid of none too honourably; restrictions were put upon

his successor Ormond which were none too honourable either;

and when Villars, freed from his invincible antagonist, had

inflicted a sharp defeat upon Eugene at Denain, the military

situation was changed from one very much in favour of the

allies to one slightly against them, and so contributed beyond

all doubt to bring about the Peace of Utrecht."

G. Saintsbury,

Marlborough,

chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

G. B. Malleson,

Prince Eugene of Savoy,

chapter 12.

C. M. Davies,

History of Holland,

part 3, chapter 11 (volume 3).

See, also,

ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1713-1714.

The Treaties of Utrecht.

Cession of the Spanish Provinces to the House of Austria.

Barrier towns secured.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1713-1715.

Second Barrier Treaty with England.

Barrier arrangements with France and the Emperor.

Connected with the other arrangements concluded in the

treaties negotiated at Utrecht, the States, in 1713, signed a

new Barrier Treaty with England, "annulling that of 1709, and

providing that the Emperor Charles should be sovereign of the

Netherlands [heretofore the 'Spanish Provinces,' but now

become the 'Austrian Provinces'], which, neither in the whole

nor in the part, should ever be possessed by France. The

States, on their side, were bound to support, if required, the

succession of the Electress of Hanover to the throne of

England. … By the treaty concluded between France and the

States, it was agreed that … the towns of Menin, Tournay,

Namur, Ypres, with Warneton, Poperingen, Comines and Werwyk,

Fumes, Dixmuyde, and the fort of Knokke, were to be ceded to

the States, as a barrier, to be held in such a manner as they

should afterwards agree upon with the Emperor." In the

subsequent arrangement, concluded with the Emperor in 1715,

"he permitted the boundary on the side of Flanders to be fixed

in a manner highly satisfactory to the States, who sought

security rather than extent of dominion. By the possession of

Namur they commanded the passage of the Sambre and Meuse;

Tournay ensured the navigation of the Scheldt; Menin and

Warneton protected the Leye; while Ypres and the fort of

Knokke kept open the communication with Fumes, Nieuport and

Dunkirk. … Events proved the barrier, so earnestly insisted

upon, to have been wholly insufficient as a means of defence

to the United Provinces, and scarcely worth the labour and

cost of its maintenance."

C. M. Davies,

History of Holland,

chapter 11 (volume 3).

(NETHERLANDS: Holland): A. D. 1713-1725.

Continued Austro-Spanish troubles.

The Triple Alliance.

The Quadruple Alliance.

The Alliance of Hanover.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;

also, ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1729-1731.

The Treaty of Seville.

The second Treaty of Vienna.

The Ostend Company abolished.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1731-1740.

The question of the Austrian Succession.

Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1740-1741.

Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1743.

The War of the Austrian Succession: Dutch Subsidies and Troops.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743; and 1743-1744.

NETHERLANDS: (Austrian Provinces): A. D. 1744.

Invasion by the French.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744.

NETHERLANDS: (The Austrian Provinces): A. D. 1745.

The War of the Austrian Succession: Battle of Fontenoy.

French conquests.

In the spring of 1745, while events in the second Silesian War

were still threatening to Frederick the Great (see AUSTRIA: A.

D. 1744-1745), his allies, the French, though indifferent to

his troubles, were doing better for themselves in the

Netherlands. They had given to Marshal de Saxe, who commanded

there, an army of 76,000 excellent troops. "As to the Allies,

England had furnished her full contingent of 28,000 men, but

Holland less than half of the 50,000 she had stipulated; there

were but eight Austrian squadrons, and the whole body scarcely

exceeded 50,000 fighting men. The nominal leader was the young

Duke of Cumberland, but subject in a great measure to the

control of an Austrian veteran, Marshal Konigsegg, and obliged

to consult the Dutch commander, Prince de Waldeck. Against

these inferior numbers and divided councils the French

advanced in full confidence of victory, and, after various

movements to distract the attention of the Allies, suddenly,

on the 1st of May, invested Tournay. … To relieve this

important city, immediately became the principal object with

the Allies; and the States, usually so cautious, nay, timorous

in their suggestions, were now as eager in demanding battle.

… On the other hand, the Mareschal de Saxe made most skilful

dispositions to receive them. Leaving 15,000 infantry to cover

the blockade of Tournay, he drew up the rest of his army, a

few miles further, in an excellent position, which he

strengthened with numerous works; and his soldiers were

inspirited by the arrival of the King and Dauphin, who had

hastened from Paris to join in the expected action. The three

allied generals, on advancing against the French, found them

encamped on some gentle heights, with the village of Antoin

and the river Scheldt on their right, Fontenoy and a narrow

valley in their front, and a small wood named Barre on their

left. The passage of the Scheldt, and, if needful, a retreat,

were secured by the bridge of Calonne in the rear, by a tête

de pont, and by a reserve of the Household Troops. Abbatis

were constructed in the wood of Barre; redoubts between Antoin

and Fontenoy; and the villages themselves had been carefully

fortified and, garrisoned. The narrow space between Fontenoy

and Barre seemed sufficiently defended by cross fires, and by

the natural ruggedness of the ground: in short, as the French

officers thought, the strength of the position might bid

defiance to the boldest assailant.

{2296}

Nevertheless, the Allied chiefs, who had already resolved on a

general engagement, drove in the French piquets and outposts

on the 10th of May, New Style, and issued orders for their

intended attack at daybreak. … At six o'clock on the morning

of the 11th, the cannonade began. The Prince of Waldeck, and

his Dutch, undertook to carry Antoin and Fontenoy by assault,

while the Duke of Cumberland, at the head of the British and

Hanoverians, was to advance against the enemy's left. His

Royal Highness, at the same time with his own attack, sent

General Ingoldsby, with a division, to pierce through the wood

of Barre, and storm the redoubt beyond it." Ingoldsby's

division and the Dutch troops were both repulsed, and the

latter made no further effort. But the British and

Hanoverians, leaving their cavalry behind and dragging with

them a few field pieces, "plunged down the ravine between

Fontenoy and Barre, and marched on against a position which

the best Marshals of France had deemed impregnable, and which

the best troops of that nation defended. … Whole ranks of

the British were swept away, at once, by the murderous fire of

the batteries on their left and right. Still did their column,

diminishing in numbers not in spirit, steadily press forward,

repulse several desperate attacks of the French infantry, and

gain ground on its position. … The battle appeared to be

decided: already did Marshal Konigsegg offer his

congratulations to the Duke of Cumberland; already had

Mareschal de Saxe prepared for retreat, and, in repeated

messages, urged the King to consult his safety and withdraw,

while it was yet time, beyond the Scheldt." The continued

inactivity of the Dutch, however, enabled the French commander

to gather his last reserves at the one point of danger, while

he brought another battery to bear on the head of the

advancing British column. "The British, exhausted by their own

exertions, mowed down by the artillery in front, and assailed

by the fresh troops in flank, were overpowered. Their column

wavered—broke—fell back. … In this battle of Fontenoy (for

such is the name it has borne), the British left behind a few

pieces of artillery, but no standards, and scarce any

prisoners but the wounded. The loss in these, and in killed,

was given out as 4,041 British, 1,762 Hanoverians, and only

1,544 Dutch; while on their part the French likewise

acknowledged above 7,000." As the consequence of the battle of

Fontenoy, not only Tournay, but Ghent, likewise, was speedily

surrendered to the French. "Equal success crowned similar

attempts on Bruges, on Oudenarde, and on Dendermonde, while

the allies could only act on the defensive and cover Brussels

and Antwerp. The French next directed their arms against

Ostend, … which … yielded in fourteen days. … Meanwhile

the events in Scotland [the Jacobite rebellion—see SCOTLAND:

A. D. 1745-1746] were compelling the British government to

withdraw the greater part of their force; and it was only the

approach of winter, and the retreat of both armies into

quarters, that obtained a brief respite for the remaining

fortresses of Flanders."

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),

History of England, 1713-1783,

chapter 26 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

F. P. Guizot,

Popular History of France,

chapter 52 (volume 6).

J. G. Wilson,

Sketches of Illustrious Soldiers: Saxe.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747.

The War of the Austrian Succession:

French conquest of the Austrian provinces.

Humiliation of Holland.

The Stadtholdership restored.

"In the campaign in Flanders in 1746, the French followed up

the successes which they had achieved in the previous year.

Brussels, Antwerp, Mons, Charleroi, Namur, and other places

successively surrendered to Marshal Saxe and the Prince of

Conti. After the capture of Namur in September, Marshal Saxe,

reuniting all the French forces, attacked Prince Charles of

Lorraine at Raucoux [or Roucoux], between Liege and Viset, and

completely defeated him, October 11; after which both sides

went into winter quarters. All the country between the Meuse

and the sea was now in the power of France, Austria retaining

only Luxemburg and Limburg. … Ever since the year 1745 some

negociations had been going on between France and the Dutch

for the reestablishment of peace. The States-General had

proposed the assembling of a Congress to the Cabinet of

Vienna, which, however, had been rejected. In September 1746,

conferences had been opened at Breda, between France, Great

Britain, and the States-General; but as Great Britain had

gained some advantages at sea, the negociations were

protracted, and the Cabinets of London and Vienna had

endeavoured to induce the Dutch to take a more direct and

active part in the war. In this state of things the Court of

Versailles took a sudden resolution to coerce the

States-General. A manifest was published by Louis XV. April

17th 1747, filled with those pretexts which it is easy to find

on such occasions: not, indeed, exactly declaring war against

the Dutch Republic, but that he should enter her territories

'without breaking with her'; that he should hold in deposit

the places he might conquer, and restore them as soon as the

States ceased to succour his enemies. At the same time Count

Löwendahl entered Dutch Flanders by Bruges, and seized in less

than a month Sluys, Ysendick, Sas de Gand, Hulst, Axel, and

other places. Holland had now very much declined from the

position she had held a century before. There were indeed many

large capitalists in the United Provinces, whose wealth had

been amassed during the period of the Republic's commercial

prosperity, but the State as a whole was impoverished and

steeped in debt. … In … becoming the capitalists and

money-lenders of Europe, they [the Dutch] had ceased to be her

brokers and carriers. … Holland was no longer the entrepôt

of nations. The English, the Swedes, the Danes, and the

Hamburghers had appropriated the greater part of her trade.

Such was the result of the long wars in which she had been

engaged. … Her political consideration had dwindled equally

with her commerce. Instead of pretending as formerly to be the

arbiter of nations, she had become little more than the

satellite of Great Britain; a position forced upon her by fear

of France, and her anxiety to maintain her barriers against

that encroaching Power. Since the death of William III., the

republican or aristocratic party had again seized the

ascendency. William III.'s collateral heir, John William

Friso, had not been recognised as Stadtholder, and the

Republic was again governed, as in the time of De Witt, by a

Grand Pensionary and greffier. The dominant party had,

however, become highly unpopular.

{2297}

It had sacrificed the army to maintain the fleet, and the

Republic seemed to lie at the mercy of France. At the approach

of the French, consternation reigned in the provinces. The

Orange party raised its head and demanded the re-establishment

of the Stadtholdership. The town of Veere in Zealand gave the

example of insurrection, and William IV. of Nassau-Dietz, who

was already Stadtholder of Friesland, Groningen and

Gelderland, was ultimately proclaimed hereditary Stadtholder,

Captain-General and Admiral of the United Provinces. William

IV. was the son of John William Friso, and son-in-law of

George II., whose daughter, Anne, he had married. The French

threatening to attack Maestricht, the allies under the Duke of

Cumberland marched to Lawfeld in order to protect it. Here

they were attacked by Marshal Saxe, July 2nd 1747, and after a

bloody battle compelled to recross the Meuse. The Duke of

Cumberland, however, took up a position which prevented the

French from investing Maestricht. On the other hand, Löwendahl

[a Swedish general in the French service] carried

Bergen-op-Zoom by assault., July 16th." The following spring

(1748), the French succeeded in laying siege to Maestricht,

notwithstanding the presence of the allies, and it was

surrendered to them on the 7th of May. "Negociations had been

going on throughout the winter, and a Congress had been

appointed to meet at Aix-la-Chapelle, whose first conference

took place April 24th 1748." The taking of Maestricht was

intended to stimulate these negotiations for peace, and it

undoubtedly had that effect. The treaties which concluded the

war were signed the following October.

T. H. Dyer,

History of Modern Europe,

book 6, chapter 4 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

C. M. Davies,

History of Holland,

part 3, chapter 12,

part 4, chapter 1.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1746-1787.

The restored Stadtholdership.

Forty years of peace.

War with England and trouble with Austria.

The razing of the Barriers.

Premature revolutions.

In their extremity, when the provinces of the Dutch Republic

were threatened with invasion by the French, a cry for the

House of Orange was raised once more. "The jealousies of

Provincial magistratures were overborne, and in obedience to

the voice of the people a Stadholder again arose. William of

Nassau Dietz, the heir to William III., and the successor to a

line of Stadholders who had ruled continuously in Friesland

since the days of Philip II., was summoned to power. …

William IV. had married, as William II. and William III. had

done, the daughter of a King of England. As the husband of

Anne, the child of George II., he had added to the

consideration of his House; and he was now able to secure for

his descendants the dignities to which he had himself been

elected. The States General in 1747 declared that both male

and female heirs should succeed to his honours. The

constitution was thus in a measure changed, and the

appointment of a hereditary chief magistrate appeared to many

… to be a departure from the pure ideal of a Republic. The

election of the new Stadholder brought less advantage to his

people than to his family. He could not recall the glorious

days of the great ancestors who had preceded him. Without

abilities for war himself, and jealous of those with whom he

was brought in contact, he caused disunion to arise among the

forces of the allies. … When the terms at Aix La Chapelle

restored their losses to the Dutch and confirmed the

stipulations of previous treaties in their favour, it was felt

that the Republic was indebted to the exertions of its allies,

and not to any strength or successes of its own. It was well

for the Republic that she could rest. The days of her

greatness had gone by, and the recent struggle had manifested

her decline to Europe. … The next forty years were years of

peace, … When war again arrived it was again external

circumstances [connected with the war between England and her

revolted colonies in America] that compelled the Republic to

take up arms. … She … contemplated, as it was discovered,

an alliance with the American insurgents. The exposure of her

designs drew on her a declaration of war from England, which

was followed by the temporary loss of many of her colonies

both in the East and West Indies. But in Europe the struggle

was more equally sustained. The hostile fleets engaged in 1781

off the Dogger Bank; and the Dutch sailors fought with a

success that made them claim a victory, and that at least

secured them from the consequences of a defeat. The war indeed

caused far less injury to the Republic than might have been

supposed. … When she concluded peace in 1783, the whole of

her lost colonies, with the one exception of Negapatam, were

restored to her. But the occasion of the war had been made use

of by Austria, and a blow had been meanwhile inflicted upon

the United Provinces the fatal effect of which was soon to be

apparent. The Emperor Joseph II. had long protested against

the existence of the Barrier: and he had seized upon the

opportunity to undo by an arbitrary act all that the blood and

treasure of Europe had been lavished to secure. 'The Emperor

will hear no more of Barriers,' wrote his minister; 'our

connection with France has made them needless': and the

fortresses for which William III. had schemed and Marlborough

had fought, were razed to the ground [1782]. Holland, unable

at the moment to resist, withdrew her garrisons in silence;

and Joseph, emboldened by his success, proceeded to ask for

more [1784]. The rectification of the Dutch frontiers, the

opening of the Scheldt, and the release for his subjects from

the long-enforced restrictions upon their trade did not appear

too much to him. But the spirit of the Dutch had not yet left

them. They fired at the vessels which dared to attempt to

navigate the Scheldt, and war again appeared imminent. The

support of France, however, upon which the Emperor had relied,

was now given to the Republic, and Joseph recognized that he

had gone too far. The Barrier, once destroyed, was not to be

restored; but the claims which had been put forward were

abandoned upon the payment of money compensation by the

States. The feverous age of revolution was now at hand, and

party spirit, which had ever divided the United Provinces, and

had been quickened by the intercourse and alliance with

America during the war, broke out in an insurrection against

the Stadholder [William V.], which drove him from his country,

and compelled him to appeal to Prussian troops for his

restoration. Almost at the same time, in the Austrian

provinces, a Belgic Republic was proclaimed [1787], the result

in a great degree of imprudent changes which Joseph II. had

enforced. The Dutch returned to their obedience under

Prussian threats [and invasion of Holland by an army of 30,000

men—September, 1787], and Belgium under the concessions of

Leopold III. But these were the clouds foreshadowing the

coming storm, beneath whose fury all Europe was to tremble."

C. F. Johnstone,

Historical Abstracts,

chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

T. H. Dyer,

History of Modern Europe,

book 6, chapter 8 (volume 3).

F. C. Schlosser,

History of the 18th Century, period 4,

chapter 1, section 2,

and chapter 2, section 2 (volume 5).

{2298}

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1748.

Termination and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.

French conquests restored to Austria and to Holland.

See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1782.

Recognition of the United States of America.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (APRIL).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1792-1793.

The Austrian provinces occupied

by the French revolutionary army.

Determination to annex them to the French Republic.

Preparations to attack Holland.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1702 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);

and 1702-1703 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1793 (February-April).

French invasion of Holland.

Defeat at Neerwinden and retreat.

Recovery of Belgian provinces by the Austrians.

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

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1793 (March-September).

The Coalition against Revolutionary France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1794.

French conquest of the Austrian Provinces.

Holland open to invasion.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1794-1795.

Subjugation and occupation by the French.

Overthrow of the Stadtholdership.

Establishment of the Batavian Republic, in alliance with France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1797.

Naval defeat by the English in the Battle of Camperdown.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

NETHERLANDS: (Austrian Provinces): A. D. 1797.

Ceded to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 17\!7 (MAY-OCTOBER).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1799.

English and Russian invasion.

Capture of the Dutch fleet.

Ignominious ending of the expedition.

Capitulation of the Duke of York.

Dissolution of the Dutch East India Company.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1790 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER),

and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1801.

Revolution instigated and enforced by Bonaparte.

A new Constitution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1802.

The Peace of Amiens.

Recovery of the Cape of Good Hope and Dutch Guiana.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1806.

Final seizure of Cape Colony by the English.

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.

Commercial blockade by the English Orders in Council and

Napoleon's Decrees.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1806-1810.

The Batavian Republic transformed into the Kingdom of Holland.

Louis Bonaparte made King.

His fidelity to the country offensive to Napoleon.

His abdication.

Annexation of Holland to the French empire.

"While Bonaparte was the chief of the French republic, he had

no objection to the existence of a Batavian republic in the

north of France, and he equally tolerated the Cisalpine

republic in the south. But after the coronation all the

republics, which were grouped like satellites round the grand

republic, were converted into kingdoms, subject to the empire,

if not avowedly, at least in fact. In this respect there was

no difference between the Batavian and Cisalpine republic. The

latter having been metamorphosed into the kingdom of Italy, it

was necessary to find some pretext for transforming the former

into the kingdom of Holland. … The Emperor kept up such an

extensive agency in Holland that he easily got up a

deputation, soliciting him to choose a king for the Batavian

republic. This submissive deputation came to Paris in 1806, to

solicit the Emperor, as a favour, to place Prince Louis

[Napoleon's brother] on the throne of Holland. … Louis

became King of Holland much against his inclination, for he

opposed the proposition as much as he dared, alleging as an

objection the state of his health, to which certainly the

climate of Holland was not favourable; but Bonaparte sternly

replied to his remonstrance—'It is better to die a king than

live a prince.' He was then obliged to accept the crown. He

went to Holland accompanied by Hortense, who, however, did not

stay long there. The new king wanted to make himself beloved

by his subjects, and as they were an entirely commercial

people, the best way to win their affections was … not to

adopt Napoleon's rigid laws against commercial intercourse

with England. Hence the first coolness between the two

brothers, which ended in the abdication of Louis. I know not

whether Napoleon recollected the motive assigned by Louis for

at first refusing the crown of Holland, namely, the climate of

the country, or whether he calculated upon greater submission

in another of his brothers; but this is certain, that Joseph

was not called from the throne of Naples to the throne of

Spain, until after the refusal of Louis. … Before finally

seizing Holland, Napoleon formed the project of separating

from it Brabant and Zealand, in exchange for other provinces,

the possession of which was doubtful: but Louis successfully

resisted this first act of usurpation. Bonaparte was too

intent on the great business in Spain, to risk any commotion

in the north, where the declaration of Russia against Sweden

already sufficiently occupied him. He therefore did not insist

upon, and even affected indifference to the proposed

augmentation of the territory of the empire. … But when he

got his brother Joseph recognized, and when he had himself

struck an important blow in the Peninsula, he began to change

his tone to Louis. On the 20th of December [1808] he wrote to

him a very remarkable letter, which exhibits the unreserved

expression of that tyranny which he wished to exercise over

all his family in order to make them the instruments of his

despotism. He reproached Louis for not following his system of

policy, telling him that he had forgotten he was a Frenchman,

and that he wished to become a Dutchman. Among other things he

said: … 'I have been obliged a second time to prohibit trade

with Holland. In this state of things we may consider

ourselves really at war. In my speech to the legislative body

I manifested my displeasure; for I will not conceal from you,

that my intention is to unite Holland with France.

{2299}

This will be the most severe blow I can aim against England,

and will deliver me from the perpetual insults which the

plotters of your cabinet are constantly directing against me.

The mouths of the Rhine, and of the Meuse, ought, indeed, to

belong to me. … The following are my conditions:—First, the

interdiction of all trade and communication with England.

Second. The supply of a fleet of fourteen sail of the line,

seven frigates and seven brigs or corvettes, armed and manned.

Third, an army of 25,000 men. Fourth. The suppression of the

rank of Marshals. Fifth. The abolition of all the privileges

of nobility, which is contrary to the constitution. Your

Majesty may negotiate on these bases with the Duke de Cadore,

through the medium of your minister; but be assured, that on

the entrance of the first packet-boat into Holland, I will

restore my prohibitions, and that the first Dutch officer who

may presume to insult my flag, shall be seized and hanged at

the main-yard. Your Majesty will find in me a brother if you

prove yourself a Frenchman; but if you forget the sentiments

which attach you to our common country, you cannot think it

extraordinary that I should lose sight of those which nature

has raised between us. In short, the union of Holland and

France will be, of all things, most useful to France, Holland

and the Continent, because it will be most injurious to

England. This union must be effected willingly, or by force.'

… Here the correspondence between the two brothers was

suspended for a time; but Louis still continued exposed to new

vexations on the part of Napoleon. About the end of 1809, the

Emperor summoned to Paris the sovereigns who might be called

his vassals. Among the number was Louis, who, however, did not

shew himself very willing to quit his states. He called a

council of his ministers, who were of opinion that for the

interest of Holland he ought to make this new sacrifice. He

did so with resignation. Indeed, every day passed on the

throne was a sacrifice to Louis. … Amidst the general

silence of the servants of the empire, and even of the kings

and princes assembled in the capital, he ventured to say:—'I

have been deceived by promises which were never intended to be

kept. Holland is tired of being the sport of France.' The

Emperor, who was unused to such language as this, was highly

incensed at it. Louis had now no alternative, but to yield to

the incessant exactions of Napoleon, or to see Holland united

to France. He chose the latter, though not before he had

exerted all his feeble power in behalf of the subjects whom

Napoleon had consigned to him; but he would not be the

accomplice of him who had resolved to make those subjects the

victims of his hatred against England. … Louis was, however,

permitted to return to his states, to contemplate the

stagnating effect of the continental blockade on every branch

of trade and industry, formerly so active in Holland.

Distressed at witnessing evils to which he could apply no

remedy, he endeavoured by some prudent remonstrances to avert

the utter ruin with which Holland was threatened. On the 23rd

of March, 1810, he wrote … [a] letter to Napoleon. …

Written remonstrances were not more to Napoleon's taste than

verbal ones at a time when, as I was informed by my friends,

whom fortune chained to his destiny, no one presumed to

address a word to him, except to answer his questions. … His

brother's letter highly roused his displeasure. Two months

after he received it, being on a journey in the north, he

addressed to Louis from Ostend a letter," followed in a few

days by another in which latter he said: "'I want no more

phrases and protestations. It is time I should know whether

you intend, by your follies, to ruin Holland. I do not choose

that you should again send a Minister to Austria, or that you

should dismiss the French who are in your service. I have

recalled my Ambassador, as I intend only to have a

Chargé-d'affaires in Holland. The Sieur Serrurier, who remains

there in that capacity, will communicate to you my intentions.

My Ambassador shall no longer be exposed to your insults.

Write to me no more those set phrases which you have been

repeating for the last three years, and the falsehood of which

is proved every day. This is the last letter I will ever write

to you as long as I live.' … Thus reduced to the cruel

alternative of crushing Holland with his own hands, or leaving

that task to the Emperor, Louis did not hesitate to lay down

his sceptre. Having formed this resolution, he addressed a

message to the legislative body of the kingdom of Holland,

explaining the motives of his abdication. … The French

troops entered Holland under the command of the Duke de

Reggio; and that Marshal, who was more King than the King

himself, threatened to occupy Amsterdam. Louis then descended

from his throne [July 1, 1810]. … Louis bade farewell to the

people of Holland in a proclamation, after the publication of

which he repaired to the waters of Toeplitz. There he was

living in tranquil retirement, when he learnt that his brother

had united Holland to the Empire [December 10, 1810]. He then

published a protest. … Thus there seemed to be an end of all

intercourse between these two brothers, who were so opposite

in character and disposition. But Napoleon, who was enraged

that Louis should have presumed to protest, and that in

energetic terms, against the union of his kingdom with the

empire, ordered him to return to France, whither he was

summoned in his character of Constable and French Prince.

Louis, however, did not think proper to obey this summons, and

Napoleon, faithful to his promise of never writing to him

again, ordered … [a] letter to be addressed to him by M.

Otto, … Ambassador from France to Vienna," saying: "'The

Emperor requires that Prince Louis shall return, at the

latest, by the 1st of December next, under pain of being

considered as disobeying the constitution of the empire and

the head of his family, and being treated accordingly.'"

M. de Bourrienne,

Private Memoirs of Napoleon,

volume 4, chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

D. A. Bingham,

Marriages of the Bonapartes,

chapter 11 (volume 2).

T. C. Grattan,

History of the Netherlands,

chapter 22.

See, also,

FRANCE: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-OCTOBER).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1809.

The English Walcheren expedition against Antwerp.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER).

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1811.

Java taken by the English.

See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

{2300}

NETHERLANDS: (Holland): A. D. 1813.

Expulsion of the French.

Independence regained.

Restoration of the Prince of Orange.

"The universal fermentation produced in Europe by the

deliverance of Germany was not long of spreading to the Dutch

Provinces.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813, to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

The yoke of Napoleon, universally grievous from the enormous

pecuniary exactions with which it was attended, and the

wasting military conscriptions to which it immediately led,

had been in a peculiar manner felt as oppressive in Holland,

from the maritime and commercial habits of the people, and the

total stoppage of all their sources of industry, which the

naval war and long-continued blockade of their coasts had

occasioned. They had tasted for nearly twenty years of the

last drop of humiliation in the cup of the vanquished—that of

being compelled themselves to aid in upholding the system

which was exterminating their resources, and to purchase with

the blood of their children the ruin of their country. These

feelings, which had for years existed in such intensity, as to

have rendered revolt inevitable but for the evident

hopelessness at all former times of the attempt, could no

longer be restrained after the battle of Leipsic had thrown

down the colossus of French external power, and the approach

of the Allied standards to their frontiers had opened to the

people the means of salvation.

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

From the Hansa Towns the flame of independence spread to the

nearest cities of the old United Provinces; and the small

number of French troops in the country at once encouraged

revolt and paved the way for external aid. At this period, the

whole troops which Napoleon had in Holland did not exceed

6,000 French, and two regiments of Germans, upon whose

fidelity to their colours little reliance could be placed.

Upon the approach of the Allied troops under Bulow, who

advanced by the road of Munster, and Winzingerode, who soon

followed from the same quarter, the douaniers all withdrew

from the coast, the garrison of Amsterdam retired, and the

whole disposable force of the country was concentrated at

Utrecht, to form a corps of observation, and act according to

circumstances. This was the signal for a general revolt. At

Amsterdam [November 15], the troops were no sooner gone than

the inhabitants rose in insurrection, deposed the Imperial

authorities, hoisted the orange flag, and established a

provisional government with a view to the restoration of the

ancient order of things; yet not violently or with cruelty,

but with the calmness and composure which attest the exercise

of social rights by a people long habituated to their

enjoyment. The same change took place, at the same time and in

the same orderly manner, at Rotterdam, Dordrecht, Delft,

Leyden, Haarlem, and the other chief towns; the people,

everywhere, amidst cries of 'Orange Boven' and universal

rapture, mounted the orange cockade, and reinstated the

ancient authorities. … Military and political consequences

of the highest importance immediately followed this

uncontrollable outbreak of public enthusiasm. A deputation

from Holland waited on the Prince Regent of England and the

Prince of Orange, in London: the latter shortly after embarked

on board an English line-of-battle ship, the Warrior, and on

the 27th landed at Scheveling, from whence he proceeded to the

Hague. Meantime the French troops and coast-guards, who had

concentrated at Utrecht, seeing that the general effervescence

was not as yet supported by any solid military force, and that

the people, though they had all hoisted the orange flag, were

not aided by any corps of the Allies, recovered from their

consternation, and made it general forward movement against

Amsterdam. Before they got there, however, a body of 300

Cossacks had reached that capital, where they were received

with enthusiastic joy: and this advanced guard was soon after

followed by General Benkendorf's brigade, which, after

travelling by post from Zwoll to Harderwyk, embarked at the

latter plage, and, by the aid of a favourable wind, reached

Amsterdam on the 1st December. The Russian general immediately

advanced against the forts of Mayder and Halfweg, of which he

made himself master, taking twenty pieces of cannon and 600

prisoners; while on the eastern frontier, General Oppen, with

Bulow's advanced guards, carried Dornbourg by assault on the

23d, and, advancing against Arnheim, threw the garrison, 3,000

strong, which strove to prevent the place being invested, with

great loss back into the town. Next day, Bulow himself came up

with the main strength of his corps, and, as the ditches were

still dry, hazarded an escalade, which proved entirely

successful; the greater part of the garrison retiring to

Nimeguen, by the bridge of the Rhine. The French troops,

finding themselves thus threatened on all sides, withdrew

altogether from Holland: the fleet at the Texel hoisted the

orange flag, with the exception of Admiral Verhuel, who, with

a body of marines that still proved faithful to Napoleon,

threw himself with honourable fidelity into the fort of the

Texel. Amsterdam, amidst transports of enthusiasm, received

the beloved representative of the House of Orange. Before the

close of the year, the tricolour flag floated only on

Bergen-op-zoom and a few of the southern frontier fortresses;

and Europe beheld the prodigy of the seat of war having been

transferred in a single year from the banks of the Niemen to

those of the Scheldt."

Sir A. Alison,

History of Europe, 1789-1815,

chapter 82 (volume 17).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1814 (May-June).

Belgium, or the former Austrian provinces and Liege, annexed

to Holland, and the kingdom of the Netherlands created.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);

and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1815.

The Waterloo campaign.

Defeat and overthrow of Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1816.

Accession to the Holy Alliance.

See HOLY ALLIANCE.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.

Belgian revolt and acquisition of independence.

Dissolution of the kingdom of the Netherlands.

Creation of the kingdom of Belgium.

Siege of Antwerp citadel.

"In one sense the union" of Belgium with Holland, in the

kingdom of the Netherlands created by the Congress of Vienna,

"was defensible. Holland enjoyed more real freedom than any

other Continental monarchy; and the Belgians had a voice in

the government of the united territory. But, in another sense,

the union was singularly unhappy. The phlegmatic Dutch

Protestant was as indisposed to unite with the light-hearted

Roman Catholic Belgian as the languid waters of the Saone with

the impetuous torrent of the Rhone. Different as were the

rivers, they met at last; and diplomatists probably hoped that

Dutch and Belgians would similarly combine.

{2301}

These hopes were disappointed, and the two people, incapable

of union, endeavoured to find independent courses for

themselves in separate channels. The grounds of Belgian

dislike to the union were intelligible. Belgium had a

population of 3,400,000 souls; Holland of only 2,000,000

persons. Yet both countries had an equal representation in the

States-General. Belgium was taxed more heavily than Holland,

and the produce of taxation went almost entirely into Dutch

pockets. The Court, which was Dutch, resided in Holland. The

public offices were in Holland. Four persons out of every five

in the public service at home were Dutchmen. The army was

almost exclusively commanded by Dutchmen. Dutch professors

were appointed to educate the Belgian youths in Belgian

schools, and a Dutch director was placed over the Bank of

Brussels. The Court even endeavoured to change the language of

the Belgian race, and to substitute Dutch for French in all

judicial proceedings. The Belgians were naturally irritated.

… On the 2nd of June, the States-General were dissolved; the

elections were peacefully concluded; and the closest observers

failed to detect any symptoms of the coming storm on the

political horizon. The storm which was to overwhelm the union

was, in fact, gathering in another country. The events of July

[at Paris] were to shake Europe to the centre. 'On all sides

crowns were falling into the gutter,' and the shock of

revolution in Paris was felt perceptibly in Brussels. Nine

years before the States-General had imposed a mouture, or tax

upon flour. The tax had been carried by a very small majority;

and the majority had been almost entirely composed of Dutch

members. On the 25th of August, 1830, the lower orders in

Brussels engaged in a serious riot, ostensibly directed

against this tax. The offices of a newspaper, conducted in the

interests of the Dutch, were attacked; the house of the

Minister of Justice was set on fire; the wine and spirit shops

were forced open; and the mob, maddened by liquor, proceeded

to other acts of pillage. On the morning of the 26th of August

the troops were called out and instructed to restore order.

Various conflicts took place between the soldiers and the

people; but the former gained no advantage over the rioters,

and were withdrawn into the Place Royale, the central square

of the town. Relieved from the interference of the military,

the mob continued the work of destruction. Respectable

citizens, dreading the destruction of their property,

organised a guard for the preservation of order. Order was

preserved; but the task of preserving it had converted

Brussels into an armed camp. It had placed the entire control

of the town in the hands of the inhabitants. Men who had

unexpectedly obtained a mastery over the situation could

hardly be expected to resign the power which events had given

to them. They had taken up their arms to repress a mob;

victors over the populace, they turned their arms against the

Government, and boldly despatched a deputation to the king

urging the concession of reforms and the immediate convocation

of the States-General. The king had received the news of the

events at Brussels with considerable alarm. Troops had been at

once ordered to march on the city; and, on the 28th of August,

an army of 6,000 men had encamped under its walls. The

citizens, however, represented that the entrance of the troops

would be a signal for the renewal of the disturbances; and the

officer in command in consequence agreed to remain passively

outside the walls. The king sent the Prince of Orange to make

terms with his insurgent subjects. The citizens declined to

admit the prince into the city unless he came without his

soldiers. The prince, unable to obtain any modification of

this stipulation, was obliged to trust himself to the people

alone. It was already evident that the chief town of Belgium

had shaken off the control of the Dutch Government. The king,

compelled to submit to the demands of the deputation, summoned

the States-General for the 13th of September. But this

concession only induced the Belgians to raise their demands.

They had hitherto only asked for reforms: they now demanded

independence, the dissolution of the union, and the

independent administration of Belgium. The revolution had

originally been confined to Brussels: it soon extended to

other towns. Civic guards were organised in Liege, Tournay,

Mons, Verviers, Bruges, and other places. Imitating the

example of Brussels, they demanded the dissolution of the

union between Holland and Belgium. The troops, consisting of a

mixed force of Dutch and Belgians, could not be depended on;

and the restoration of the royal authority was obviously

impossible. On the 13th of September the States-General met.

The question of separation was referred to them by the king;

and the Deputies leisurely applied themselves to its

consideration, in conformity with the tedious rules by which

their proceedings were regulated. Long before they had

completed the preliminary discussions which they thought

necessary the march of events had taken the question out of

their hands. On the 19th of September fresh disturbances broke

out in Brussels. The civic guard, attempting to quell the

riot, was overpowered; and the rioters, elated with their

success, announced their intention of attacking the troops,

who were encamped outside the city walls. Prince Frederick of

Orange, concluding that action was inevitable, at last made up

his mind to attack the town. Dividing the forces under his

command into six columns, he directed them, on the 23rd of

September, against the six gates of the city. … Three of the

columns succeeded, after a serious struggle, in obtaining

possession of the higher parts of the city; but they were

unable to accomplish any decisive victory. For four days the

contest was renewed. On the 27th of September, the troops,

unable to advance, were withdrawn from the positions which

they had won. On the following day the Lower Chamber of the

States-General decided in favour of a dissolution of the

union. The crown of Belgium was evidently dropping into the

gutter; but the king decided on making one more effort to

preserve it in his family. On the 4th of October he sent the

Prince of Orange to Antwerp, authorising him to form a

separate Administration for the southern provinces of the

kingdom, and to place himself at the head of it. …

Arrangements of this character had, however, already become

impossible. On the very day on which the prince reached

Antwerp the Provisional Government at Brussels issued an

ordonnance declaring the independence of Belgium and the

immediate convocation of a National Congress. …

{2302}

On the 10th of October, the Provisional Government, following

up its former ordonnance, issued a second decree, regulating

the composition of the National Congress and the

qualifications of the electors. On the 12th the elections were

fixed for the 27th of October. On the 10th of November the

Congress was formally opened; and on the 18th the independence

of the Belgian people was formally proclaimed by its

authority. … On the 4th of November the Ministers of the

five great Continental powers, assembled in London at the

invitation of the King of Holland, declared that an armistice

should immediately be concluded, and that the Dutch troops

should be withdrawn from Belgium. The signature of this

protocol, on the eve of the meeting of the National Congress,

virtually led to the independence of the Belgian people, which

the Congress immediately proclaimed."

S. Walpole,

History of England from 1815,

chapter 11 (volume 2).

It still remained for the Powers to provide a king for

Belgium, and to gain the consent of the Dutch and Belgian

Governments to the territorial arrangements drawn up for them.

The first difficulty was overcome in June, 1831, by the choice

of Prince Leopold of Saxe Coburg to be king of Belgium. The

second problem was complicated by strong claims on both sides

to the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg. The Conference solved it by

dividing the disputed territory between Belgium and Holland.

The Belgians accepted the arrangement; the King of Holland

rejected it, and was coerced by France and England, who

expelled his forces from Antwerp, which he still held. A

French army laid siege to the citadel, while an English fleet

blockaded the river Scheldt. After a bombardment of 24 days,

December, 1832, the citadel surrendered; but it was not until

April, 1839, the final Treaty of Peace between Belgium and

Holland was signed.

C. A. Fyffe,

History of Modern Europe,

volume 2, chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

Sir A. Alison,

History of Europe, 1815-1852,

chapters 24-25 and 29.

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1884.

Peaceful years of the kingdoms of Belgium and Holland.

Constitutional and material progress.

The contest of Catholics and Liberals in Belgium.

"After winning its independence (1830) Belgium has also been

free to work out its own career of prosperous development.

King Leopold I. during his long reign showed himself the model

of a constitutional sovereign in furthering its progress. The

first railway on the continent was opened in 1835 between

Brussels and Malines, and its railway system is now most

complete. Its population between 1830 and 1880 increased by

more than one-third, and now is the densest in all Europe,

numbering 5,900,000 on an area only twice as large as

Yorkshire. … When Napoleon III. seized on power in France

all Belgians feared that he would imitate his uncle by seizing

Belgium and all land up to the Rhine; but the close connection

of King Leopold [brother of Prince Albert, the Prince Consort]

with the English royal house and his skilful diplomacy averted

the danger from Belgium. The chief internal trouble has been

the strife between the liberal and clerical parties. In 1850

there were over 400 monasteries, with some 12,000 monks and

nuns, in the land, and the Liberals made strenuous efforts for

many years to abolish these and control education; but neither

party could command a firm and lasting majority. In the midst

of these eager disputes King Leopold I. died (1865), after

seeing his kingdom firmly established in spite of ministerial

crises every few months. His son Leopold II. has also been a

constitutional sovereign. In 1867 the Luxemburg question

seemed to threaten the Belgian territory, for Napoleon III.

had secretly proposed to Bismarck that France should take

Belgium and Luxemburg, as well as all land up to the Rhine, as

the price of his friendship to the new German Confederation.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866-1870.

… Again in 1870 the Franco-German war threw a severe strain

on Belgium to guard its neutrality, but after Sedan this

danger vanished. The strife between the liberal and clerical

parties went on as fiercely in Belgium as in France itself,

and after the rise and fall of many ministries the Liberals

succeeded in closing the convents and gaining control over

State education. The constitution is that of a limited

monarchy with responsible ministers, Senate, and Chamber of

Deputies. The electorate up to 1884 was limited to citizens

paying 42 francs a year in direct taxes, but in 1884 it was

extended by the clerical party acting for once in connection

with the radicals." (On the revised constitution of 1893 see

below: 1892-1893.) In the kingdom of the Netherlands

(Holland), King William, after he had been forced to recognize

Belgian independence, "abdicated [1840] in favour of his son.

The latter soon restored a good understanding with Belgium,

and improved the finances of his kingdom; so the upheavals of

1848 caused no revolution in Holland, and only led to a

thorough reform of its constitution. The Upper House of the

States-General consists of members chosen for nine years by

the estates or councils of the provinces, those of the lower

house by electors having a property qualification. The king's

ministers are now responsible to the Parliament. Liberty of

the press and of public worship is recognised. The chief

questions in Holland have been the reduction of its heavy

debt, the increase of its army and navy, the improvement of

agriculture and commerce, and the management of large and

difficult colonial possessions." Holland "has to manage

28,000,000 subjects over the seas, mostly in Malaysia. She

there holds all Java, parts of Borneo, Sumatra, Timor, the

Moluccas, Celebes, and the western half of New Guinea; in

South America, Dutch Guiana and, the Isle of Curaçoa. It was

not till 1862 that the Dutch at a great cost freed the slaves

in their West Indian possessions [viz., the islands of

Curaçoa, Aruba, St. Martin, Bonaire, St. Eustache, and Saba];

but their rule in Malaysia is still conducted with the main

purpose of securing revenue by means of an oppressive labour

system. The Dutch claims in Sumatra are contested by the

people of Acheen in the northern part of that great island."

J. H. Rose,

A Century of Continental History,

chapter 43.

"The politico-religious contest between Catholics and Liberals

exists to a greater or less degree in all Catholic countries,

and even in Protestant ones possessing, like Prussia, Catholic

provinces: but nowhere is political life more completely

absorbed by this antagonism than in Belgium, nowhere are the

lines of the contest more clearly traced. … In order

thoroughly to grasp the meaning of our politico-religious

strife, we must cast a glance at its origin. We find this in

the constitution adopted by the Congress after the Revolution

of 1830.

{2303}

This constitution enjoins and sanctions all the freedom and

liberty which has long been the privilege of England, and of

the States she has founded in America and Australia. A free

press, liberty as regards education, freedom to form

associations or societies, provincial and communal autonomy,

representative administration—all exactly as in England. How

was it that the Congress of 1830, the majority of whose

members belonged to the Catholic party, came to vote in favour

of principles opposed, not only to the traditions, but also

the dogmas of the Catholic Church? This singular fact is

explained by the writings of the celebrated priest and author,

La Mennais, whose opinions at that time exercised the greatest

influence. La Mennais's first book, 'L'Essai sur

l'indifference en Matière de Religion,' lowered all human

reasoning, and delivered up society to the omnipotent guidance

of the Pope. This work, enthusiastically perused by bishops,

seminarists, and priests, established the author as an

unprecedented authority. When, after the year 1828, he

pretended that the Church would regain her former power by

separating herself from the State, retaining only her liberty,

most of his admirers professed themselves of his opinion. …

Nearly all Belgian priests were at that time La Mennaisiens.

They accepted the separation of Church and State, and, in

their enthusiastic intoxication, craved but liberty to

reconquer the world. It was thus that Catholics and Liberals

united to vote for Belgium the constitution still in existence

after a half-century. In 1832, Pope Gregory XVI., as Veuillot

tells us, 'hurled a thunderbolt at the Belgian constitution in

its cradle.' In a famous Encyclical, since incessantly quoted,

the Pope declared, ex cathedrâ, that modern liberties were a

plague, 'a delirium,' from whence incalculable evils would

inevitably flow. Shortly afterwards, the true author of the

Belgian constitution, La Mennais, having been to Rome in the

vain hope of converting the Pope to his views, was repulsed,

and, a little later, cast out from the bosom of the Church.

The separation was effected. There was an end to that 'union'

of Catholics and Liberals which had overthrown King William

and founded a new political order in Belgium. It was not,

however, till after 1838 that the two parties distinctly

announced their antagonism. … The Liberal party is composed

of all who, having faith in human reason and in liberty, fear

a return to the past, and desire reforms of all sorts. …

When Catholics are mentioned as opposed to Liberals, it is as

regards their political, not their religious opinions. The

Liberals are all, or nearly all, Catholics also; at all events

by baptism. … The Catholic party is guided officially by the

bishops. It is composed, in the first place, of all the

clergy, of the convents and monasteries, and of those who from

a sentiment of religious obedience do as they are directed by

the bishop of the diocese and the Pope, and also of genuine

Conservatives, otherwise called reactionists—that is to say,

of those who consider that liberty leads to anarchy, and

progress to communism. This section comprises the great mass

of the proprietors and cultivators of the soil and the country

populations. … We see that in Belgium parties are divided,

and fight seriously for an idea; they are separated by no

material, but by spiritual interests. The Liberals defend

liberty, which they consider menaced by the aims of the

Church. The Catholics defend religion, which they look upon as

threatened by their adversaries' doctrines. Both desire to

fortify themselves against a danger, non-existent yet, but

which they foresee. … The educational question, which has

been the centre of the political life of the country during

the last two years, deserves expounding in detail. Important

in itself, and more important still in its consequences, it is

everywhere discussed with passion. Primary education was

organized here in 1842, by a law of compromise adopted by the

two parties, thanks to M. J. B. Nothomb, one of the founders

of the Belgian Constitution, who died recently in Berlin,

where he had been Belgian Minister for a space of upwards of

forty years. This law enacted that every parish should possess

schools sufficient for the number of children needing

instruction; but it allowed the 'commune' to adopt private

schools. The inspection of the public schools and the control

of the religious teaching given by the masters and mistresses,

was reserved to the clergy. Advanced Liberals began to clamour

for the suppression of this latter clause as soon as they

perceived the preponderating influence it gave the priests

over the lay teachers. The reform of the law of 1842 became

the watchword of the Liberal party, and this was ultimately

effected in July, 1879; now each parish or village must

provide the schools necessary for the children of its

inhabitants, and must not give support to any private school.

Ecclesiastical inspection is suppressed. Religious instruction

may be given by the ministers of the various denominations, in

the school buildings, but out of the regular hours. This

system has been in force in Holland since the commencement of

the present century. Lay instruction only is given by the

communal masters and mistresses; no dogmas are taught, but the

school is open to the clergy of all denominations who choose

to enter, as it is evidently their duty to do. This system,

now introduced in Belgium, has been accepted, without giving

rise to any difficulties, by both Protestants and Jews, but it

is most vehemently condemned by the Catholic priesthood. …

In less than a year they have succeeded in opening a private

school in every commune and village not formerly possessing

one. In this instance the Catholic party has shown a

devotedness really remarkable. … At the same time in all the

Churches, and nearly every Sunday, the Government schools have

been attacked, stigmatized as 'écoles sans Dieu' (schools

without God), to be avoided as the plague, and where parents

were forbidden to place their children, under pain of

committing the greatest sin. Those who disobeyed, and allowed

their children still to frequent the communal schools, were

deprived of the Sacraments of the Church. They were refused

absolution at confession, and the Eucharist, even at Easter.

All the schoolmasters and mistresses were placed under the ban

of the Church, and the priests often even refused to pronounce

a blessing on their marriage. It is only lately that, contrary

instructions having been received from Rome, this extreme step

is now very rarely resorted to. The Liberal majority in the

House has ordered a Parliamentary inquiry—which is still in

progress, and the results of which in this last six months,

fill the columns of our newspapers—in order to ascertain by

what means the clergy succeed in filling their schools. … As

a natural consequence of the excessive heat of the conflict, the

two parties end by justifying the accusations of their

adversaries.

{2304}

The Liberals become anti-religionists, because religion

is—and is daily becoming more and more—anti-liberal; and the

Catholics are afraid of liberty, because it is used against

their faith, which is, in their opinion, the only true and the

necessary foundation of civilization. … The existence in

Belgium of two parties so distinctly and clearly separated,

offers, however, some compensation: it favours the good

working of Parliamentary government."

E. de Laveleye,

The Political Condition of Belgium

(Contemporary Review, April, 1882),

pages 715-724, with foot-note.

NETHERLANDS: (Belgium): A. D. 1876-1890.

The founding of the Congo Free State.

See CONGO FREE STATE.

NETHERLANDS: (Holland, or the Kingdom of the Netherlands):

A. D. 1887.

Revision of the Constitution.

The constitution of 1848 (see above), in the Kingdom of the

Netherlands, was revised in 1887, but in a very conservative

spirit. Attempts to make the suffrage universal, and to effect

a separation of church and state, were defeated. The suffrage

qualification by tax-payment was reduced to ten guilders, and

certain classes of lodgers were also admitted to the

franchise, more than doubling the total number of voters,

which is now estimated to be about 290,000. All private

soldiers and non-commissioned officers of the regular army are

excluded from the franchise. The upper chamber of the States

General is elected as before by the Provincial States, but its

membership is raised to fifty. The second chamber, consisting

of one hundred members, is chosen directly by the voters. In

the new constitution, the succession to the throne is

definitely prescribed, in the event of a failure of direct

heirs. Three collateral lines of descent are designated, to be

accepted in their order as follows: 1. Princess Sophia of

Saxony and her issue; 2. the descendants of the late Princess

Marian of Prussia; 3. the descendants of the late Princess

Mary of Wied. The late king of the Netherlands, William III.,

died in 1890, leaving only a daughter, ten years old, to

succeed him. The young queen, Wilhelmina, is reigning under

the regency of her mother.

The Statesman's Year-book, 1894.

ALSO IN:

The Annual Register, 1887.

Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1887.

NETHERLANDS: (Belgium): A. D. 1892-1893.

The revised Belgian Constitution.

Introduction of plural Suffrage.

A great agitation among the Belgian workingmen, ending in a

formidable strike, in 1890, was only quieted by the promise

from the government of a revision of the constitution and the

introduction of universal suffrage. The Constituent Chambers,

elected to perform the task of revision, were opened on the

11th of July, 1892. The amended constitution was promulgated

on the 7th of September, 1893. It confers the suffrage on

every citizen twenty-five years of age or over, domiciled in

the same commune for not less than one year, and not under

legal disqualification. The new constitution is made

especially interesting by its introduction of a system of

cumulative or plural voting. One supplementary vote is

conferred on every married citizen (or widower), thirty-five

years or more of age, having legitimate issue, and paying at

least five francs per annum house tax; also on every citizen

not less than twenty-five years old who owns real property to

the value of 2,000 francs, or who derives an income of not

less than 100 francs a year from an investment in the public

debt, or from the savings bank. Two supplementary votes are

given to each citizen twenty-five years of age who has

received certain diplomas or discharged certain functions

which imply the possession of a superior education. The same

citizen may accumulate votes on more than one of these

qualifications, but none is allowed to cast more than three.

On the adoption of the new constitution, the Brussels

correspondent of the "London Times" wrote to that journal;

"This article, which adds to manhood suffrage as it exists in

France, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, the United States, and

the Australian colonies, the safeguard of a double and triple

suffrage accorded to age, marriage, and paternity, as well as

to the possession of money saved or inherited, or of a

profession, will constitute one of the distinguishing marks of

the new Belgian Constitution. As it reposes upon the just

principle that votes must be considered in reference to their

weight rather than to their numbers, it has had the effect of

putting an immediate end to the violent political crisis which

disturbed the country. It has been accepted without much

enthusiasm, indeed, but as a reasonable compromise. The

moderates of all classes, who do not go to war for abstract

theories, think that it has a prospect of enduring." An

attempt to introduce proportional representation along with

the plural suffrage was defeated. The constitution of the

Senate raised questions hardly less important than those

connected with the elective franchise. Says the correspondent

quoted above: "The advanced Radical and Socialist parties had

proposed to supplement the Chamber, the political

representation of the territorial interests of the country, by

a Senate representing its economic interests. The great social

forces—capital, labour, and science—in their application to

agriculture, industry, and commerce, were each to send their

representatives. It may be that this formula, which would have

made of the Belgian Senate an Assembly sui generis in Europe,

may become the formula of the future. The Belgian legislators

hesitated before the novelty of the idea and the difficulty of

its application. This combination rejected, there remained for

the Senate only the alternative between two systems—namely,

to separate that Assembly from the Chamber by its origin or

else by its composition. The Senate and the Government

preferred the first of these solutions, that is to say direct

elections for the Chamber, an election by two degrees for the

Senate, either by the members of the provincial councils or by

specially elected delegates of the Communes. But these

proposals encountered from all the benches in the Chamber a

general resistance." The result was a compromise. The Senate

consists of 76 members elected directly by the people, and 26

elected by the provincial councils. The term of each is eight

years. The Senators chosen by the councils are exempted from a

property qualification; those popularly elected are required

to be owners of real property yielding not less than 12,000

francs of income, or to pay not less than 1,200 francs in

direct taxes. The legislature is empowered to restrict the

voting for Senators to citizens thirty years of age or more.

{2305}

The members of the Chamber of Representatives are apportioned

according to population and elected for four years, one half

retiring every two years. The Senate and Chamber meet annually

in November, and are required to be in session for at least

forty days; but the King may convoke extraordinary sessions,

and may dissolve the Chambers either separately or together.

In case of a dissolution, the constitution requires an

election to be held within forty days, and a meeting of the

Chambers within two months. Only the Chamber of

Representatives can originate money bills or bills relating to

the contingent for the army. The executive consists of seven

ministries, namely of Finance, of Justice, of Interior and

Instruction, of War, of Railways, Posts and Telegraphs, of

Foreign Affairs, of Agriculture, Industry and Public Works.

The King's Privy Council is a distinct body.

----------NETHERLANDS: End----------

NEUCHATÊL: Separation from Prussia.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

NEUENBERG: Capture by Duke Bernhard (1638).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

NEUSTRIA.

See AUSTRASIA.

NEUTRAL GROUND, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

NEUTRAL NATION, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.

NEUTRAL RIGHTS.

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

----------NEVADA: Start--------

NEVADA:

The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

NEVADA: A. D. 1848-1864.

Acquisition from Mexico.

Silver discoveries.

Territorial and State organization.

"Ceded to the United States at the same time, and, indeed, as

one with California [see MEXICO: A. D. 1848], this region of

the Spanish domain had not, like that west of the Sierra

Nevada, a distinctive name, but was described by local names,

and divided into valleys. In March following the treaty with

Mexico and the discovery of gold, the inhabitants of Salt Lake

valley met and organized the state of Deseret, the boundaries

of which included the whole of the recently acquired Mexican

territory outside of California, and something more." But

Congress, failing to recognize the state of Deseret, created

instead, by an act passed on the 9th of September, 1850, the

Territory of Utah, with boundaries which embraced Nevada

likewise. This association was continued until 1861, when the

Territory of Nevada was organized by act of Congress out of

western Utah. Meantime the discovery in 1859 of the

extraordinary deposit of silver which became famous as the

Comstock Lode, and other mining successes of importance, had

rapidly attracted to the region a large population of

adventurers. It was this which had brought about the separate

territorial organization. Three years later the young

territory was permitted to frame a state constitution and was

admitted into the Union in October, 1864.

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 20: Nevada, page 66.

----------NEVADA: End--------

NEVELLE, Battle of (1381).

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.

NEVILLE'S CROSS, OR DURHAM, Battle of.

A crushing defeat suffered by an army of the Scots, invading

England under their young king, David Bruce, who was taken

prisoner. The battle was fought near Durham, October 17, 1346.

J. H. Burton,

History of Scotland,

chapter 25 (volume 3).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1333-1370.

NEW ALBION, The County Palatine of.

By a royal charter, witnessed by the Deputy-General of

Ireland, at Dublin, June 21, 1634, King Charles I. granted to

Sir Edmund Plowden and eight other petitioners, the whole of

Long Island ("Manitie, or Long Isle"), together with forty

leagues square of the adjoining continent, constituting the

said domain a county palatine and calling it New Albion, while

the island received the name of Isle Plowden. "In this

document the boundaries of New Albion are so defined as to

include all of New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and

Pennsylvania embraced in a square, the eastern side of which,

forty leagues in length, extended (along the coast) from Sandy

Hook to Cape May, together with Long Island, and all other

'isles and islands in the sea within ten leagues of the shores

of the said region.' The province is expressly erected into a

county palatine, under the jurisdiction of Sir Edmund Plowden

as earl, depending upon his Majesty's' royal person and

imperial crown, as King of Ireland.'" Subsequently, within the

year 1634, the whole of the grant was acquired by and became

vested in Plowden and his three sons. Sir Edmund, who died in

1659, spent the remainder of his life in futile attempts to

make good his claim against the Swedes on the Delaware and the

Dutch, and in exploiting his magnificent title as Earl

Palatine of New Albion. The claim and the title seem to have

reappeared occasionally among his descendants until some time

near the close of the 18th century.

G. B. Keen,

Note on New Albion.

(Narrative and Critical History of America,

J. Winsor, editor, volume 3, pages 457-468).

ALSO IN:

S. Hazard,

Annals of Pennsylvania,

pages 36-38 and 108-112.

NEW AMSTERDAM.

The name originally given by the Dutch to the city of New

York.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1634; and 1653.

Also the name first given to the village out of which grew the

city of Buffalo, N. Y.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

----------NEW BRUNSWICK: Start--------

NEW BRUNSWICK:

Embraced in the Norumbega of the old geographers.

See NORUMBEGA;

also, CANADA: NAMES.

NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1621-1668.

Included in Nova Scotia.

See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1713.

Uncertain disposition by the Treaty of Utrecht.

See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1820-1837.

The Family Compact.

See CANADA: A. D. 1820-1837.

NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1854-1866.

The Reciprocity Treaty with the United States.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES AND CANADA):

A. D. 1854-1866.

NEW BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1867.

Embraced in the Confederation of the Dominion of Canada.

See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

----------NEW BRUNSWICK: End--------

NEW CÆSAREA, OR NEW JERSEY.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

NEW CARTHAGE.

The founding of.

See CARTHAGENA, THE FOUNDING OF.

NEW CASTILE.

See PERU: A. D. 1528-1531.

{2306}

----------NEW ENGLAND: Start--------

NEW ENGLAND.

[Footnote: The greater part of New England history is given

elsewhere, as the history of the several New England states,

and is only indexed in this place, instead of being repeated.]

NEW ENGLAND:

The Aboriginal Inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

NEW ENGLAND:

The Norumbega of early geographers.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1498.

First coasted by Sebastian Cabot.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1524.

Coasted by Verrazano.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1602-1607.

The voyages of Gosnold, Pring and Weymouth.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1604.

Embraced in the region claimed as Acadia by the French.

See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1605.

Coast explored by Champlain.

See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1606.

Embraced in the grant to the North Virginia Company

of Plymouth.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1607-1608.

The Popham Colony on the Kennebec.

The fruitless venture of the Plymouth Company.

See MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1614.

Named, mapped and described by Captain John Smith.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620.

The voyage of the Mayflower and the planting of Plymouth Colony.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.

Incorporation of the Council for New England,

successor to the Plymouth Company.

Its great domain and its monopoly of the Fisheries.

"While the king was engaged in the overthrow of the London

company [see VIRGINIA: A. D. 1622-1624], its more loyal rival

in the West of England [the Plymouth company, or North

Virginia branch of the Virginia company] sought new

letters-patent, with a great enlargement of their domain. The

remonstrances of the Virginia corporation and the rights of

English commerce could delay for two years, but not defeat,

the measure that was pressed by the friends of the monarch. On

the 3d of November, 1620, King James incorporated 40 of his

subjects—some of them members of his household and his

government, the most wealthy and powerful of the English

nobility—as 'The Council established at Plymouth, in the

county of Devon, for the planting, ruling, ordering, and

governing New England in America.' The territory, which was

conferred on them in absolute property, with unlimited powers

of legislation and government, extended from the 40th to the

48th degree of north latitude, and from the Atlantic to the

Pacific. The grant included the fisheries; and a revenue was

considered certain from a duty to be imposed on all tonnage

employed in them. The patent placed emigrants to New England

under the absolute authority of the corporation, and it was

through grants from that plenary power, confirmed by the

crown, that institutions the most favorable to colonial

independence and the rights of mankind came into being. The

French derided the action of the British monarch in bestowing

lands and privileges which their own sovereign, seventeen

years before, had appropriated. The English nation was

incensed at the largess of immense monopolies by the royal

prerogative; and in April, 1621, Sir Edwin Sandys brought the

grievance before the house of commons. … But the parliament

was dissolved before a bill could be perfected. In 1622, five

and thirty sail of vessels went to fish on the coasts of New

England, and made good voyages. The monopolists appealed to

King James, and he issued a proclamation, which forbade any to

approach the northern coast of America, except with the leave

of their company or of the privy council, In June, 1623,

Francis West was despatched as admiral of New England, to

exclude such fishermen as came without a license. But they

refused to pay the tax which he imposed, and his ineffectual

authority was soon resigned."

G. Bancroft,

History of the United States

(Author's last revision),

part 1, chapter 13 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

C. Deane,

New England (Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 3, chapter 9).

Sir Ferdinando Gorges,

Brief Narration

(Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 2).

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

The grants made by the Council for New England.

Settlements planted.

Nova Scotia, Maine and New Hampshire conferred.

Captain John Mason, a native of King's Lynn, in Norfolk,

became governor of Newfoundland in 1615. "While there he wrote

a tract entitled 'A Brief Discourse of the Newfoundland,' and

sent it to his friend Sir John Scot of Edinburgh, to peruse,

and to print if he thought it worthy. It was printed in the

year 1620. … In the spring or summer of 1621, Mason returned

into England, and immediately found proof of the effect of his

little tract. … Sir William Alexander, afterwards Earl of

Stirling, immediately sought him out. He had been appointed

Gentleman of the Privy Chamber to Prince Henry, honored with

Knighthood, and was Master of Requests for Scotland. He

invited Mason to his house, where he discussed with him a

scheme of Scotch colonization, and he resolved to undertake

settling a colony in what is now Nova Scotia. He begged Mason

to aid him in procuring a grant of this territory from the

Council for New England, it being within their limits. Mason

referred him to Sir Ferdinando Gorges, one of the Council and

their Treasurer. The king readily recommended Alexander to

Gorges, and Gorges heartily approved the plan. In September,

1621, Alexander obtained a Royal Patent for a tract of land

which he called New Scotland, a name attractive to his

countrymen. This must have been gratifying to Mason, who had

urged Scotch emigration in his tract printed only a year

before. The Council for New England, established in November,

1620, was now granting and ready to grant to associations or

to individuals parcels of its vast domain in America. … The

second patent for land granted by the Council was to Captain

John Mason, bearing date March 9, 1621-2. It was all the land

lying between the Naumkeag and the Merrimac rivers, extending

back from the sea-coast to the heads of both of these rivers,

with all the islands within three miles of the shore. Mason

called this Mariana. This tract of territory lies wholly

within the present bounds of Massachusetts. We now arrive at a

period when Mason and Gorges have a joint interest in New

England.

{2307}

On the 10th of August, 1622, the Council made a third grant.

This was to Gorges and Mason jointly of land lying upon the

sea-coast between the Merrimac and the Kennebec rivers,

extending three-score miles into the country, with all islands

within five leagues of the premises to be, or intended to be,

called the Province of Maine. Thus was the territory destined

seven years later to bear the name of New Hampshire, first

carved from the vast domain of New England, whose boundaries

were fixed by the great circles of the heavens. Thus was Capt.

Mason joint proprietor of his territory afterwards known as

New Hampshire, before a single settler had built a cabin on

the Pascataqua. Captain Robert Gorges, son of Sir Ferdinando,

was authorized to give the grantees possession of this new

Province. Great enthusiasm on the subject of colonization now

prevailed in England, extending from the king, through all

ranks. … Before the year 1622 closed, the Council issued

many patents for land, in small divisions, to persons

intending to make plantations. Among the grants, is one to

David Thomson and two associates, of land on the Pascataqua.

The bounds and extent of this patent are unknown. Only the

fact that such a patent was granted is preserved. … The

Council for New England, in view of the many intended

settlements, as well as the few already made, now proposed to

set up a general government in New England. Captain Robert

Gorges, recently returned from the Venetian wars, was

appointed Governor, with Captain Francis West, Captain

Christopher Levett, and the governor of New Plymouth as his

Council. Captain Gorges arrived here the middle of September,

1623, having been preceded some months by Captain West, who

was Vice-Admiral of New England as well as Councillor. Captain

Levett came as late as November. … The next year, 1624, war

between England and Spain broke out, and drew off for a while

Gorges and Mason from their interests in colonization. Gorges

was Captain of the Castle and Island of St. Nicholas, at

Plymouth, a post that he had held for thirty years; and he was

now wholly taken up with the duties of his office. Mason's

services were required as a naval officer of experience. …

In 1626 England plunged into a war with France, without having

ended the war with Spain. Captain Mason was advanced to be

Treasurer and Paymaster of the English armies employed in the

wars. There was no time now to think of American colonization.

His duties were arduous. … In 1629 peace was made with

France, and the war with Spain was coming to an end. No sooner

were Gorges and Mason a little relieved from their public

duties than they sprang at once to their old New England

enterprise. They resolved to push forward their interests.

They came to some understanding about a division of their

Province of Maine. On the 7th of November, 1629, a day

memorable in the history of New Hampshire, the Council granted

to Mason a patent of all that part of the Province of Maine

lying between the Merrimac and Pascataqua rivers; and Mason

called it New Hampshire, out of regard to the favor in which

he held Hampshire in England, where he had resided many years.

… This grant had hardly been made when Champlain was brought

to London, a prisoner, from Canada, by Kirke. The French had

been driven from that region. Gorges and Mason procured

immediately a grant from the Council of a vast tract of land

in the region of Lake Champlain, supposed to be not only a

fine country for peltry, but to contain vast mineral wealth.

The Province was called Laconia on account of the numerous

lakes supposed or known to be there, and was the most northern

grant hitherto made by the Council. The patent bears date

November 17, 1629, only ten days later than Mason's New

Hampshire grant. … For the purpose of advancing the

interests of Gorges and Mason in Laconia as well as on the

Pascataqua, they joined with them six merchants in London, and

received from the Council a grant dated November 3, 1631, of a

tract of land lying on both sides of the Pascataqua river, on

the sea-coast and within territory already owned by Gorges and

Mason in severalty. This patent, called the Pascataqua Patent,

covered, on the west side of the river, the present towns of

Portsmouth, New Castle, Rye and part of Greenland; on the east

side, Kittery, Eliot, the Berwicks, and the western part of

Lebanon."

C. W. Tuttle,

Captain John Mason

(Prince Society Publications, 1887),

pages 12-24.

ALSO IN:

S. F. Haven,

Grants under the Great Council for New England

(Lowell Institute. Lecture: Early History of Massachusetts,

pages 127-162).

J. P. Baxter, editor,

Sir Ferdinando Gorges and his Province of Maine

(Prince Society Publications 1890).

J. G. Palfrey,

History of New England,

volume 1, page 397, foot-note.

See, also,

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629;

and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1631.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1623-1629.

The Dorchester Company and the royal charter to

the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.

The new patent to Plymouth Colony.

See MASSACHUSETTS:

A. D. 1623-1629 PLYMOUTH COLONY.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1629-1630.

The immigration of the Governor and Company of

Massachusetts Bay with their charter.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637.

The pioneer settlements in Connecticut.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635.

Dissolution of the Council for New England and partitioning

of its territorial claims by lot.

"The Council for New England, having struggled through nearly

fifteen years of maladministration and ill-luck, had yielded

to the discouragements which beset it. By the royal favor, it

had triumphed over the rival Virginia Company, to be

overwhelmed in its turn by the just jealousy of Parliament,

and by dissensions among its members. The Council, having, by

profuse and inconsistent grants of its lands, exhausted its

common property, as well as its credit with purchasers for

keeping its engagements, had no motive to continue its

organization. Under these circumstances, it determined on a

resignation of its charter to the king, and a surrender of the

administration of its domain to a General Governor of his

appointment, on the condition that all the territory, a large

portion of which by its corporate action had already been

alienated to other parties [see above: A. D. 1621-1631],

should be granted in severalty by the king to the members of

the Council. Twelve associates accordingly proceeded to a

distribution of New England among themselves by lot; and

nothing was wanting to render the transaction complete, and to

transfer to them the ownership of that region, except to oust the

previous patentees, of whom the most powerful body were

colonists in Massachusetts Bay. To effect this, Sir John

Banks, Attorney-General, brought a writ of 'quo warranto' in

Westminster Hall against the Massachusetts Company. …

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1634-1637.

{2308}

It seemed that, when a few more forms should be gone through,

all would be over with the presumptuous Colony. … But …

everything went on as if Westminster Hall had not spoken. 'The

Lord frustrated their design.' The disorders of the mother

country were a safeguard of the infant liberty of New

England."

J. G. Palfrey,

History of New England,

volume 1, chapter 10.

In the parcelling of New England by lot among the members of

the Council, the divisions were:

(1) Between the St. Croix and Pemaquid, to William Alexander.

(2) From Pemaquid to Sagadahoc,

in part to the Marquis of Hamilton.

(3) Between the Kennebec and Androscoggin; and

(4) from Sagadahoc to Piscataqua, to Sir F. Gorges.

(5) From Piscataqua to the Naumkeag, to Mason.

(6) From the Naumkeag round the sea-coast,

by Cape Cod to Narragansett, to the Marquis of Hamilton.

(7) From Narragansett to the half-way bound, between that and

the Connecticut River, and 50 miles up into the country,

to Lord Edward Gorges.

(8) From this midway point to the Connecticut River, to the

Earl of Carlisle.

(9 and 10) From the Connecticut to the Hudson,

to the Duke of Lennox.

(11 and 12) From the Hudson to the limits of the

Plymouth Company's territory, to Lord Mulgrave.

W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,

History of the United States,

volume 1, page 337, foot-note.

ALSO IN:

T. Hutchinson,

History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,

volume 1, pages 48-50.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1636.

Providence Plantation and Roger Williams.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636;

and RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1636-1639.

The first American constitution.

The genesis of a state.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1636-1639.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1636-1641.

Public Registry laws.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1630-1641.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

The Pequot War.

"The region extending from the bounds of Rhode Island to the

banks of the Hudson was at the time of the colonization held

in strips of territory mainly by three tribes of the natives,

who had long had feuds among themselves and with other tribes.

They were the Narragansetts, the Mohegans, and the Pequots.

The Mohegans were then tributaries of the Pequots, and were

restive under subjection to their fierce and warlike

conquerors, who were estimated to number at the time 1,000

fighting men. … The policy of the whites was to aggravate

the dissensions of the tribes, and to make alliance with one

or more of them. Winthrop records in March, 1631, the visit to

Boston of a Connecticut Indian, probably a Mohegan, who

invited the English to come and plant near the river, and who

offered presents, with the promise of a profitable trade. His

object proved to be to engage the interest of the whites

against the Pequots. His errand was for the time unsuccessful.

Further advances of a similar character were made afterwards,

the result being to persuade the English that, sooner or

later, they would need to interfere as umpires, and must use

discretion in a wise regard to what would prove to be for

their own interest. In 1633 the Pequots had savagely mutilated

and murdered a party of English traders, who, under Captain

Stone, of Virginia, had gone up the Connecticut. The Boston

magistrates had instituted measures to call the Pequots to

account, but nothing effectual was done. The Dutch had a fort

on the river near Hartford, and the English had built one at

its mouth. In 1636 several settlements had been made in

Connecticut by the English from Cambridge, Dorchester, and

other places. John Oldham, of Watertown, had in that year been

murdered, while on a trading voyage, by some Indians belonging

on Block Island. To avenge this act our magistrates sent

Endicott, as general, with a body of 90 men, with orders to

kill all the male Indians on that island, sparing only the

women and little children. He accomplished his bloody work

only in part, but after destroying all the corn-fields and

wigwams, he turned to hunt the Pequots on the main. After this

expedition, which simply exasperated the Pequots, they made a

desperate effort to induce the Narragansetts to come into a

league with them against the English. It seemed for a while as

if they would succeed in this, and the consequences would

doubtless have been most disastrous to the whites. The scheme

was thwarted largely through the wise and friendly

intervention of Roger Williams, whose diplomacy was made

effective by the confidence which his red neighbors had in

him. The Narragansett messengers then entered into a friendly

league with the English in Boston. All through the winter of

1637 the Pequots continued to pick off the whites in their

territory, and they mutilated, tortured, roasted, and murdered

at least thirty victims, becoming more and more vindictive and

cruel in their doings. There were then in Connecticut some 250

Englishmen, and, as has been said, about 1,000 Pequot

'braves.' The authorities in Connecticut resolutely started a

military organization, giving the command to the redoubtable

John Mason, a Low-Country soldier, who had recently gone from

Dorchester. Massachusetts and Plymouth contributed their

quotas, having as allies the Mohegans, of whose fidelity they

had fearful misgivings, but who proved constant though not

very effective. Of the 160 men raised by Massachusetts, only

about 20, under Captain Underhill,—a good fighter, but a

sorry scamp,—reached the scene in season to join with Mason

in surprising the unsuspecting and sleeping Pequots in one of

their forts near the Mystic. Fire, lead, and steel with the

infuriated vengeance of Puritan soldiers against murderous and

fiendish heathen, did effectively the exterminating work.

Hundreds of the savages, in their maddened frenzy of fear and

dismay, were shot or run through as they were impaled on their

own palisades in their efforts to rush from their blazing

wigwams, crowded within their frail enclosures. The English

showed no mercy, for they felt none. … A very few of the

wretched savages escaped to another fort, to which the

victorious English followed them. This, however; they soon

abandoned, taking refuge, with their old people and children,

in the protection of swamps and thickets. Here, too, the

English, who had lost but two men killed, though they had many

wounded, and who were now reinforced, pursued and surrounded them,

allowing the aged and the children, by a parley, to come out.

{2309}

The men, however, were mostly slain, and the feeble remnant of

them which sought protection among the so-called river

Indians, higher up the Connecticut, and among the Mohawks,

were but scornfully received,—the Pequot sachem Sassacus,

being beheaded by the latter. A few of the prisoners were sold

in the West Indies as slaves, others were reduced to the same

humiliation among the Mohegans, or as farm and house servants

to the English. … But the alliances into which the whites

had entered in order to divide their savage foes were the

occasions of future entanglements in a tortuous policy, and of

later bloody struggles of an appalling character. … In all

candor the admission must be made, that the Christian white

men … allowed themselves to be trained by the experience of

Indian warfare into a savage cruelty and a desperate

vengefulness."

G. E. Ellis,

The Indians of Eastern Massachusetts

(Memorial History of Boston, volume 1, pages 252-254).

"More than 800 [of the Pequots] had been slain in the war, and

less than 200 remained to share the fate of captives. These

were distributed among the Narragansets and Mohegans, with the

pledge that they should no more be called Pequots, nor inhabit

their native country again. To make the annihilation of the

race yet more complete, their very name was extinguished in

Connecticut by legislative act. Pequot river was called the

Thames, Pequot town was named New London."

S. G. Arnold,

History of Rhode Island,

volume 1, chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

G. H. Hollister,

History of Connecticut,

chapters 2-3.

G. E. Ellis,

Life of John Mason

(Library of American Biographies, series 2, volume 3).

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1638.

The purchase, settlement and naming of Rhode Island.

The founding of New Haven Colony.

See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640;

and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1639.

The Fundamental Agreement of New Haven.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1639.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644.

The growth of population and the rise of towns.

The end of the Puritan exodus.

"Over 20,000 persons are estimated to have arrived in New

England in the fifteen years before the assembling of the Long

Parliament [1640]; one hundred and ninety-eight ships bore

them over the Atlantic; and the whole cost of their

transportation, and of the establishment of the plantation, is

computed at about £200,000, or nearly a million of dollars.

The progress of settlement had been proportionally rapid. …

Hingham was settled in 1634. Newbury, Concord, and Dedham were

incorporated in 1635. And from that date to 1643, acts were

passed incorporating Lynn, North Chelsea, Salisbury, Rowley,

Sudbury, Braintree, Woburn, Gloucester, Haverhill, Wenham, and

Hull. West of Worcester, the only town incorporated within the

present limits of the state was Springfield, for which an act

was passed in 1636. These little municipalities were, in a

measure, peculiar to New England; each was sovereign within

itself; each sustained a relation to the whole, analogous to

that which the states of our Union hold respectively to the

central power, or the constitution of the United States; and

the idea of the formation of such communities was probably

derived from the parishes of England, for each town was a

parish, and each, as it was incorporated, was required to

contribute to the maintenance of the ministry as the basis of

its grant of municipal rights. Four counties were erected at

this time: Suffolk, Essex, Middlesex, and Old Norfolk, all

which were incorporated in 1643. Each of the first three

contained eight towns, and Old Norfolk six."

J. S. Barry,

History of Massachusetts,

volume 1, chapter 8.

"Events in England had now [1640] reached a crisis, and the

Puritan party, rising rapidly into power, no longer looked to

America for a refuge. The great tide of emigration ceased to

flow; but the government of Massachusetts went on wisely and

strongly under the alternating rule of Winthrop, Dudley, and

Bellingham. The English troubles crippled the holders of the

Mason and Gorges grants, and the settlements in New

Hampshire—whither Wheelwright had gone, and where turbulence

had reigned—were gradually added to the jurisdiction of

Massachusetts. In domestic matters everything went smoothly.

There was some trouble with Bellingham, and Winthrop was again

made Governor [1642]. The oath of allegiance to the King taken

by the magistrates was abandoned, because Charles violated the

privileges of Parliament, and the last vestige of dependence

vanished. Massachusetts was divided into counties; and out of

a ludicrous contest about a stray pig, in which deputies and

magistrates took different sides, grew a very important

controversy as to the powers of deputies and assistants, which

resulted [1644] in the division of the legislature into two

branches, and a consequent improvement in the symmetry and

solidity of the political system."

H. C. Lodge,

Short History of the English Colonies,

chapter 18.

See, also,

TOWNSHIP AND TOWN-MEETING.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1655.

Colonizing enterprises of New Haven on the Delaware.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1643.

The confederation of the colonies.

In May, 1643, "a confederacy, to be known as the United

Colonies of New England, was entered into at Boston, between

delegates from Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven on the one

hand, and the General Court of Massachusetts on the other.

Supposed dangers from the Indians, and their quarrels with the

Dutch of Manhattan, had induced the people of Connecticut to

withdraw their formal objections to this measure. Two

commissioners from each colony were to meet annually, or

oftener, if necessary; the sessions to be held alternately at

Boston, Hartford, New Haven, and Plymouth; but Boston was to

have two sessions for one at each of the other places. The

commissioners, all of whom must be church members, were to

choose a president from among themselves, and everything was

to be decided by six voices out of the eight. No war was to be

declared by either colony without the consent of the

commissioners, to whose province Indian affairs and foreign

relations were especially assigned. The sustentation of the

'truth and liberties of the Gospel' was declared to be one

great object of this alliance. All war expenses were to be a

common charge, to be apportioned according to the number or

male inhabitants in each colony. Runaway servants and fugitive

criminals were to be delivered up, a provision afterward

introduced into the Constitution of the United States; and the

commissioners soon recommended, what remained ever after the

practice of New England, and ultimately became, also, a

provision of the United States Constitution, that judgments of

courts of law and probates of wills in each colony should have

full faith and credit in all the others.

{2310}

The commissioners from Massachusetts, as representing by far

the most powerful colony of the alliance, claimed an honorary

precedence, which the others readily conceded. Plymouth,

though far outgrown by Massachusetts, and even by Connecticut,

had made, however, some progress. It now contained seven

towns, and had lately adopted a representative system. But the

old town of Plymouth was in decay, the people being drawn off

to the new settlements. Bradford had remained governor, except

for four years, during two of which he had been relieved by

Edward Winslow, and the other two by Thomas Prince. New Haven

was, perhaps, the weakest member of the alliance. Besides that

town, the inhabitants of which were principally given to

commerce, there were two others, Milford and Guilford,

agricultural settlements; Southold, at the eastern extremity

of Long Island, also acknowledged the jurisdiction of New

Haven, and a new settlement had recently been established at

Stamford. … The colony of Connecticut, not limited to the

towns on the river, to which several new ones had already been

added, included also Stratford and Fairfield, on the coast of

the Sound, west of New Haven. … The town of Southampton, on

Long Island, acknowledged also the jurisdiction of

Connecticut. Fort Saybrook, at the mouth of the river, was

still an independent settlement, and Fenwick, as the head of

it, became a party to the articles of confederation. But the

next year he sold out his interest to Connecticut, and into

that colony Saybrook was absorbed. … Gorges's province of

Maine was not received into the New England alliance, 'because

the people there ran a different course both in their ministry

and civil administration.' The same objection applied with

still greater force to Aquiday and Providence."

R. Hildreth,

History of the United States,

chapter 10 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

J. S. Barry,

History of Massachusetts,

volume 1, chapter 1.

G. P. Fisher,

The Colonial Era,

chapter 8.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1644.

The chartering of Providence Plantation,

and the Rhode Island Union.

See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1647.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1649-1651.

Under Cromwell and the Commonwealth.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1649-1651.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1650.

Adjustment of Connecticut boundaries with the Dutch.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1651-1660.

The disputed jurisdiction in Maine.

The claims of Massachusetts made good.

See MAINE: A. D. 1643-1677.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1656-1661.

The persecution of Quakers.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1657-1662.

The Halfway Covenant.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1660-1664.

The protection of the Regicides.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1664.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1660-1665.

Under the Restored Monarchy.

The first collision of Massachusetts with the crown.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1662.

The Union of Connecticut and New Haven by Royal Charter.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1663.

The Rhode Island charter, and beginning of boundary conflicts

with Connecticut.

See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675.

King Philip's War: Its causes and beginning.

"The Pokanokets had always rejected the Christian faith and

Christian manners, and their chief had desired to insert in a

treaty, what the Puritans always rejected, that the English

should never attempt to convert the warriors of his tribe from

the religion of their race. The aged Massassoit—he who had

welcomed the pilgrims to the soil of New England, and had

opened his cabin to shelter the founder of Rhode Island—now

slept with his fathers, and Philip, his son, had succeeded him

as head of the allied tribes. Repeated sales of land had

narrowed their domains, and the English had artfully crowded

them into the tongues of land, as 'most suitable and

convenient for them,' and as more easily watched. The

principal seats of the Pokanokets were the peninsulas which we

now call Bristol and Tiverton. As the English villages drew

nearer and nearer to them, their hunting-grounds were put

under culture, their natural parks were turned into pastures,

their best fields for planting corn were gradually alienated,

their fisheries were impaired by more skilful methods, till

they found themselves deprived of their broad acres, and, by

their own legal contracts, driven, as it were, into the sea.

Collisions and mutual distrust were the necessary consequence.

There exists no evidence of a deliberate conspiracy on the

part of all the tribes. The commencement of war was

accidental; many of the Indians were in a maze, not knowing

what to do, and disposed to stand for the English; sure proof

of no ripened conspiracy. But they had the same complaints,

recollections, and fears: and, when they met, they could not

but grieve together at the alienation of the domains of their

fathers. They spurned the English claim of jurisdiction over

them, and were indignant that Indian chiefs or warriors should

be arraigned before a jury. And, when the language of their

anger and sorrow was reported to the men of Plymouth colony by

an Indian tale-bearer, fear professed to discover in their

unguarded words the evidence of an organized conspiracy. The

haughty Philip, who had once before been compelled to

surrender his 'English arms' and pay an onerous tribute, was,

in 1674, summoned to submit to an examination, and could not

escape suspicion. The wrath of his tribe was roused, and the

informer was murdered. The murderers, in their turn, were

identified, seized, tried by a jury, of which one half were

Indians, and, in June, 1675, on conviction, were hanged. The

young men of the tribe panted for revenge: without delay,

eight or nine of the English were slain in or about Swansey,

and the alarm of war spread through the colonies. Thus was

Philip hurried into 'his rebellion;' and he is reported to

have wept as he heard that a white man's blood had been shed.

… What chances had he of success? The English were united;

the Indians had no alliance, and half of them joined the

English, or were quiet spectators of the fight: the English

had guns enough; few of the Indians were well armed, and they

could get no new supplies: the English had towns for their

shelter and safe retreat; the miserable wigwams of the natives

were defenceless: the English had sure supplies of food; the

Indians might easily lose their precarious stores. They rose

without hope, and they fought without mercy.

{2311}

For them as a nation there was no to-morrow. … At the first

alarm, volunteers from Massachusetts joined the troops of

Plymouth; on the twenty-ninth of June, within a week from the

beginning of hostilities, the Pokanokets were driven from

Mount Hope; and in less than a month Philip was a fugitive

among the Nipmucks, the interior tribes of Massachusetts. The

little army of the colonists then entered the territory of the

Narragansetts, and from the reluctant tribe extorted a treaty

of neutrality, with a promise to deliver up every hostile

Indian. Victory seemed promptly assured. But it was only the

commencement of horrors. Canonchet, the chief sachem of the

Narragansetts, was the son of Miantonomoh; and could he forget

his father's wrongs? Desolation extended along the whole

frontier. Banished from his patrimony where the pilgrims found

a friend, and from his cabin which had sheltered exiles,

Philip and his warriors spread through the country, awakening

their race to a warfare of extermination."

G. Bancroft,

History of the United States

(author's last revision),

part 2, chapter 5 (volume 1).

"At this time, according to loose estimates, there may have

been some 36,000 Indians and 60,000 whites in New England;

10,000 of the former fit for war, and 15,000 of the latter

capable of bearing arms. … At the outset, the Narragansetts,

numbering 2,000 warriors, did not actually second Philip's

resistance. But Canonchet, their sachem, might well remember

the death of his father Miantonomo [who, taken prisoner in a

war with the Mohegans, and surrendered by them to the English,

in 1643, with a request for permission to put him to death,

was deliberately returned to his savage captors, on advice

taken from the ministers at Boston—doomed to death without

his knowledge]. … No efforts at conciliation seem to have

been made by either party; for the whites felt their

superiority (were they not 'the Lord's chosen people?'); and

Philip knew the desperate nature of the struggle between

united and well-armed whites, and divided uncontrolled

savages; yet when the emergency came he met it, and never

faltered or plead from that day forth."

C. W. Elliott,

The New England History,

volume 1, chapter 40.

ALSO IN:

B. Church,

History of King Philip's War,

(Prince Society Publication 1867).

S. G. Drake,

Aboriginal Races of North America,

book 3.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (July-September).

King Philip's War: Savage successes of the Indian enemy.

Increasing rage and terror among the colonists.

The Nipmucks, into whose country Philip retreated, "had

already commenced hostilities by attacking Mendon. They

waylaid and killed Captain Hutchinson, a son of the famous

Mrs. Hutchinson, and 16 out of a party of 20 sent from Boston

to Brookfield to parley with them. Attacking Brookfield

itself, they burned it, except one fortified house. The

inhabitants were saved by Major Willard, who, on information

of their danger, came with a troop of horse from Lancaster,

thirty miles through the woods, to their rescue. A body of

troops presently arrived from the eastward, and were stationed

for some time at Brookfield. The colonists now found that by

driving Philip to extremity they had roused a host of

unexpected enemies. The River Indians, anticipating an

intended attack upon them, joined the assailants. Deerfield

and Northfield, the northernmost towns on the Connecticut

River, settled within a few years past, were attacked and

several of the inhabitants killed and wounded. Captain Beers,

sent from Hadley to their relief with a convoy of provisions,

was surprised near Northfield and slain, with 20 of his men.

Northfield was abandoned and burned by the Indians. … Driven

to the necessity of defensive warfare, those in command on the

river determined to establish a magazine and garrison at

Hadley. Captain Lathrop, who had been dispatched from the

eastward to the assistance of the river towns, was sent with

80 men, the flower of the youth of Essex county, to guard the

wagons intended to convey to Hadley 3,000 bushels of

unthreshed wheat, the produce of the fertile Deerfield

meadows. Just before arriving at Deerfield, near a small

stream still known as Bloody Brook, under the shadow of the

abrupt conical Sugar Loaf, the southern termination of the

Deerfield mountain, Lathrop fell into an ambush, and, after a

brave resistance, perished there with all his company. Captain

Moseley, stationed at Deerfield, marched to his assistance,

but arrived too late to help him. That town, also, was

abandoned, and burned by the Indians. Springfield, about the

same time, was set on fire, but was partially saved by the

arrival of Major Treat, with aid from Connecticut. Hatfield,

now the frontier town on the north, was vigorously attacked,

but the garrison succeeded in repelling the assailants.

Meanwhile, hostilities were spreading; the Indians on the

Merrimac began to attack the towns in their vicinity; and the

whole of Massachusetts was soon in the utmost alarm. Except in

the immediate neighborhood of Boston, the country still

remained an immense forest, dotted by a few openings. The

frontier settlements … were mostly broken up, and the

inhabitants, retiring towards Boston, spread everywhere dread

and intense hatred of 'the bloody heathen.' Even the praying

Indians, and the small dependent and tributary tribes, became

objects of suspicion and terror. … Not content with

realities sufficiently frightful, superstition, as usual,

added bugbears of her own. Indian bows were seen in the sky,

and scalps in the moon. The northern lights became an object

of terror. Phantom horsemen careered among the clouds, or were

heard to gallop invisible through the air. The howling of

wolves was turned into a terrible omen. The war was regarded

as a special judgment in punishment of prevailing sins. …

About the time of the first collision with Philip, the

Tarenteens, or Eastern Indians, had attacked the settlements

in Maine and New Hampshire, plundering and burning the houses,

and massacring such of the inhabitants as fell into their

hands. This sudden diffusion of hostilities and vigor of

attack from opposite quarters, made, the colonists believe

that Philip had long been plotting and had gradually matured

an extensive conspiracy, into which most of the tribes had

deliberately entered, for the extermination of the whites.

This belief infuriated the colonists, and suggested some very

questionable proceedings. … But there is no evidence of any

deliberate concert; nor, in fact, were the Indians united. Had

they been so, the war would have been far more serious. The

Connecticut tribes proved faithful, and that colony remained

untouched. Even the Narragansetts, the most powerful

confederacy in New England, in spite of so many former

provocations, had not yet taken up arms. But they were

strongly suspected of intention to do so, and were accused,

notwithstanding their recent assurances, of giving aid and

shelter to the hostile tribes."

R. Hildreth,

History of the United States,

volume 1, chapter 14.

ALSO IN:

R. Markham,

History of King Philip's War,

chapters 7-8.

G. H. Hollister,

History of Connecticut,

volume 1, chapter 12.

M. A. Green,

Springfield, 1636-1886,

chapter 9.

{2312}

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (October-December).

King Philip's War: The crushing of the Narragansetts.

"The attitude of the powerful Narragansett tribe was regarded

with anxiety. It was known that, so far from keeping their

compact to surrender such enemies of the English as should

fall into their hands, they had harbored numbers of Philip's

dispersed retainers and allies. While the Federal

Commissioners were in session at Boston [October], Canonchet,

sachem of the Narragansetts, came thither with other chiefs,

and promised that the hostile Indians whom they acknowledged

to be then under their protection should be surrendered within

ten days. But probably the course of events on Connecticut

River emboldened them. At all events, they did not keep their

engagement. The day for the surrender came and went, and no

Indians appeared. If that faithless tribe, the most powerful

in New England, should assume active hostilities, a terrible

desolation would ensue. The Commissioners moved promptly. The

fifth day after the breach of the treaty found them

reassembled after a short recess. They immediately determined

to raise an additional force of 1,000 men for service in the

Narragansett country. They appointed Governor Winslow, of

Plymouth, to be commander-in-chief, and desired the colony of

Connecticut to name his lieutenant. The General was to place

himself at the head of his troops within six weeks, 'a solemn

day of prayer and humiliation' being kept through all the

colonies meanwhile. … Time was thus given to the

Narragansetts to make their peace 'by actual performance of

their covenants made with the Commissioners; as also making

reparation for all damages sustained by their neglect

hitherto, together with security for their further fidelity.'

… It is not known whether Philip was among the Narragansetts

at this time. Under whatever influence it was, whether from

stupidity or from confidence, they made no further attempt at

pacification. … The Massachusetts troops marched from Dedham

to Attleborough on the day before that which had been

appointed by the Commissioners for them to meet the Plymouth

levy at the northeastern corner of the Narragansett country.

The following day they reached Seekonk: A week earlier, the

few English houses at Quinsigamond (Worcester) had been burned

by a party of natives; and a few days later, the house of

Jeremiah Bull, at Pettyquamscott, which had been designated as

the place of general rendezvous for the English, was fired,

and ten men and five women and children, who had taken refuge

in it, were put to death. … The place where the

Narragansetts were to be sought was in what is now the town of

South Kingston, 18 miles distant, in a northwesterly

direction, from Pettyquamscott, and a little further from that

Pequot fort to the southwest, which had been destroyed by the

force under Captain Mason forty years before. According to

information afterwards received from a captive, the Indian

warriors here collected were no fewer than 3,500. They were on

their guard, and had fortified their hold to the best of their

skill. It was on a solid piece of upland of five or six acres,

wholly surrounded by a swamp. On the inner side of this

natural defence they had driven rows of palisades, making a

barrier nearly a rod in thickness; and the only entrance to

the enclosure was over a rude bridge consisting of a felled

tree, four or five feet from the ground, the bridge being

protected by a block-house. The English [whose forces, after a

considerable delay of the Connecticut troops, had been all

assembled at Pettyquamscott on Saturday, December 18],

breaking up their camp [on the morning of the 19th] while it

was yet dark, arrived before the place at one o'clock after

noon. Having passed, without shelter, a very cold night, they

had made a march of 18 miles through deep snow, scarcely

halting to refresh themselves with food. In this condition

they immediately advanced to the attack. The Massachusetts

troops were in the van of the storming column; next came the

two Plymouth companies; and then the force from Connecticut.

The foremost of the assailants were received with a

well-directed fire," and seven of their captains were killed

or mortally wounded. "Nothing discouraged by the fall of their

leaders, the men pressed on, and a sharp conflict followed,

which, with fluctuating success, lasted for two or three

hours. Once the assailants were beaten out of the fort; but

they presently rallied and regained their ground. There was

nothing for either party but to conquer or die, enclosed

together as they were. At length victory declared for the

English, who finished their work by setting fire to the

wigwams within the fort. They lost 70 men killed and 150

wounded. Of the Connecticut contingent alone, out of 300 men

40 were killed and as many wounded. The number of the enemy

that perished is uncertain. … What is both certain and

material is that on that day the military strength of the

formidable Narragansett tribe was irreparably broken."

J. G. Palfrey,

Compendious History of New England,

book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

S. G. Arnold,

History of Rhode Island,

volume 1, chapter 10.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1676-1678.

King Philip's War: The end of the conflict.

"While the overthrow of the Narragansetts changed the face of

things, it was far from putting an end to the war. It showed

that when the white man could find his enemy he could deal

crushing blows, but the Indian was not always so easy to find.

Before the end of January Winslow's little army was partially

disbanded for want of food, and its three contingents fell

back upon Stonington, Boston, and Plymouth. Early in February

the Federal Commissioners called for a new levy of 600 men to

assemble at Brookfield, for the Nipmucks were beginning to

renew their incursions, and after an interval of six months

the figure of Philip again appears for a moment upon the

scene. What he had been doing or where he had been, since the

Brookfield fight in August, was never known. When in February,

1676, he reappeared, it was still in company with his allies

the Nipmucks, in their bloody assault upon Lancaster. On the

10th of that month at sunrise the Indians came swarming into

the lovely village.

{2313}

Danger had already been apprehended, the pastor, Joseph

Rowlandson, the only Harvard graduate of 1652, had gone to

Boston to solicit aid, and Captain Wadsworth's company was

slowly making its way over the difficult roads from

Marlborough, but the Indians were beforehand. Several houses

were at once surrounded and set on fire, and men, women, and

children began falling under the tomahawk. The minister's

house was large and strongly built, and more than forty people

found shelter there until at length it took fire and they were

driven out by the flames. Only one escaped, a dozen or more

were slain, and the rest, chiefly women and children, taken

captive. … Among the captives was Mary Rowlandson, the

minister's wife, who afterward wrote the story of her sad

experiences. … It was a busy winter and spring for these

Nipmucks. Before February was over, their exploit at Lancaster

was followed by a shocking massacre at Medfield. They sacked

and destroyed the towns of Worcester, Marlborough, Mendon, and

Groton, and even burned some houses in Weymouth, within a

dozen miles of Boston. Murderous attacks were made upon

Sudbury, Chelmsford, Springfield, Hatfield, Hadley,

Northampton, Wrentham, Andover, Bridgewater, Scituate, and

Middleborough. On the 18th of April Captain Wadsworth, with 70

men, was drawn into an ambush near Sudbury, surrounded by 500

Nipmucks, and killed with 50 of his men; six unfortunate

captives were burned alive over slow fires. But Wadsworth's

party made the enemy pay dearly for his victory; that

afternoon 120 Nipmucks bit the dust. In such wise, by killing

two or three for one, did the English wear out and annihilate

their adversaries. Just one month from that day, Captain

Turner surprised and slaughtered 300 of these warriors near

the falls of the Connecticut river which have since borne his

name, and this blow at last broke the strength of the

Nipmucks. Meanwhile the Narragansetts and Wampanoags had

burned the towns of Warwick and Providence. After the

wholesale ruin of the great swamp fight, Canonchet had still

some 600 or 700 warriors left, and with these, on the 26th of

March, in the neighbourhood of Pawtuxet, he surprised a

company of 50 Plymouth men, under Captain Pierce, and slew

them all, but not until he had lost 140 of his best warriors.

Ten days later, Captain Denison, with his Connecticut company,

defeated and captured Canonchet, and the proud son of

Miantonomo met the same fate as his father. He was handed over

to the Mohegans and tomahawked. … The fall of Canonchet

marked the beginning of the end. In four sharp fights in the

last week of June, Major Talcott of Hartford slew from 300 to

400 warriors, being nearly all that were left of the

Narragansetts; and during the month of July Captain Church

patrolled the country about Taunton, making prisoners of the

Wampanoags. Once more King Philip, shorn of his prestige,

comes upon the scene. … Defeated at Taunton, the son of

Massasoit was hunted by Church to his ancient lair at Bristol

Neck and there," betrayed by one of his own followers, he was

surprised on the morning of August 12, and shot as he

attempted to fly. "His severed head was sent to Plymouth,

where it was mounted on a pole and exposed aloft upon the

village green, while the meeting-house bell summoned the

townspeople to a special service of thanksgiving. … By

midsummer of 1678 the Indians had been everywhere suppressed,

and there was peace in the land. … In Massachusetts and

Plymouth … the destruction of life and property had been

simply frightful. Of 90 towns, 12 had been utterly destroyed,

while more than 40 others had been the scene of fire and

slaughter. Out of this little society nearly 1,000 staunch men

… had lost their lives, while of the scores of fair women

and poor little children that had perished under the ruthless

tomahawk, one can hardly give an accurate account. … But …

henceforth the red man figures no more in the history of New

England, except as an ally of the French in bloody raids upon

the frontier."

J. Fiske,

The Beginnings of New England,

chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

W. Hubbard,

History of the Indian Wars in New England,

edited by S. G. Drake, volume 1.

Mrs. Rowlandson,

Narrative of Captivity.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1684-1686.

The overthrow of the Massachusetts charter.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1685-1687.

The overthrow of the Connecticut charter.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.

The consolidation of the "Territory and Dominion of

New England" under a royal governor-general.

"It was … determined in the Privy Council that Connecticut,

New Plymouth, and Rhode Island should be united with

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, and the Narragansett

country, and be made 'one entire government, the better to

defend themselves against invasion.' This was good policy for

England. It was the despotic idea of consolidation. It was

opposed to the republican system of confederation. …

Consolidation was indeed the best mode of establishing in his

colonies the direct government which Charles had adopted in

November, 1684, and which James was now to enforce. … For

more than twenty years James had been trying his "'prentice

hand" upon New York. The time had now come when he was to use

his master hand on New England. … By the advice of

Sunderland, James commissioned Colonel Sir Edmund Andros to be

captain general and governor-in-chief over his 'Territory and

Dominion of New England in America,' which meant Massachusetts

Bay, New Plymouth, New Hampshire, Maine, and the Narragansett

country, or the King's Province. Andros's commission was drawn

in the traditional form, settled by the Plantation Board for

those of other royal governors in Virginia, Jamaica, and New

Hampshire. Its substance, however, was much more despotic.

Andros was authorized, with the consent of a council appointed

by the crown, to make laws and levy taxes, and to govern the

territory of New England in obedience to its sovereign's

Instructions, and according to the laws then in force, or

afterward to be established. … To secure Andros in his

government, two companies of regular soldiers, chiefly Irish

Papists, were raised in London and placed under his orders."

J. R. Brodhead,

History of the State of New York,

volume 2, chapter 9.

See, also,

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686;

and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1688.

New York and New Jersey brought under the

governor-generalship of Andros.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1688.

{2314}

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1689.

The bloodless revolution, arrest of Andros,

and proclamation of William and Mary.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1686-1689.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1689-1697.

King William's War (the First Intercolonial War).

See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1690.

The first Colonial Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.

The charter to Massachusetts as a royal province.

Plymouth absorbed.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1692.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.

The Salem Witchcraft madness.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692; and 1692-1693.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1696-1749.

Suppression of colonial manufactures.

Oppressive commercial policy of England.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.

Queen Anne's War (the Second Intercolonial War):

Border incursions by the French and Indians.

The final conquest of Acadia.

"But a few years of peace succeeded the treaty of Ryswick.

First came the contest in Europe over the Spanish succession,"

and then the recognition of "the Pretender" by Louis XIV.

"This recognition was, of course, a challenge to England and

preparations were made for war. William III. died in March,

1702, and was succeeded by Anne, the sister of his wife, and

daughter of James II. War was declared by England against

France, May 15th, 1702. The contest that followed is known in

European history as the War of the Spanish Succession; in

American history it is usually called Queen Anne's 'War; or

the Second Intercolonial War. On one side were France, Spain,

and Bavaria; on the other, England, Holland, Savoy, Austria,

Prussia, Portugal, and Denmark. It was in this war that the

Duke of Marlborough won his fame. To the people of New

England, war between France and England meant the hideous

midnight war-whoop, the tomahawk and scalping-knife, burning

hamlets, and horrible captivity. To provide against it, a

conference was called to meet at Falmouth, on Casco Bay, in

June, 1703, when Governor Dudley, of Massachusetts, met many

of the chiefs of the Abenaquis. The Indians, professing to

have no thought of war, promised peace and friendship by their

accustomed tokens. … But, as usual, only a part of the

tribes had been brought into the alliance," and some lawless

provocations by a party of English marauders soon drove the

Abenaquis again into their old French Alliance. "By August,

500 French and Indians were assembled, ready for incursions

into the New England settlements. They divided into several

bands and fell upon a number of places at the same time.

Wells, Saco, and Casco were again among the doomed villages,

but the fort at Casco was not taken, owing to the arrival of

an armed vessel under Captain Southwick. About 150 persons

were killed or captured in these attacks." In February, the

town of Deerfield, Massachusetts, was destroyed, 47 of the

inhabitants were killed and 112 carried away captive. "On the

30th of July, the town of Lancaster was assailed, and a few

people were killed, seven buildings burned, and much property

destroyed. These and other depredations of war-parties along

the coasts filled New England with consternation. … It was

… resolved to fit out an expedition for retaliation, and as

usual the people of Acadia were selected to expiate the sins

of the Indians and Canadians. Colonel Benjamin Church was put

in command of 550 men, 14 transports, and 36 whale-boats,

convoyed by three ships of war. Sailing from Boston in May,

1704," Church ravaged the lesser French settlements on the

Acadian coast, but ventured no attack on Port Royal. "In 1705,

450 men under Subercase—soldiers, Canadian peasants,

adventurers, and Indians, well armed, and with rations for

twenty days, blankets and tents—set out to destroy the

English settlements in Newfoundland, marching on snow-shoes.

They took Petit Havre and St. John's, and devastated all the

little settlements along the eastern coast, and the English

trade was for the time completely broken up. Subercase was

made Governor of Acadia in 1706. The following spring New

England sent Colonel March to Port Royal with two regiments,

but he returned without assaulting the fort. Governor Dudley

forbade the troops to land when they came back to Boston, and

ordered them to go again. Colonel March was ill, and Colonel

Wainwright took command; but after a pretence of besieging the

fort for eleven days he retired with small loss, the

expedition having cost Massachusetts £2,200. In 1708 a council

at Montreal decided to send a large number of Canadians and

Indians to devastate New England. But after a long march

through the almost impassable mountain region of northern New

Hampshire, a murderous attack on Haverhill, in which 30 or 40

were killed, was the only result. … In 1709 a plan was

formed in England for the capture of New France by a fleet and

five regiments of British soldiers aided by the colonists. But

a defeat in Portugal called away the ships destined for

America, and a force gathered at Lake Champlain under Colonel

Nicholson for a land attack was so reduced by sickness—said

to have resulted from the poisoning of a spring by

Indians—that they burned their canoes and retreated. The next

year, Nicholson was furnished with six ships of war, thirty

transports, and one British and four New England regiments for

the capture of Port Royal. Subercase had only 260 men and an

insufficient supply of provisions." He surrendered after a

short bombardment, "and on the 16th of October the starving

and ragged garrison marched out to be sent to France. For the

last time the French flag was hauled down from the fort, and

Port Royal was henceforth an English fortress, which was

re-named Annapolis Royal, in honor of Queen Anne."

R. Johnson,

History of the French War,

chapter 8.

"With a change of masters came a change of names. Acadié was

again called 'Nova Scotia'—the name bestowed upon it by James

I. in 1621; and Port Royal, 'Annapolis.'"

R. Brown,

History of the Island of Cape Breton, letter 8.

ALSO IN:

P. H. Smith,

Acadia,

pages 108-111.

See, also,

CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1722-1725.

Renewed war with the northeastern Indians.

See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.

{2315}

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744.

King George's War (the Third Intercolonial War):

Hostilities in Nova Scotia.

"The war that had prevailed for several years between Britain

and Spain [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741], inflicted upon the

greater number of the British provinces of America no farther

share of its evils than the burden of contributing to the

expeditions of Admiral Vernon, and the waste of life by which

his disastrous naval campaigns were signalized. Only South

Carolina and Georgia had been exposed to actual attack and

danger. But this year [1744], by an enlargement of the hostile

relations of the parent state, the scene of war was extended

to the more northern provinces. The French, though professing

peace with Britain, had repeatedly given assistance to Spain;

while the British king, as Elector of Hanover, had espoused

the quarrel of the emperor of Germany with the French monarch;

and after various mutual threats and demonstrations of

hostility that consequently ensued between Britain and France,

war [the War of the Austrian Succession] was now formally

declared by these states against each other.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and after.

The French colonists in America, having been apprized of this

event before it was known in New England, were tempted to

improve the advantage of their prior intelligence by an

instant and unexpected commencement of hostilities, which

accordingly broke forth without notice or delay in the quarter

of Nova Scotia. … On the island of Canso, adjoining the

coast of Nova Scotia, the British had formed a settlement,

which was resorted to by the fishermen of New England, and

defended by a small fortification garrisoned by a detachment

of troops from Annapolis. … Duquesnel, the governor of Cape

Breton, on receiving intelligence of the declaration of war

between the two parent states, conceived the hope of

destroying the fishing establishments of the English by the

suddenness and vigor of an unexpected attack. His first blow,

which was aimed at Canso, proved successful (May 13, 1744).

Duvivier, whom he despatched from his headquarters at

Louisburg, with a few armed vessels and a force of 900 men,

took unresisted possession of this island, burned the fort and

houses, and made prisoners of the garrison and inhabitants.

This success Duquesnel endeavoured to follow up by the

conquest of Placentia in Newfoundland, and of Annapolis in

Nova Scotia; but at both these places his forces were

repulsed. In the attack of Annapolis, the French were joined

by the Indians of Nova Scotia; but the prudent forecast of

Shirley, the governor of Massachusetts, had induced the

assembly of this province, some time before, to contribute a

reinforcement of 200 men for the greater security of the

garrison of Annapolis; and to the opportune arrival of the

succour thus afforded the preservation of the place was

ascribed. … The people of New England were stimulated to a

pitch of resentment, apprehension, and martial energy, that

very shortly produced an effort of which neither their friends

nor their enemies had supposed them to be capable, and which

excited the admiration of both Europe and America. … War was

declared against the Indians of Nova Scotia, who had assisted

in the attack upon Annapolis; all the frontier garrisons were

reinforced; new forts were erected; and the materials of

defence were enlarged by a seasonable gift of artillery from

the king. Meanwhile, though the French were not prepared to

prosecute the extensive plan of conquest which their first

operations announced, their privateers actively waged a

harassing naval warfare that greatly endamaged the commerce of

New England. The British fisheries on the coast of Nova Scotia

were interrupted; the fishermen declared their intention of

returning no more to their wonted stations on that coast; and

so many merchant vessels were captured and carried into

Louisburg in the course of this summer, that it was expected

that in the following year no branch of maritime trade would

be pursued by the New England merchants, except under the

protection of convoy."

J. Grahame,

History [Colonial] of the United States,

book 10, chapter 1 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

P. H. Smith,

Acadia,

pages 123-128.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745.

King George's War.

The taking of Louisburg.

"Louisburg, on which the French had spent much money [see CAPE

BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1720-1745], was by far the strongest fort

north of the Gulf of Mexico. But the prisoners of Canso,

carried thither, and afterward dismissed on parole, reported

the garrison to be weak and the works out of repair. So long

as the French held this fortress, it was sure to be a source

of annoyance to New England, but to wait for British aid to

capture it would be tedious and uncertain, public attention in

Great Britain being much engrossed by a threatened invasion.

Under these circumstances, Shirley proposed to the General

Court of Massachusetts the bold enterprise of a colonial

expedition, of which Louisburg should be the object. After six

days' deliberation and two additional messages from the

governor, this proposal was adopted by a majority of one vote.

A circular letter, asking aid and co-operation, was sent to

all the colonies as far south as Pennsylvania. In answer to

this application, urged by a special messenger from

Massachusetts, the Pennsylvania Assembly … voted £4,000 of

their currency to purchase provisions. The New Jersey Assembly

… furnished … £2,000 toward the Louisburg expedition, but

declined to raise any men. The New York Assembly, after a long

debate, voted £3,000 of their currency; but this seemed to

Clinton a niggardly grant, and he sent, besides, a quantity of

provisions purchased by private subscription, and ten

eighteen-pounders from the king's magazine. Connecticut voted

500 men, led by Roger Wolcott, afterward governor, and

appointed, by stipulation of the Connecticut Assembly, second

in command of the expedition. Rhode Island and New Hampshire

each raised a regiment of 300 men; but the Rhode Island troops

did not arrive till after Louisburg was taken. The chief

burden of the enterprise, as was to be expected, fell on

Massachusetts. In seven weeks an army of 3,250 men was

enlisted, transports were pressed, and bills of credit were

profusely issued to pay the expense. Ten armed vessels were

provided by Massachusetts, and one by each of the other New

England colonies. The command in chief was given to William

Pepperell, a native of Maine, a wealthy merchant, who had

inherited and augmented a large fortune acquired by his father

in the fisheries; a popular, enterprising, sagacious man,

noted for his universal good fortune, but unacquainted with

military affairs; except as a militia officer. … The

enterprise … assumed something of the character of an

anti-Catholic crusade. One of the chaplains, a disciple of

Whitfield, carried a hatchet, specially provided to hew down

the images in the French churches.

{2316}

Eleven days after embarking at Boston [April, 1745], the

Massachusetts armament assembled at Casco, to wait there the

arrival of the Connecticut and Rhode Island quotas, and the

melting of the ice by which Cape Breton was environed. The New

Hampshire troops were already there; those from Connecticut

came a few days after. Notice having been sent to England and

the West Indies of the intended expedition, Captain Warren

presently arrived with four ships of war, and, cruising before

Louisburg, captured several vessels bound thither with

supplies. Already, before his arrival, the New England

cruisers had prevented the entry of a French thirty-gun ship.

As soon as the ice permitted, the troops landed and commenced

the siege, but not with much skill, for they had no engineers.

… Five unsuccessful attacks were made, one after another,

upon an island battery which protected the harbor. In that

cold, foggy climate, the troops, very imperfectly provided

with tents, suffered severely from sickness, and more than a

third were unfit for duty. But the French garrison was feeble

and mutinous, and when the commander found that his supplies

had been captured, he relieved the embarrassment of the

besiegers by offering to capitulate. The capitulation [June

17] included 650 regular soldiers, and near 1,300 effective

inhabitants of the town, all of whom were to be shipped to

France. The island of St. John's presently submitted on the

same terms. The loss during the siege was less than 150, but

among those reluctantly detained to garrison the conquered

fortress ten times as many perished afterward by sickness. In

the expedition of Vernon and this against Louisburg perished a

large number of the remaining Indians of New England,

persuaded to enlist as soldiers in the colonial regiments.

Some dispute arose as to the relative merits of the land and

naval forces, which had been joined during the siege by

additional ships from England. Pepperell, however, was made a

baronet, and both he and Shirley were commissioned as colonels

in the British army. Warren was promoted to the rank of rear

admiral. The capture of this strong fortress, effected in the

face of many obstacles, shed, indeed, a momentary luster over

one of the most unsuccessful wars in which Britain was ever

engaged."

R. Hildreth,

History of the United States,

chapter 25 (volume 2).

"As far as England was concerned, it [the taking of Louisburg]

was the great event of the war of the Austrian succession.

England had no other success in that war to compare with it.

As things turned out, it is not too much to say that this

exploit of New England gave peace to Europe."

J. G. Palfrey,

History of New England,

book 5, chapter 9 (volume 5).

"Though it was the most brilliant success the English achieved

during the war, English historians scarcely mention it."

R. Johnson,

History of the French War,

chapter 9.

ALSO IN:

T. C. Haliburton,

Historical and Statistical Account of Nova Scotia,

chapter 3 (volume 1).

R. Brown,

History of Cape Breton, letters 12-14.

S. A. Drake,

The Taking of Louisburg.

U. Parsons,

Life of Sir William Pepperell,

chapters 3-5.

F. Parkman,

The Capture of Louisbourg

(Atlantic Monthly, March-May, 1891).

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.

King George's War: The mortifying end.

Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle,

and restoration of Louisburg to France.

"Elated by their success [at Louisburg], the Provincials now

offered to undertake the conquest of Canada; but the Duke of

Bedford, to whom Governor Shirley's plan had been submitted,

disapproved of it, as exhibiting to the colonists too plainly

their own strength. … He therefore advised to place the

chief dependence on the fleet and army to be sent from

England, and to look on the Americans as useful only when

joined with others. Finally, the Whigs determined to send a

powerful fleet to Quebec, at the same time that an army should

attack Montreal, by the route of Lake Champlain; and so late

as April, 1746, orders were issued to the several governors to

levy troops without limitation, which, when assembled on the

frontiers, the king would pay. From some unknown cause, the

plan was abandoned as soon as formed. The general appointed to

the chief command was ordered not to embark, but the

instructions to enlist troops had been transmitted to America,

and were acted on with alacrity. Massachusetts raised 3,500

men to co-operate with the fleet, which, however, they were

doomed never to see. After being kept a long time in suspense,

they were dispersed, in several places, to strengthen

garrisons which were supposed to be too weak for the defenses

assigned them. Upward of 3,000 men, belonging to other

colonies, were assembled at Albany, undisciplined, without a

commissariat, and under no control. After the season for

active operations was allowed to pass away, they disbanded

themselves, some with arms in their hands demanding pay of

their governors, and others suing their captains. In addition

to this disgraceful affair, the Provincials had the

mortification to have a large detachment of their men cut off

in Lower Horton, then known as Minas, situated nearly in the

centre of Nova Scotia. The Canadian forces, which had traveled

thither to co-operate with an immense fleet expected from

France, determining to winter in that province, rendered it a

subject of continued anxiety and expense to Massachusetts.

Governor Shirley resolved, after again reinforcing the

garrison at Annapolis, to drive them from the shores of Minas

Basin, where they were seated; and in the winter of the year

1746, a body of troops was embarked at Boston for the former

place. After the loss of a transport, and the greatest part of

the soldiers on board, the troops arrived, and reembarked for

Grand Pré in the district of Minas, in the latter end of

December. … The issue was, that being cantoned at too great

distances from each other, La Corne, a commander of the

French, having intelligence of their situation, forced a march

from Schiegnieto, through a most tempestuous snow-storm, and

surprised them at midnight. After losing 160 of their men, in

killed, wounded and prisoners, the party were obliged to

capitulate, not, however, on dishonorable terms, and the

French, in their turn, abandoned their post. On the 8th of

May, 1749, peace was proclaimed at Boston [according to the

terms of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, concluded October 7,

1748], much to the mortification of the Provincials; Cape

Breton was restored to France; and Louisburg, which had

created so much dread, and inflicted such injuries on their

commerce, was handed over to their inveterate enemies, to be

rendered still stronger by additional fortifications. The

French also obtained the islands of St. Pierre and Michelon,

on the south coast of Newfoundland, as stations for their

fisheries." England reimbursed the colonies to the extent of

£183,000 for the expenses of their vain conquest of Louisburg,

and £135,000 for their losses in raising troops under the

orders that were revoked.

T. C. Haliburton,

Rule and Misrule of the English in America,

book 3, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

J. Hannay,

History of Acadia,

chapter 19.

S. G. Drake,

Particular History of the Five Years French and Indian War,

chapters 6-9.

J. G. Palfrey,

History of New England,

book 5, chapter 10 (volume 5).

See, also,

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

{2317}

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1750-1753.

Dissensions among the colonies at the

opening of the great French War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1750-1753.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1754.

The Colonial Congress at Albany.

Franklin's Plan of Union.

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

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1755-1760.

The last Intercolonial, or French and Indian War,

and English conquest of Canada.

See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;

OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1761.

Harsh enforcement of revenue laws.

The Writs of Assistance and Otis' speech.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1763-1764.

Enforcement of the Sugar (or Molasses) Act.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1766.

The Stamp Act.

Its effects and its repeal.

The Stamp Act Congress.

The Declaratory Act.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765: and 1766.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1766-1768.

The Townshend duties.

The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767;

and 1767-1768.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1770.

The quartering of troops in Boston.

The "Massacre," and the removal of the troops.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1769-1785.

The ending of Slavery.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1638-1781; 1769-1785; and 1774.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1770-1773.

Repeal of the Townshend duties except on Tea.

Committees of Correspondence instituted.

The Tea Ships and the Boston Tea-party.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773;

and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1774.

The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,

and the Quebec Act.

The First Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1775.

The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.

Lexington.

Concord.

The country in arms and Boston under siege.

Ticonderoga.

Bunker Hill.

The Second Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1775-1783.

The War of the Revolution.

Independence achieved.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1775 (APRIL), to 1783.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1787-1789.

Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1808.

The Embargo and its effects.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1804-1809; and 1808.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1814.

Federalist opposition to the war with England.

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

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1814.

The Hartford Convention.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1824-1828.

Change of front on the tariff question.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824;

and 1828.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1831-1832.

The rise of the Abolitionists.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865.

The war for the Union.

See, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (APRIL), and after.

----------NEW ENGLAND: End----------

NEW FOREST.

To create a new royal hunting ground in his English dominion,

William the Conqueror ruthlessly demolished villages, manors,

chapels, and parish churches throughout thirty miles of

country, along the coast side of Hampshire, from the Avon on

the west to Southampton Water on the east, and called this

wilderness of his making, The New Forest. His son William

Rufus was killed in it—which people thought to be a

judgment. The New Forest still exists and embraces no less

than 66,000 acres, extending over a district twenty miles by

fifteen in area, of woodland, heath, bog and rough pasture.

J. C. Brown,

Forests of England,

part 1, chapter 2, D.

NEW FRANCE.

See CANADA.

NEW GRANADA.

See COLOMBIAN STATES.

----------NEW HAMPSHIRE: Start--------

NEW HAMPSHIRE:

The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1623-1631.

Gorges' and Mason's grant and the division of it.

First colonies planted.

The naming of the province.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1641-1679.

The claims of Massachusetts asserted and defeated.

According to its terms, the Massachusetts patent embraced a

territory extending northward three miles beyond the

head-waters of the Merrimack, and covered, therefore, the

greater part of Mason's New Hampshire grant, as well as that

of Gorges in Maine. In 1641, when this fact had been

ascertained, the General Court of Massachusetts "passed an

order (with the consent of the settlers at Dover and

Strawberry-bank, on the Piscataqua), 'That from thenceforth,

the said people inhabiting there are and shall be accepted and

reputed under the Government of the Massachusetts,' etc. Mason

had died, and confusion ensued, so that the settlers were

mostly glad of the transfer. A long controversy ensued between

Mason's heirs and Massachusetts as to the right of

jurisdiction. The history of New Hampshire and Maine at this

period was much the same. In 1660, at the time of the

Restoration, the heirs of Mason applied to the

Attorney-General in England, who decided that they had a good

title to New Hampshire. The Commissioners who came over in

1664 attempted to re-establish them; but as the settlers

favored Massachusetts, she resumed her government when they

left. Mason's heirs renewed their claim in 1675, and in 1679

it was solemnly decided against the claim of the Massachusetts

Colony, although their grant technically included all lands

extending to three miles north of the waters of the Merrimack

river. John Cutt was the first President in New Hampshire, and

thenceforward, to the American Revolution, New Hampshire was

treated as a Royal province, the Governors and

Lieutenant-Governors being appointed by the King, and the laws

made by the people being subject to his revision."

C. W. Elliott,

The New England History,

volume 1, chapter 26.

ALSO IN:

G. Barstow,

History of New Hampshire,

chapters 2-5.

J. Belknap,

History of New Hampshire,

volume 1, chapters 2-9.

N. Adams,

Annals of Portsmouth,

pages 28-64.

See, also,

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644.

{2318}

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1675.

Outbreak of the Taranteens.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1744-1748.

King George's War and the taking of Louisburg.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1749-1774.

Boundary dispute with New York.

The grants in Vermont, and the struggle of the

"Green Mountain Boys" to defend them.

See VERMONT: A. D. 1749-1774.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1754.

The Colonial Congress at Albany,

and Franklin's Plan of Union.

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

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1755-1760.

The French and Indian War, and conquest of Canada.

See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;

OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1760-1766.

The question of taxation by Parliament.

The Sugar Act.

The Stamp Act and its repeal.

The Declaratory Act.

The Stamp Act Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1766-1768.

The Townshend duties.

The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1766-1767; and 1767-1768.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1768-1770.

The quartering of troops in Boston.

The "Massacre" and the removal of the troops.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1770-1773.

Repeal of the Townshend duties except on Tea.

Committees of Correspondence instituted.

The Tea Ships and the Boston Tea-party.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773;

and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1774.

The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,

and the Quebec Act.

The First Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1775.

The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.

Lexington.

Concord.

The country in arms and Boston beleaguered.

Ticonderoga.

Bunker Hill.

The Second Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1775-1776.

The end of royal government.

Adoption of a constitution.

Declaration of Independence.

The New Hampshire Assembly, called by Governor Wentworth, came

together June 12, 1775, in the midst of the excitements

produced by news of Lexington and Ticonderoga. Meantime, a

convention of the people had been called and was sitting at

Exeter. Acting on a demand from the latter, the assembly

proceeded first to expel from its body three members whom the

governor had called by the king's writ from three new

townships, and who were notorious royalists. "One of the

expelled members, having censured this proceeding, was

assaulted by the populace, and fled for shelter to the

governor's house. The people demanded him, and, being refused,

they pointed a gun at the governor's door; whereupon the

offender was surrendered and carried to Exeter. The governor

retired to the fort, and his house was pillaged. He afterwards

went on board the Scarborough and sailed for Boston. He had

adjourned the assembly to the 28th of September. But they met

no more. In September, he issued a proclamation from the Isles

of Shoals, adjourning them to April next. This was the closing

act of his administration. It was the last receding step of

royalty. It had subsisted in the province 95 years. The

government of New Hampshire was henceforth to be a government

of the people. … The convention which had assembled at

Exeter was elected but for six months. Previous to their

dissolution in November, they made provisions, pursuant to the

recommendations of congress, for calling a new convention,

which should be a more full representation of the people. They

sent copies of these provisions to the several towns, and

dissolved. The elections were forthwith held. The new

convention promptly assembled, and drew up a temporary form of

government. Having assumed the name of 'House of

Representatives,' they adopted a constitution [January, 1776],

and proceeded to choose twelve persons to constitute a

distinct and a co-ordinate branch of the legislature, by the

name of a Council." The constitution provided for no

executive. "The two houses assumed to themselves the executive

duty during the session, and they appointed a committee of

safety to sit in the recess, varying in number from six to

sixteen, vested with executive powers. The president of the

council was president of the executive committee. … On the

11th of June, 1776, a committee was chosen by the assembly,

and another by the council of New Hampshire, 'to make a

draught of a declaration of the independence of the united

colonies.' On the 15th, the committees of both houses reported

a 'Declaration of Independence,' which was adopted

unanimously, and a copy sent forthwith to their delegates in

congress."

G. Barstow,

History of New Hampshire,

chapter 9.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1776.

The ending of Slavery.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1769-1785.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1776-1783.

The War of Independence.

Peace with England.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1783.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1783.

Revision of the State constitution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1788.

Ratification of the Federal constitution.

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

NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1814.

The Hartford Convention.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.

----------NEW HAMPSHIRE: End--------

----------NEW HAVEN: Start--------

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1638.

The planting of the Colony and the founding of the City.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638.

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1639.

The Fundamental Agreement.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1639.

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1640-1655.

The attempts at colonization on the Delaware.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1643.

Progress and state of the colony.

The New England Confederation.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1643.

{2319}

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1660-1664.

The protection of the Regicides.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1664.

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1662-1664.

Annexation to Connecticut.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664.

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1666.

The migration to Newark, N.J.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

NEW HAVEN: A. D. 1779.

Pillaged by Tryon's marauders.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779

WASHINGTON GUARDING THE HUDSON.

----------NEW HAVEN: End--------

NEW HOPE CHURCH, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

----------NEW JERSEY: Start--------

NEW JERSEY:

The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1610-1664.

The Dutch in possession.

The Patroon colony at Pavonia.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614; and 1621-1646.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1620.

Embraced in the patent of the Council for New England.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1634.

Embraced in the Palatine grant of New Albion.

See NEW ALBION.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1635.

Territory assigned to Lord Mulgrave on the dissolution

of the Council for New England.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

The attempted colonization from New Haven, on the Delaware.

The London merchants who formed the leading colonists of New

Haven, and who were the wealthiest among the pioneer settlers

of New England, had schemes of commerce in their minds, as

well as desires for religious freedom, when they founded their

little republic at Quinnipiac. They began with no delay to

establish a trade with Barbadoes and Virginia, as well as

along their own coasts; and they were promptly on the watch

for advantageous openings at which to plant a strong

trading-post or two among the Indians. In the winter of

1638-39, one George Lamberton of New Haven, while trafficking

Virginia-wards, discovered the lively fur trade already made

active on Delaware Bay by the Dutch and Swedes [see DELAWARE:

A. D. 1638-1640], and took a hand in it. His enterprising

townsmen, when they heard his report, resolved to put

themselves at once on some kind of firm footing in the country

where this profitable trade could be reached. They formed a

"Delaware Company," in which the Governor, the minister, and

all the chiefs of the colony were joined, and late in the year

1640 they sent a vessel into Delaware Bay, commanded by

Captain Turner, who was one of their number. Captain Turner

"was instructed by the Delaware Company to view and purchase

lands at the Delaware Bay, and not to meddle with aught that

rightfully belonged to the Swedes or Dutch. … But New

Haven's captain paid little heed to boundaries. He bought of

the Indians nearly the whole southwestern coast of New Jersey,

and also a tract of land at Passayunk, on the present site of

Philadelphia, and opposite the Dutch fort Nassau. … On the

30th of August, 1641, there was a Town-Meeting at New Haven,

which voted to itself authority over the region of the

Delaware Bay. The acts of the Delaware Company were approved,

and 'Those to whome the affaires of the towne is committed'

were ordered to 'Dispose of all the affayres of Delaware Bay.'

The first instalment of settlers had previously gone to the

Bay. Trumbull says that nearly fifty families removed. As they

went by New Amsterdam, Governor Kieft issued an unavailing

protest, which was met, however, by fair words. The larger

portion of the party settled in a plantation on Varkin's Kill

(Ferkenskill, Hog Creek?), near what is now Salem, New Jersey.

A fortified trading-house was built or occupied at Passayunk.

This was the era of Sir Edmund Plowden's shadowy Palatinate of

New Albion, and, if there is any truth in the curious

'Description,' there would seem to be some connection between

this fort of the New Haven settlers and Plowden's alleged

colony." The Dutch and the Swedes, notwithstanding their

mutual jealousies, made common cause against these New England

intruders, and succeeded in breaking up their settlements.,

The exact occurrences are obscurely known, but it is certain

that the attempted colonization was a failure, and that,

"slowly, through the winter and spring of 1643, the major part

of [the settlers] … straggled home to New Haven. … The

poverty and distress were not confined to the twoscore

households who had risked their persons in the enterprise. The

ill-starred effort had impoverished the highest personages in

the town, and crippled New Haven's best financial strength.

"Yet the scheme of settlement on the Delaware was not

abandoned. While claims against the Dutch for damages and for

redress of wrongs were vigorously pressed, the town still

looked upon the purchased territory as its own, and was

resolute in the intention to occupy it. In 1651 a new

expedition of fifty persons set sail for the Delaware, but was

stopped at Manhattan by Peter Stuyvesant, and sent back,

vainly raging at the insolence of the Dutch. All New England

shared the wrath of New Haven, but confederated New England

was not willing to move in the matter unless New Haven would

pay the consequent costs. New Haven seemed rather more than

half disposed to take up arms against New Netherland on her

own responsibility; but her small quarrel was soon merged in

the greater war which broke out between Holland and England.

When this occurred, "concerted action on the part of the New

Englanders would have given New Holland to the Allies, and

extended New Haven's limits to the Delaware, without any one

to gainsay or resist. After the Commissioners [of the United

Colonies] declared for war, Massachusetts refused to obey,

adopted the role of a secessionist, and checked the whole

proceeding. New Haven, with whom the proposed war was almost a

matter of life and death, was justified in adverting to the

conduct of Massachusetts as 'A provoaking sinn against God,

and of a scandalous nature before men.' The mutinous schemes

of Roger Ludlow and of some New Haven malcontents complicated

the problem still more both for Connecticut and New Haven.

Finally, just as an army of 800 men was ready [1654] to march

upon New Amsterdam, tidings came of a European peace, and New

Haven's last chance was gone. But the town did not lose hope."

Plans for a new colony were slowly matured through 1654 and

1655, but "the enterprise was completely thwarted by a series

of untoward events," the most decisive of which was the

conquest of New Sweden by Stuyvesant in October, 1655. "But

the dream of Delaware was not forgotten."

C. H. Levermore,

The Republic of New Haven,

chapter 3, section 5.

ALSO IN:

S. Hazard,

Annals of Pennsylvania,

pages 57-178.

{2320}

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

The English occupation and proprietary grant to

Berkeley and Carteret.

The naming of the province.

The Newark immigration from New Haven.

"Before the Duke of York was actually in possession of his

easily acquired territory [of New Netherlands, or New

York—see NEW YORK: A. D. 1664], on the 23d and 24th of June,

1664, he executed deeds of lease and release to Lord John

Berkeley, Baron of Stratton, and Sir George Carteret, of

Saltrum in Devon, granting to them, their heirs and assigns,

all that portion of his tract 'lying and being to the westward

of Long Island and Manhitas Island, and bounded on the east

part by the main sea, and part by Hudson's river, and hath

upon the west, Delaware bay or river, and extending southward

to the main ocean as far as Cape May, at the mouth of Delaware

bay; and to the northward, as far as the northernmost branch

of the said bay or river of Delaware, which is 41° 40' of

latitude, and crosseth over thence in a strait line to

Hudson's river, in 41° of latitude; which said tract of land

is hereafter to be called by the name or names of New Cæsarea,

or New Jersey.' The name of 'Cæsarea' was conferred upon the

tract in commemoration of the gallant defence of the Island of

Jersey, in 1649, by Sir George Carteret, then its governor,

against the Parliamentarians; but the people preferred the

English name of New Jersey, and the other was consequently

soon lost. The grant of the Duke of York from the crown

conferred upon him, his heirs and assigns, among other rights

appertaining thereto, that most important one of government;

the power of hearing and determining appeals being reserved to

the king; but, 'relying,' says Chalmers, 'on the greatness of

his connection, he seems to have been little solicitous to

procure the royal privileges conferred on the proprietors of

Maryland and Carolina,' whose charters conferred almost

unlimited authority. 'And while as counts-palatine they

exercised every act of government in their own names, because

they were invested with the ample powers possessed by the

prætors of the Roman provinces, he ruled his territory in the

name of the king.' In the transfer to Berkeley and Carteret,

they, their heirs and assigns, were invested with all the

powers conferred upon the duke. … Lord Berkeley and Sir

George Carteret, now sole proprietors of New Jersey, on the

10th February 1664, signed a constitution, which they made

public under the title of 'The Concessions and agreement of

the Lords Proprietors of New Jersey, to and with all and every

of the adventurers, and all such as shall settle and plant

there.' … On the same day that this instrument was signed,

Philip Carteret, a brother to Sir George, received a

commission as governor of New Jersey. … The ship Philip,

having on board about 30 people, some of them servants, and

laden with suitable commodities, sailed from England in the

summer, and arrived in safety at the place now known as

Elizabethtown Point, or Elizabeth Port, in August of the same

year. What circumstance led to the governor's selection of

this spot for his first settlement, is not now known, but it

was, probably, the fact of its having been recently examined

and approved of by others. He landed, and gave to his embryo

town the name of Elizabeth, after the lady of Sir George. …

Governor Carteret, so soon as he became established at

Elizabethtown, sent messengers to New England and elsewhere,

to publish the concessions of the proprietors and to invite

settlers. In consequence of this invitation and the favorable

terms offered, the province soon received large additions to

its population."

W. A. Whitehead,

East Jersey under the Proprietary Governments

(New Jersey Historical. Society Collections.,

volume 1), period 2.

"In August, 1665, he [Governor Carteret] sent letters to New

England offering to settlers every civil and religious

privilege. Mr. Treat and some of his friends immediately

visited New Jersey. They bent their steps toward the New Haven

property on the Delaware Bay, and selected a site for a

settlement near what is now Burlington. Returning by way of

Elizabeth, they met Carteret, and were by him influenced to

locate on the Passaic River. … Early in the spring of 1666,

the remnant of the old New Haven, the New Haven of 1638, under

the leadership of Robert Treat and Mathew Gilbert, sailed into

the Passaic. … In June, 1667, the entire force of the little

colony was gathered together in their new abode, to which the

name 'Newark' was applied, in honor of Mr. Pierson's English

home. [Mr. Pierson was the minister at Branford, in the New

Haven colony, and his flock migrated with him to Newark almost

bodily.] The Fundamental Agreement was revised and enlarged,

the most notable expansion being the following article: 'The

planters agree to submit to such magistrates as shall be

annually chosen by the Friends from among themselves, and to

such Laws as we had in the place whence we came.' Sixty-four

men wrote their names under this Bill of Rights, of whom 23

were from Branford, and the remaining 41 from New Haven,

Milford, and Guilford. Most of them were probably heads of

families, and, in all the company, but six were obliged to

make their marks. … It seems to me that, after 1666, the New

Haven of Davenport and Eaton must be looked for upon the

banks, not of the Quinnipiac, but of the Passaic. The men, the

methods, the laws, the officers, that made New Haven Town what

it was in 1640, disappeared from the Connecticut Colony, but

came to full life again immediately in New Jersey. … Newark

was not so much the product as the continuation of New Haven."

C. H. Levermore,

The Republic of New Haven,

chapter 4, section 6.

ALSO IN:

Documents Relating to the Colonial History New Jersey,

volume 1.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1673.

The Dutch reconquest.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1673-1682.

The sale to new Proprietors, mostly Quakers, and

division of the province into East Jersey and West Jersey.

The free constitution of West Jersey.

In 1673 Lord Berkeley, one of the original proprietors, "sold

his one-half interest in the Province for less than $5,000.

John Fenwick and Edward Byllinge, two English Quakers, were

the purchasers. A dispute arose between the new proprietors

about the division of their property, and William Penn, who

afterward became the founder of Pennsylvania, was chosen

arbitrator to settle the difficulty, and succeeded to the

satisfaction of all parties interested. Fenwick sailed from

London, in 1675, in the ship 'Griffith,' with his family and a

small company of Quakers. This was the first English vessel that

came to New Jersey with immigrants.

{2321}

The party sailed up the Delaware bay, and, entering a creek,

landed on its banks three miles and a half from the Delaware.

This creek, and the settlement founded on it, Fenwick named

Salem. This was the first English settlement permanently

established in West Jersey."

J. R. Sypher and E. A. Apgar,

History of New Jersey,

chapter 1.

In July, 1676, the province was divided, Philip Carteret

taking East Jersey, and the successors of Berkeley taking West

Jersey. "Thereupon, Carteret, by will, devised his plantation

of New Jersey to trustees to be sold for certain purposes, by

him stated, in 1681-2. … He had not a peaceable time.

Indeed, anything like constant peace was the lot of very few

of New Jersey's early Governors. Governor Andros, of New York,

disputed Carteret's authority; nay, failing by peaceable means

to gain his point, he sent a party of soldiers by night

[1678], who dragged Carteret from his bed, carried him to New

York, and there kept him close until a day was set on which he

was tried before his opponent himself in the New York Courts,

and three times acquitted by the jury, who were sent back with

directions to convict, but firmly each time refused. The

authority of Carteret was confirmed by the Duke of York, and

Andros was recalled. … The trustees of Sir George Carteret

could not make sale of East Jersey. After ineffectual attempts

at private sale they offered it at public auction, and William

Penn and eleven associates, most if not all Quakers, bought it

for £3,400. It was too heavy a purchase, apparently, for their

management. Each sold half his right to another, and so were

constituted the twenty-four Proprietors. They procured a deed

of confirmation from the Duke of York March 14th, 1682, and

then the twenty-four Lords Proprietors by sealed instrument

established a council, gave them power to appoint overseers,

and displace all officers necessary to manage their property,

to take care of their lands, deed them, appoint dividends,

settle the rights of particular Proprietors in such dividends,

grant warrants of survey, in fine, to do everything necessary

for the profitable disposition of all the territory. … The

new Proprietors were men of rank. William Penn is known to all

the world. With him were James, Earl of Perth, John Drummond,

Robert Barclay, famous, like Penn, as a Quaker gentleman, and

a controversialist for Quaker belief; David Barclay. … Each

Proprietor had a twenty-fourth interest in the property,

inheritable, divisible, and assignable, as if it were a farm

instead of a province. And by these means the estate has come

down to those who now own the property. … In New Jersey …

our Legislature has nothing at all to do with our waste or

unappropriated land. It all belongs to the Proprietors, to

those, namely, who own what are known as Proprietary rights,

or rights of Proprietorship, and is subject to the disposition

of the Board of Proprietors. … What is left in their control

is now [1884] of comparatively slight value."

C. Parker,

Address, Bi-Centennial Celebration of the

Board of American Proprietors of East New Jersey.

The division line between East Jersey and West Jersey, as

established by the agreement between the Proprietors, began at

Little Egg Harbor and extended northwestward to a point on the

Delaware river in 41 degrees of north latitude. "After this

line had been established, John Fenwick's interest in West

Jersey was conveyed to John Eldridge and Edmund Warner in fee,

and they were admitted into the number of proprietors. In

order to establish a government for the Province of West

Jersey, provisional authority was given to Richard Hartshore

and Richard Guy, residents of East Jersey, and to James Wasse,

who was sent especially from England to act on behalf of the

proprietors. These persons were commissioned on the 18th of

August, 1676, by Byllinge and his trustees, in conjunction

with Eldridge and Warner, and full power was given them to

conduct the affairs of the government in accordance with

instructions from the proprietors. Fenwick, who had founded a

settlement at Salem, refused to recognize the transfer of his

portion of the Province to Eldridge and Warner, and declared

himself to be independent of this new government. It therefore

became the first duty of the commissioners to settle this

difficulty. All efforts, however, for that purpose failed. The

original plan of the government was devised by William Penn

and his immediate associates. It was afterward approved by all

the proprietors interested in the Province, and was first

published on the 3d of March, 1676, as 'The Concessions and

Agreements of the proprietors, freeholders and inhabitants of

the Province of West Jersey in America.' This constitution

declared that no man or number of men on earth had power or

authority to rule over men's consciences in religious matters;

and that no person or persons within the Province should be in

any wise called in question or punished, in person, estate or

privilege, on account of opinion, judgment, faith or worship

toward God in matters of religion. … That all the

inhabitants of the Province should have the right to attend

court and be present at all proceedings, 'to the end that

Justice may not be done in a corner, nor in any covert

manner.' … The executive authority of the government was

lodged in the hands of commissioners, to be appointed at first

by the proprietors or a majority of them; but after the

further settlement of the Province they were to be chosen by

the resident proprietors and inhabitants, on the 25th of March

of each year. The first election for commissioners occurred in

1680. … One of the most remarkable features in this

instrument is the fact that no authority is retained by the

proprietary body. 'We put the power in the people,' was the

language of the fundamental law."

J. R. Sypher and E. A. Apgar,

History of New Jersey,

chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

W. A. Whitehead,

East Jersey under the Proprietary Governments,

pages 66-99.

Documents Relating to the Colonial History of New Jersey,

volume 1.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1674.

Final recovery by the English.

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

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1688.

Joined with New England under the Governorship of Andros.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1688.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1688-1738.

Extinguishment of the Proprietary political powers.

Union of the two Jerseys in one royal province.

"In New Jersey, had the proprietary power been vested in the

people or reserved to one man, it might have survived, but it

was divided among speculators in land, who, as a body, had

gain, and not the public welfare, for their end. In April,

1688, 'the proprietors of East New Jersey had surrendered

their pretended right of government,' and the surrender had

been accepted.

{2322}

In October of the same year, the council of the proprietaries

of West New Jersey voted to the secretary-general for the

dominion of New England the custody of 'all records relating

to government.' Thus the whole province fell, with New York

and New England, under the government of Andros. At the

revolution, therefore [the English Revolution of 1688-89], the

sovereignty over New Jersey had reverted to the crown; and the

legal maxim, soon promulgated by the board of trade, that the

domains of the proprietaries might be bought and sold, but not

their executive power, weakened their attempts at the recovery

of authority, and consigned the colony to a temporary anarchy.

A community of husbandmen may be safe for a short season with

little government. For twelve years, the province was not in a

settled condition. From June, 1689, to August, 1692, East New

Jersey had apparently no superintending administration, being,

in time of war, destitute of military officers as well as of

magistrates with royal or proprietary commissions. They were

protected by their neighbors from external attacks: and there

is no reason to infer that the several towns failed to

exercise regulating powers within their respective limits. …

The proprietaries, threatened with the ultimate interference

of parliament in provinces 'where,' it was said, 'no regular

government had ever been established,' resolved to resign

their pretensions. In their negotiations with the crown, they

wished to insist that there should be a triennial assembly:

but King William, though he had against his inclination

approved triennial parliaments for England, would never

consent to them in the plantations. In 1702, the first year of

Queen Anne, the surrender took place before the privy council.

The domain, ceasing to be connected with proprietary powers,

was, under the rules of private right, confirmed to its

possessors, and the decision has never been disturbed. The

surrender of 'the pretended' rights to government being

completed, the two Jerseys were united in one province; and

the government was conferred on Edward Hyde, Lord Cornbury,

who, like Queen Anne, was the grandchild of Clarendon.

Retaining its separate legislature, the province had for the

next thirty-six years the same governors as New York. It never

again obtained a charter: the royal commission of April 1702,

and the royal instructions to Lord Cornbury, constituted the

form of its administration. To the governor appointed by the

crown belonged the power of legislation, with consent of the

royal council and the representatives of the people. … The

freemen of the colony were soon conscious of the diminution of

their liberties."

G. Bancroft,

History of the United States

(author's last revision),

part 3, chapter 2 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

J. O. Raum,

History of New Jersey,

chapter 8 (volume 1).

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1711.

Queen Anne's War.

See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1744-1748.

King George's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745: and 1745-1748.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1760-1766.

The question of taxation by Parliament.

The Sugar Act.

The Stamp Act and its repeal.

The Declaratory Act.

The First Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1760-1775: 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1766-1774.

Opening events of the Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, to 1774:

and BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1774-1776.

End of royal government.

Adoption of a State Constitution.

In the person of William Franklin, unworthy son of Benjamin

Franklin, New Jersey was afflicted, at the outbreak of the

Revolutionary struggle, with an arbitrary and obstinately

royalist governor. Finding the assembly of the colony

refractory and independent, he refused to convene it in 1774,

when the people desired to send delegates to the Continental

Congress. Thereupon a convention was held at New Brunswick;

and this body not only commissioned delegates to the general

Congress, but appointed a "general committee of

correspondence" for the Province. The committee, in May of the

following year, called together, at Trenton, a second

Provincial Convention, which took to itself the title of the

"Provincial Congress of New Jersey," and assumed the full

authority of all the branches of the government, providing for

the defense of the Province and taking measures to carry out

the plans of the Continental Congress. "Governor Franklin

convened the Legislature on the 16th of November, 1775. No

important business was transacted, and on the 6th of December

the Assembly was prorogued by the governor to meet on the 3d

of January, 1776, but it never reassembled, and this was the

end of Provincial legislation in New Jersey under royal

authority. … Though the Provincial Congress of New Jersey

had to a great extent assumed the control of public affairs in

the Province, it had not renounced the royal authority. … On

the 24th of June, a committee was appointed to draft a

constitution. … New Jersey was, however, not yet disposed to

abandon all hopes of reconciliation with the Crown, and

therefore provided in the last article of this constitution

that the instrument should become void whenever the king

should grant a full redress of grievances, and agree to

administer the government of New Jersey in accordance with the

constitution of England and the rights of British subjects.

But, on the 18th of July, 177[6] the Provincial Congress

assumed the title of 'The Convention of the State of New

Jersey,' declared the State to be independent of royal

authority, and directed that all official papers, acts of

Assembly and other public documents should be made in the name

and by the authority of the State." Before this occurred,

however, Governor Franklin had been placed under arrest, by

order of Congress, and sent to Connecticut, where he was

released on parole. He sailed immediately for England. "When

the State government was organized under the new constitution,

the Legislature enacted laws for the arrest and punishment of

all persons who opposed its authority."

J. R. Sypher and E. A. Apgar,

History of New Jersey,

chapters 10-11.

ALSO IN:

T. F. Gordon,

History of New Jersey,

chapter 12.

See, also,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1775.

The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.

Lexington.

Concord.

Siege of Boston.

Ticonderoga.

Bunker Hill.

The Second Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

{2323}

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1776-1778.

The battle ground of Washington campaigns.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1776; 1776-1777; and 1778 (JUNE).

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1777-1778.

Withholding ratification from the Articles of Confederation.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1778-1779.

British raids from New York.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1778-1779.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1778-1783.

The war on the Hudson, on the Delaware, and in the South.

Surrender of Cornwallis.

Peace with Great Britain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778, to 1783.

NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1787.

Ratification of the Federal Constitution.

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

----------NEW JERSEY: End----------

NEW MADRID, The capture of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (MARCH-APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

NEW MARKET, OR GLENDALE, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

NEW MARKET (Shenandoah Valley), Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA)

THE CAMPAIGNING IN THE SHENANDOAH.

----------NEW MEXICO: Start----------

NEW MEXICO: Aboriginal Inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

PUEBLOS, APACHE GROUP, and SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846.

The American conquest and occupation by Kearney's expedition.

"While the heaviest fighting [of the Mexican War] was going on

in Old Mexico [see MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847], the Government

[of the United States] easily took possession of New Mexico

and California, by means of expeditions organized on the

remote frontiers. New Mexico was wanted for the emigration to

the Pacific. If we were to have California we must also have

the right of way to it. In the hands of the Spaniards, New

Mexico barred access to the Pacific so completely that the

oldest travelled route was scarcely known to Americans at all,

and but little used by the Spaniards themselves. If now we

consult a map of the United States it is seen that the

thirty-fourth parallel crosses the Mississippi at the mouth of

the Arkansas, cuts New Mexico in the middle, and reaches the

Pacific near Los Angeles. It was long the belief of statesmen

that the great tide of emigration must set along this line,

because it had the most temperate climate, was shorter, and

would be found freer from hardship than the route by way of

the South Pass. This view had set on foot the exploration of

the Arkansas and Red Rivers. But if we except the little that

Pike and Long had gathered, almost nothing was known about it.

Yet the prevailing belief gave New Mexico, as related to

California, an exceptional importance. These considerations

weighed for more than acquisition of territory, though the

notion that New Mexico contained very rich silver-mines

undoubtedly had force in determining its conquest. … With

this object General Kearney marched from Fort Leavenworth in

June, 1846, for Santa Fe, at the head of a force of which a

battalion of Mormons formed part. After subduing New Mexico,

Kearney was to go on to California, and with the help of naval

forces already sent there, for the purpose, conquer that

country also. … General Kearney marched by the Upper

Arkansas, to Bent's Fort, and from Bent's Fort over the old

trail through El Moro and Las Vegas, San Miguel and Old Pecos,

without meeting the opposition he expected, or at any time

seeing any considerable body of the enemy. On the 18th of

August, as the sun was setting, the stars and stripes were

unfurled over the palace of Santa Fe, and New Mexico was

declared annexed to the United States. Either the home

government thought New Mexico quite safe from attack, or,

having decided to reserve all its strength for the main

conflict, had left this province to its fate. After organizing

a civil government, and appointing Charles Bent of Bent's

Fort, governor, General Kearney broke up his camp at Santa Fe,

September 25. His force was now divided. One part, under

Colonel Doniphan, was ordered to join General Wool in

Chihuahua. A second detachment was left to garrison Santa Fe,

while Kearney went on to California with the rest of his

troops. The people everywhere seemed disposed to submit

quietly, and as most of the pueblos soon proffered their

allegiance to the United States Government, little fear of an

outbreak was felt. Before leaving the valley, a courier was

met bearing the news that California also had submitted to us

without striking a blow. This information decided General

Kearney to send back most of his remaining force, while with a

few soldiers only he continued his march through what is now

Arizona for the Pacific."

S. A. Drake,

The Making of the Great West,

pages 251-255.

ALSO IN:

H. O. Ladd,

History of the War with Mexico,

chapters 9-12.

P. St. G. Cooke,

The Conquest of New Mexico and California.

H. H. Bancroft,

History of the Pacific States,

volume 12, chapter 17.

H. O. Ladd,

The Story of New Mexico,

chapter 16.

NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

Cession to the United States.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1850.

Territorial organization.

See UTAH: A. D. 1849-1850.

NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1875-1894.

Prospective admission to the Union.

A bill to admit New Mexico to the Union as a state was passed

by both houses of Congress in 1875, but failed in consequence

of an amendment made in the Senate too late for action upon it

in the House of Representatives. Attempts to convert the

scantily populated territory into a state were then checked

for several years. At this writing (July 1894) a bill for

organizing and admitting the state of New Mexico has again

passed the House of Representatives, and is likely to have a

favorable vote in the Senate.

----------NEW MEXICO: End----------

NEW MODEL, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JANUARY-APRIL).

NEW NETHERLAND.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

NEW ORANGE.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

----------NEW ORLEANS: Start--------

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1718.

The founding of the city.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1763.

Reserved from the cession to England in the Treaty of Paris,

and transferred with western Louisiana to Spain.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1768-1769.

Revolt against the Spanish rule.

A short-lived Republic and its tragic ending.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1766-1768; and 1769.

{2324}

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1785-1803.

Fickle treatment of American traders.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800; and 1798-1803.

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1798-1804.

Transferred to France and sold to the United States.

Incorporation as a city.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1789-1803; and 1804-1812.

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1815.

Jackson's defense of the city and great victory.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1815 (JANUARY).

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1862 (April).

Farragut's capture of the city.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1862 (May-December).

The rule of General Butler.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (MAY-DECEMBER: LOUISIANA).

NEW ORLEANS: A. D. 1866.

Riot and massacre.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865-1867.

----------NEW ORLEANS: End--------

NEW PLYMOUTH.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1621, and after.

NEW SCOTLAND.

See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

----------NEW SOUTH WALES: Start--------

NEW SOUTH WALES: A. D. 1770-1788.

The discovery.

The naming.

The first settlement.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

NEW SOUTH WALES: A. D. 1850.

Separation of the Colony of Victoria.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1839-1855.

NEW SOUTH WALES: A. D. 1859.

Separation of the Moreton Bay District and its erection into

the Colony of Queensland.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1859.

NEW SOUTH WALES: A. D. 1890.

Characteristics.

Comparative view.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1890.

----------NEW SOUTH WALES: End--------

NEW SPAIN:

The name given at first to Yucatan, and afterwards to

the province won by Cortes.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1518;

and MEXICO: A. D. 1521-1524.

NEW STYLE.

See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.

NEW SWEDEN.

See DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.

NEW WORLD, The:

First use of the phrase.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1514.

----------NEW YORK: Start--------

NEW YORK:

The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, HURONS, &c.,

HORIKANS; and MANHATTAN ISLAND.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1498.

Probable discovery of the Bay by Sebastian Cabot.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1524.

The Bay visited by Verrazano.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1606.

Embraced in the territory granted by King James I.

of England to the Plymouth or North Virginia Company.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1609.

Discovery and exploration of Hudson River by Hendrik Hudson,

in the service of Holland.

"Early in September, 1609, the ship 'Half-Moon,' restlessly

skirting the American coast, in the vain quest for a strait or

other water route leading to India, came to the mouth of a

great lonely river, flowing silently out from the heart of the

unknown continent. The 'Half-Moon' was a small, clumsy,

high-pooped yacht, manned by a score of Dutch and English

sea-dogs, and commanded by an English adventurer then in Dutch

pay, and known to his employers as Hendrik Hudson. … Hudson,

on coming to the river to which his name was afterward given,

did not at first know that it was a river at all; he believed

and hoped that it was some great arm of the sea, that in fact

it was the Northwest Passage to India, which he and so many

other brave men died in vainly trying to discover. … Hudson

soon found that he was off the mouth of a river, not a strait;

and he spent three weeks in exploring it, sailing up till the

shoaling water warned him that he was at the head of

navigation, near the present site of Albany. … Having

reached the head of navigation the 'Half-Moon' turned her

bluff bows southward, and drifted down stream with the rapid

current until she once more reached the bay. … Early in

October, Hudson set out on his homeward voyage to Holland,

where the news of his discovery excited much interest among

the daring merchants, especially among those whose minds were

bent on the fur-trade. Several of the latter sent small ships

across to the newly found bay and river, both to barter with

the savages and to explore and report further upon the

country. The most noted of these sea-captains who followed

Hudson, was Adrian Block."

T. Roosevelt,

New York,

chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

R. Juet,

Journal of Hudson's Voyage

(New York Historical Society Collection,

series 2, volume 1).

See AMERICA: A. D. 1609.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1609-1615.

Champlain and the French in the North.

See CANADA: A. D. 1608-1611; and 1611-1616.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

Possession taken by the Dutch.

Named New Netherland.

"The gallant and enterprising people under whose auspices

Hudson had achieved his brilliant discovery [of the Hudson

River] had just emerged from a long, bloody, but glorious

contest for freedom, which they had waged with dogged

determination against Spain since 1566. …

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566, and after.

It was at this crisis, when peace had at length returned,

after an absence of more than forty years, and when numbers of

people must, by the transition, have found themselves deprived

of their accustomed active employment and habitual excitement,

that the intelligence of Hudson's discovery broke on the

public, affording to private adventure a new field. … The

commodities which abounded among the natives of the newly

discovered countries were objects of great demand in Europe.

The furs that the rigors of the northern climate rendered

indispensable to the inhabitants of Holland, and which they

had hitherto obtained through Russian and other traders, were

to be had now from the Indians in exchange for the veriest

baubles and coarsest goods. Stimulated by these

considerations, … a vessel was despatched by some Amsterdam

merchants, freighted with a variety of goods, to the

Manhattans, in the course of the following year [1610]. The

success of this venture seems to have given increased stimulus

to the spirit of enterprise.

{2325}

New discoveries were projected; licenses were granted by the

States-General, on the recommendation of the Admiralty, to two

ships, the Little Fox and Little Crane, ostensibly to look

again for a northerly passage to China; and the cities of

Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Hoorn, and Enckhuyzen, as well as

several private merchants and citizens, applied for

information to the States of Holland and West Friesland,

relative to a certain newly discovered navigable river, and

the proper course to be steered in proceeding thither. These

ships proceeded, on procuring the requisite information, to

that quarter early in the ensuing spring; and of so much

importance was the country now considered, that the traders

erected and garrisoned one or two small forts on the river,

for the protection of the fur-trade. … The favorable

position of the island of Manhattan for commerce was easily

perceived by the Europeans from the first, and it soon became

the head-quarters of the traders. Their establishment in that

locality consisted now [1613] of four houses, under the

superintendence of Hendrick Corstiaensen, who, by means of his

trading-boats, visited every creek, inlet, and bay in the

neighborhood, where an Indian settlement was to be found, and

thus secured for his employers the furs and other valuable

produce of the country. But the growing prosperity of the

infant post was now fated to experience an unexpected check.

Captain Argal, of Virginia, returning in the month of November

of this year from a seemingly predatory visit to a settlement

which the French had made at Port Royal, in Acadia, touched at

the island of Manhattans, with a view, it is said, of looking

after a grant of land which he had obtained there from the

Virginia Company, and forced Corstiaensen to submit himself

and his plantation to the king of England, and to the governor

of Virginia under him, and to agree to pay tribute in token of

his dependence on the English crown. … Active steps were

taken, early in the next year, to obtain an exclusive right to

the trade of those distant countries," and in March, 1614, the

States General passed an ordinance conferring on those who

should discover new lands the exclusive privilege of making

four voyages thither before others could have admission to the

traffic. This ordinance "excited considerable animation and

activity among adventurers. A number of merchants belonging to

Amsterdam and Hoorn fitted out and dispatched five ships:

namely, the Little Fox, the Nightingale, the Tiger, and the

Fortune, the two last under the command of Adriaen Block and

Hendrick Corstiaensen, of Amsterdam. The fifth vessel was

called the Fortune also; she belonged to Hoorn, and was

commanded by Captain Cornelis Jacobsen Mey. The three

last-named and now well-known navigators proceeded immediately

on an exploring expedition to the mouth of the Great River of

the Manhattans, but Block had the misfortune, soon after his

arrival there, of losing his vessel, which was accidentally

burnt. … He forthwith set about constructing a yacht, 38

feet keel, 44½ feet long, and 11½ feet wide, which, when

completed, he called the 'Restless,' significant of his own

untiring industry. … In this craft, the first specimen of

European naval architecture in these waters, Skipper Block

proceeded to explore the coast east of Manhattan Island. He

sailed along the East River, to which he gave the name of 'The

Hellegat,' after a branch of the river Scheld, in East

Flanders; and leaving Long Island, then called Metoac, or

'Sewan-hacky, 'the land of shells,' on the south, he

discovered the Housatonick, or river of the Red Mountain."

Proceeding eastwardly, Block found the Connecticut River,

which he named Fresh River, and ascended it to an Indian

village at 41° 48'. Passing out of the Sound, and ascertaining

the insular character of Long Island, he gave his own name to

one of the two islands off its eastern extremity. After

exploring Narragansett Bay, he went on to Cape Cod, and there

fell in with Hendrick Corstiaensen's ship. "While these

navigators were thus engaged at the east, Captain Cornelis Mey

was actively employed in exploring the Atlantic coast farther

south. … He reached the great Delaware Bay, … two capes of

which still commemorate his visit; one, the most northward,

being called after him, Cape Mey; another, Cape Cornelis;

while the great south cape was called Hindlopen, after one of

the towns in the province of Friesland. … Intelligence of

the discoveries made by Block and his associates having been

transmitted to Holland, was received there early in the autumn

of this year [1614]. The united company by whom they had been

employed lost no time in taking the steps necessary to secure

to themselves the exclusive trade of the countries thus

explored, which was guarantied to them by the ordinance of the

27th of March. They sent deputies immediately to the Hague,

who laid before the States General a report of their

discoveries, as required by law, with a figurative map of the

newly explored countries, which now, for the first time,

obtained the name of New Netherland. A special grant in favor

of the interested parties was forthwith accorded … to visit

and trade with the countries in America lying between 40° and

45° north latitude, of which they strangely claimed to be the

first discoverers."

E. B. O'Callaghan,

History of New Netherland,

book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

Documents Relating to Colonial History of New York,

volume 1, pages 4-12.

B. Fernow,

New Netherland

(Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 4, chapter 8).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1614-1621.

The first trading monopoly succeeded

by the Dutch West India Company.

"It was perceived that, to secure the largest return from the

peltry trade, a factor should reside permanently on the

Mauritius River [North, or Hudson, as it has been successively

called], among the Maquaas or Mohawks, and the Mahicans, at

the head of tide-water. Hendrick Christiaensen, who, after his

first experiment in company with Adriaen Block, is stated to

have made 'ten voyages' to Manhattan, accordingly constructed

[1614] a trading house on 'Castle Island,' at the west side of

the river, a little below the present city of Albany. … To

compliment the family of the stadtholder, the little post was

immediately named Fort Nassau. … It has been confidently

affirmed that the year after the erection of Fort Nassau, at

Castle Island, a redoubt was also thrown up and fortified 'on

an elevated spot' near the southern point of Manhattan Island.

But the assertion does not appear to be confirmed by

sufficient authority. … The Holland merchants, who had

obtained from the States General the exclusive right of

trading for three years to New Netherland, though united

together in one company to secure the grant of their charter,

were not strictly a corporation, but rather 'participants' in

a specific, limited, and temporary monopoly, which they were

to enjoy in common. …

{2326}

On the 1st of January, 1618, the exclusive charter of the

Directors of New Netherland expired by its own limitation.

Year by year the value of the returns from the North River had

been increasing; and the hope of larger gains incited the

factors of the company to push their explorations further into

the interior. … No systematic agricultural colonization of

the country had yet been undertaken. The scattered agents of

the Amsterdam Company still looked merely to peaceful traffic,

and the cultivation of those friendly relations which had been

covenanted with their savage allies on the banks of the

Tawasentha [where they had negotiated a treaty of friendship

and alliance with the Five Nations of the Iroquois, in 1617].

Upon the expiration of their special charter, the merchants

who had formed the United New Netherland Company applied to

the government at the Hague for a renewal of their privileges,

the value of which they found was daily increasing. But the

States General, who were now contemplating the grant of a

comprehensive charter for a West India Company avoided a

compliance with the petition." In June, 1621, "the

long-pending question of a grand commercial organization was

finally settled; and an ample charter gave the West India

Company almost unlimited powers to colonize, govern, and

defend New Netherland."

J. R. Brodhead,

History of the State of New York,

volume 1, chapters 2-3.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1615-1664.

Dutch relations with the Iroquois.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, THEIR CONQUESTS.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1620.

Embraced in the English patent of the Council for New England.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646.

Early operations of the Dutch West India Company.

The purchase of Manhattan Island.

The Patroons and their colonies.

"When it became evident that the war [of the United Provinces]

with Spain would be renewed, the way was opened for the

charter of a company, so often asked and denied. Just before

the expiration of the twelve years' truce, April, 1621, the

great West India Company was formed, and incorporated by the

States General. It was clothed with extraordinary powers and

privileges. It could make alliances and treaties, declare war

and make peace. Although its field of operations was limited

to Africa, the West India Islands, and the continent of

America, it could in case of war fight the Spaniards wherever

found on land or sea. And finally, it was permitted to

colonize unoccupied or subjugated countries. To it especially

were committed the care and the colonization of New

Netherland. The West India Company, after completing its

organization in 1623, began its work in New Netherland by

erecting a fort on Manhattan Island [called Fort Amsterdam],

and another on the Delaware, and by reconstructing the one at

Albany. It sent over to be distributed in these places 30

families, not strictly as colonists, to settle and cultivate

the land, but rather as servants of the Company, in charge of

their factories, engaged in the purchase and preparation of

furs and peltries for shipment. Some of them returned home at

the expiration of their term of service, and no other

colonists were brought out for several years. The Company

found more profitable employment for its capital in fitting

out fleets of ships of war, which captured the Spanish

treasure-ships, and thus enabled the Company to pay large

dividends to its stockholders. In 1626 its agents bought all

Manhattan Island of the Indian owners for sixty guilders in

goods on which an enormous profit was made; and about the same

time they purchased other tracts of land in the vicinity,

including Governor's and Staten Islands, on similar terms. The

Company was now possessed of lands enough for the

accommodation of a large population. They were fertile, and

only needed farmers to develop their richness. But these did

not come. … Accordingly, in 1629, the managers took up a new

line of action. They enacted a statute, termed 'Freedoms and

Exemptions,' which authorized the establishment of colonies

within their territory by individuals, who were to be known as

Patroons, or Patrons. An individual might purchase of the

Indian owners a tract of land, on which to plant a colony of

fifty souls within four years from the date of purchase. He

who established such a colony might associate with himself

other persons to assist him in his work, and share the

profits, but he should be considered the Patroon, or chief, in

whom were centred all the rights pertaining to the position,

such as the administration of justice, the appointment of

civil and military officers, the settlement of clergymen, and

the like. He was a kind of feudal lord, owing allegiance to

the West India Company, and to the States General, but

independent of control within the limits of his own territory.

The system was a modified relic of feudalism. The colonists

were not serfs, but tenants for a specified term of years,

rendering service to the Patroon for a consideration. When

their term of service expired, they were free to renew the

contract, make a new one, or leave the colony altogether. The

privileges of a Patroon at first were restricted to the

members of the company, but in about ten years were extended

to others. The directors of the company were the first to

improve the opportunity now offered of becoming 'princes and

potentates' in the western hemisphere. … In 1630, the agents

of Director Killian Van Rensselaer bought a large tract of

land on the west side of the Hudson River below Albany, and in

July following other tracts on both sides of the river,

including the present site of Albany. In July, 1630, Director

Michael Paauw bought lands on the west side of the Hudson

opposite Manhattan Island, and named his territory Pavonia. A

few months later Staten Island was transferred to him, and

became a part of his domain. … Killian Van Rensselaer also

formed a partnership with several of his brother directors,

among whom was the historian De Laet, for the purpose of

planting a colony on his lands on the upper Hudson, to be

known as the colony of Rensselaerwyck. He seems to have had a

clearer perception of what was required for such a work than

the other Patroons. The colony was organized in accordance

with the charter, and on business principles. Before the

colonists left Holland they were assigned to specific places

and duties. Civil and military officers were appointed,

superintendents and overseers of the various departments were

selected, and all were instructed in their duties.

The number of the first colonists was respectable.

{2327}

They were chiefly farmers and mechanics, with their families.

On their arrival, May, 1630, farms situated on either side the

river were allotted to them, utensils and stock distributed,

houses built, and arrangements made for their safety in case

the natives should become hostile. Order was maintained, and

individual rights respected. They were not long in settling

down, each to his allotted work. Year by year new colonists

arrived, and more lands were bought for the proprietors. In

1646, when Killian Van Rensselaer, the first Patroon, died,

over two hundred colonists had been sent from Holland, and a

territory forty-eight by twenty-four miles, besides another

tract of 62,000 acres, had been acquired. The West India

Company had changed its policy under the direction of new men,

and no longer favored the Patroons. The Van Rensselaers were

much annoyed, and even persecuted, but they held firmly to

their rights under the charter. Their colony was prosperous,

and their estate in time became enormous. … Of all the

Patroon colonies Rensselaerwyck alone survived. It owed its

existence mainly to its management, but largely to its

situation, remote from the seat of government, and convenient

for the Indian trade."

G. W. Schuyler,

Colonial New York,

introduction, section 1.

ALSO IN:

I. Elting,

Dutch Village Communities on the Hudson,

pages 12-16.

J. R. Brodhead,

History of the State of New York,

volume 1, chapter 7.

See, also, LIVINGSTON MANOR.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1629-1631.

Dutch occupancy of the Delaware.

See DELAWARE: A. D. 1629-1631.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1630.

Introduction of public registry.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1630-1641.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1634.

The city named New Amsterdam.

Soon after the appointment of Wouter Van Twiller, who became

governor of New Netherland in 1633, "the little town on

Manhattan Island received the name of New Amsterdam … and

was invested with the prerogative of 'staple right,' by virtue

of which all the merchandise passing up and down the river was

subject to certain duties. This right gave the post the

commercial monopoly of the whole province."

Mrs. Lamb,

History of the City of New York,

volume 1, page 73.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1634-1635.

Dutch advance posts on the Connecticut.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1635.

Territory granted to Lord Lennox and Lord Mulgrave,

on the dissolution of the Council for New England.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1638.

Protest against the Swedish settlement on the Delaware.

See DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1638-1647.

The colony thrown open to free immigration and free trade.

Kieft's administration, and the ruinous Indian wars.

"The colony did not thrive. The patroon system kept settlers

away, and the paternal government of a trading corporation

checked all vigorous and independent growth, while Van Twiller

[Wouter Van Twiller, appointed governor in 1633] went steadily

from bad to worse. He engaged in childish quarrels with

everyone, from the minister down. … This utter misgovernment

led at last to Van Twiller's removal. He retired in possession

of large tracts of land, which he had succeeded in acquiring,

and was replaced [1638] by William Kieft, a bankrupt merchant

of bad reputation. Kieft practically abolished the Council,

and got all power into his own hands; but he had some sense of

order. … Despite his improvements, the place remained a mere

trading-post, and would not develope into a colony. The

patroons were the curse of the scheme, and too powerful to be

overthrown; so they proposed, as a remedy for the existing

evils, that their powers and privileges should be greatly

enlarged. The Company had bought back some of the lands; but

they were still helpless, and the State would do nothing for

them. In this crisis they had a return of good sense, and

solved the problem by destroying their stifling monopoly. They

threw the trade to New Netherlands open to all comers, and

promised the absolute ownership of land on the payment of a

small quit-rent. The gates were open at last, and the tide of

emigration swept in. De Vries who had bought land on Staten

Island, came out with a company; while ship followed ship

filled with colonists, and English came from Virginia, and

still more from New England. Men of property and standing

began to turn their attention to the New Netherlands; fine

well-stocked farms rapidly covered Manhattan, and healthy

progress had at last begun. Thus strengthened, the Company

[1640] restricted the patroons to a water-front of one mile

and a depth of two, but left them their feudal privileges,

benefits which practically accrued to Van Rensselaer, whose

colony at Beverwyck had alone, among the manors, thriven and

grown at the expense of the Company. The opening of trade

proved in one respect a disaster. The cautious policy of the

Company was abandoned, and greedy traders who had already

begun the business, and were now wholly unrestrained, hastened

to make their fortunes by selling arms to the Indians in

return for almost unlimited quantities of furs. Thus the

Mohawks obtained guns enough to threaten both the Dutch and

all the surrounding tribes, and this perilous condition was

made infinitely worse by the mad policy of Kieft. He first

tried to exact tribute from the Indians near Manhattan, then

offered a price for the head of any of the Raritans who had

destroyed the settlement of De Vries; and, when a young man

was murdered by a Weckquaesgeek, the Governor planned

immediate war." Public opinion among the colonists condemned

the measures of Kieft, and forced him to accept a council of

twelve select-men, chosen at a public meeting; but "the

twelve," as they were called, failed to control their

governor. Acting on the advice of two or three among them,

whose support he had secured, he ordered a cowardly attack

upon some fugitive Indians from the River tribes, who had been

driven into the settlements by the onslaught of the Mohawks,

and whom De Vries and others were trying to protect. "The

wretched fugitives, surprised by their supposed protectors,

were butchered in the dead of a winter's night [1643], without

mercy, and the bloody soldiers returned in the morning to

Manhattan, where they were warmly welcomed by Kieft. This

massacre lighted up at once the flames of war among all the

neighboring tribes of Algonquins. All the outlying farms were

laid waste, and their owners murdered, while the smaller

settlements were destroyed. Vriesendael alone was spared.

{2328}

A peace, patched up by De Vries, gave a respite until summer,

and the war raged more fiercely than before, the Indians

burning and destroying in every direction, while trade was

broken up and the crews of the vessels slaughtered." Kieft's

life was now in danger from the rage of his own people, and

eight men, appointed by public meeting, took control of public

affairs, as far as it was possible to do so. Under the command

of John Underhill, the Connecticut Indian fighter, who had

lately migrated to Manhattan, the war was prosecuted with

great vigor and success on Long Island and against the

Connecticut Indians who had joined in it; but little headway

was made against the tribes on the Hudson, who harassed and

ruined the colony. Thus matters went badly for a long period,

until, in 1647, the Company in Holland sent out Peter

Stuyvesant to take the place of Kieft. "In the interval, the

Indian tribes, weary at last of war, came in and made peace.

Kieft continued his quarrels; but his power was gone, and he

was hated as the principal cause of all the misfortunes of the

colony. The results of his miserable administration were

certainly disastrous enough. Sixteen hundred Indians had

perished in the war; but all the outlying Dutch settlements

and farms had been destroyed, and the prosperity of the colony

had received a check from which it recovered very slowly. In

Connecticut, the English had left the Dutch merely a nominal

hold, and had really destroyed their power in the East. On the

South river [the Delaware] the Swedes had settled, and,

disregarding Kieft's blustering proclamations, had founded

strong and growing colonies. … The interests of Holland were

at a low ebb."

H. C. Lodge,

Short History of the English Colonies,

chapter 16.

A more favorable view of Kieft and his administration is taken

by Mr. Gerard, who says: "Few proconsuls had a more arduous

task in the administration of the government of a province

than had Director Kieft. The Roman official had legions at

command to sustain his power and to repel attack; and in case

of disaster the whole empire was at hand for his support.

Kieft, in a far distant province, with a handful of soldiers

crowded in a dilapidated fort and a few citizens turbulent and

unreliable, surrounded on all sides by savages ever on the

alert for rapine and murder, receiving little support from the

home government, and having a large territory to defend and

two civilized races to contend with, passed the eight years of

his administration amid turmoil and dissension within, and

such hostile attack from without as to keep the province in

continuous peril. The New England colonies were always in a

state of antagonism and threatening war. … The Swedes and

independent settlers on the South and Schuylkill rivers were

constantly making encroachments and threatening the Company's

occupancy there, while pretenders under patents and

independent settlers, knowing the weakness of the government,

kept it disturbed and agitated. What wonder that mistakes were

made, that policy failed, that misfortunes came, and that

Kieft's rule brought no prosperity to the land? The radical

trouble with his administration was that he was under a

divided rule—a political governor with allegiance to the

States-General, and a commercial Director, as the

representative of a great company of traders. The

States-General was too busily occupied in establishing its

independence and watching the balance of European power to

give supervision to the affairs of a province of small

political importance—while the Company, looking upon its

colony merely as a medium of commercial gain, drew all the

profit it could gather from it, disregarded its true

interests, and gave it only occasional and grudging support.

… Towards the Indians Kieft's dealings were characterized by

a rigid regard for their possessory rights; no title was

deemed vested and no right was absolutely claimed until

satisfaction was made to the native owner. Historians of the

period have been almost universal in their condemnation of him

for the various contests and wars engaged in with the Indians,

and have put on him all responsibility for the revolts. But

this is an ex post facto criticism, which, with a false

judgment, condemns a man for the results of his actions rather

than for the actions themselves. Indeed, without the energy

displayed by the Director towards the aborigines, the colony

would probably have been annihilated. … Imprudence,

rashness, arbitrary action, want of political sagacity may be

imputed to Director Kieft, but not excessive inhumanity, nor

want of effort, nor unfaithfulness to his employers or to his

province. He has been generally condemned, but without

sufficient consideration of the trials which he experienced,

the anxiety to which he was subject, and the perplexities

incident to a government over discontented, ignorant and

mutinous subjects, and to the continued apprehension of

outside attack. Left mostly to his own resources, and

receiving no sympathy and little aid, his motives the subject

of attack from both tavern and pulpit, and twice the object of

attempted assassination, his rule as a whole, though

disastrous, was not dishonorable."

J. W. Gerard,

The Administration of William Kieft

(Memorial History of the City of New York,

volume 1, chapter 6).

ALSO IN:

Mrs. Lamb,

History of the City of New York,

volume 1, chapters 6-8.

E. B. O'Callaghan,

History of New Netherland,

book 2, chapter 7

and book 3, chapters 1-9 (volume 1).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1640-1643.

Expulsion of New Haven colonists from the Delaware.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1647-1664.

Peter Stuyvesant and his administration.

Peter Stuyvesant, the director or governor who succeeded

Kieft, "took possession of the government on the 11th of May,

1647. On his arrival he was greeted with a hearty and cordial

reception by the citizens, to which he responded by reciprocal

professions of interest and regard. He had for several years

been in the Company's service as Director of their colony at

Curaçoa, and was distinguished for his energy and bravery.

Having lost a leg in an attack on the Portuguese settlement at

St. Martin's, he had been obliged to return to Europe for

surgical aid, whence, still retaining his former commission,

he was sent to the charge of the Province of New Netherlands.

Immediately on his accession he organized a representative

Council of nine members from a list of eighteen presented to

him by the inhabitants of the province, and gave his assent to

various important provisions for the regulation of trade and

commerce. By a conciliatory and just treatment of the Indians

so recently in revolt he speedily gained their affection and

goodwill, and by his judicious measures for their mutual

protection restored peace and harmony among all classes."

S. S. Randall,

History of the State of New York,

period 2, chapter 5.

{2329}

"The powers of government—executive, legislative, and

judicial—which he [Stuyvesant] assumed, were quite extensive,

and often arbitrary. Directly or indirectly, he appointed and

commissioned all public officers, framed all laws, and decided

all important controversies. … He directed churches to be

built, installed ministers, and even ordered them when and

where to preach. Assuming the sole control of the public

lands, he extinguished the Indian title thereto, and allowed

no purchase to be made from the natives without his sanction;

and granted at pleasure, to individuals and companies, parcels

of land, subject to such conditions as he saw fit to impose.

In the management of these complicated affairs the Director

developed a certain imperiousness of manner and impatience of

restraint, due, perhaps, as much to his previous military life

as to his personal character. … During the whole of his

predecessor's unquiet rule a constant struggle had been going

on between the personal prerogative of the Executive and the

inherent sentiment of popular freedom which prevailed among

the commonalty, leading the latter constantly to seek for

themselves the franchises and freedoms of the Fatherland, to

which, as loyal subjects, they deemed themselves entitled in

New Netherland. The contest was reopened soon after

Stuyvesant's installation, and the firmness of both Director

and people, in the maintenance of what each jealously

considered their rights, gave indication of serious

disturbance to the public weal." The governor, at length, in

1647, conceded "a popular representation in the affairs of

government. An election was therefore held, at which the

inhabitants of Amsterdam, Breuckelen, Amersfoort and Pavonia

chose eighteen of 'the most notable, reasonable, honest, and

respectable' among them, from whom, according to the custom of

the Fatherland, the Director and Council selected 'Nine Men'

as an advisory Council; and although their powers and duties

were jealously limited and guarded by the Director's

Proclamation, yet the appointment of the Nine Men was a

considerable gain to the cause of popular rights. … The

subsequent history of Stuyvesant's government is a record of

quarrels with colonial patroons, with the English in New

England, the Swedes on the South River, and last—not

least—with his own people. In fact, the government was by no

means well adapted to the people or adequate to protect them.

The laws were very, imperfect, and the Director and Council

either incompetent or indisposed to remedy the serious defects

which existed in the administration of civil and criminal

justice."

H. R. Stiles,

History of the City of Brooklyn,

volume 1, chapter 3.

"Director Stuyvesant was recalled to Europe soon after the

surrender [to the English—see below], to vindicate his

conduct … and … found himself the object of serious

charges and most virulent attacks. He returned to this country

in 1668, and died on his bouwerie in 1672. … Throughout his

chequered life he exhibited a character of high morality, and

in his dealings with the Indians an energetic and dignified

deportment, which contributed, no doubt, considerably to the

success of his arms and policy. Alike creditable to his

talents are his negotiations with the neighboring English

colonies. His vindications of the rights of his country, on

these occasions, betoken a firmness of manner, a sharpness of

perception, a clearness of argument and a soundness of

judgment, combined with an extent of reading, which few of his

contemporaries could equal, and none surpass. … It would

afford pleasure were we justified in pronouncing a like

panegyric on other parts of his administration; but none can

review [his arbitrary resistance to just popular demands] …

and his persecution of the Lutherans and other Nonconformists,

without reprobating his tyranny, and regretting that a

character, so faultless in other respects, should be stained

by traits so repulsive as these, and that the powers of a mind

so strong should be exerted in opposing rather than promoting

civil and religious freedom. The hostility this part of his

public conduct evoked redounds most creditably to the

character of the settlers, whose struggles for freer

institutions cannot fail to win for them our sympathy and

regard."

E. B. O'Callaghan,

History of New Netherland,

book 6, chapter 8 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

Remonstrance of New Netherlands

(Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York,

volume 1, pages 275-317);

also volume 13.

G. P. Fisher,

The Colonial Era,

chapter 9.

B. Fernow,

Peter Stuyvesant

(Memorial History of the City of New York,

volume 1, chapter 7).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.

The adjustment of boundaries with Connecticut.

To settle the long pending controversy between Dutch and

English respecting the territory claimed by each on Long

Island and at the mouth of the Connecticut River, Governor

Stuyvesant went in person to Hartford, September, 1650, and

opened negotiations. His hands were tied from the beginning by

instructions from his company to press no claim to the

extremity of a quarrel, because the English were too strong in

America to be fought with. He assented, therefore, to the

appointment of two arbitrators on each side, and he named

Englishmen as his arbitrators. "The four agreed upon a

settlement of the boundary matter, ignoring all other points

in dispute as having occurred under the administration of

Kieft. It was agreed that the Dutch were to retain their

lands, in Hartford [the post of 'Good Hope,' established in

1633, and which they had continued to hold, in the midst of

the spreading English settlement]; that the boundary line

between the two peoples on the mainland was not to come within

ten miles of the Hudson River, but was to be left undecided

for the present, except the first 20 miles from the Sound,

which was to begin on the west side of Greenwich Bay, between

Stamford and Manhattan, running thence 20 miles north; and

that Long Island should be divided by a corresponding line

across it, 'from the westernmost part of Oyster Bay,' to the

sea. The English thus got the greater part of Long Island, a

recognition of the rightfulness of their presence in the

Connecticut territory, and at least the initial 20 miles of a

boundary line which must, in the nature of things, be

prolonged in much the same direction, and which in fact has

pretty closely governed subsequent boundary lines on that side

of Connecticut. If these seem hard terms for the Dutch, and

indicative of treachery on the part of their two English

agents, it must be borne in mind that, by the terms of his

instructions from his principals, Stuyvesant had to take the

best terms he could get. The treaty of Hartford was dated

September 19, 1650."

A. Johnston,

Connecticut

(American Commonwealths),

chapter 10.

ALSO IN:

E. B. O'Callaghan,

History of New Netherland,

book 4, chapters 1-9 (volume 2).

C. W. Bowen,

The Boundary Disputes of Connecticut,

part 1, chapter 1.

Division of the Boundary in America

(Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York,

volume 1, pages 541-577).

{2930}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1653.

The grant of municipal government to New Amsterdam.

"An interesting moment arrived. A new city appeared in the

annals of the world. Its birth was announced on the evening of

February 2, 1653, at the feast of Candlemas. A proclamation of

the governor defined its exceedingly limited powers and named

its first officers. It was called New Amsterdam. There was

nothing in the significant scene which inspired enthusiasm. It

came like a favor grudgingly granted. Its privileges were few,

and even those were subsequently hampered by the most

illiberal interpretations which could be devised. Stuyvesant

made a speech on the occasion, in which he took care to reveal

his intention of making all future municipal appointments,

instead of submitting the matter to the votes of the citizens,

as was the custom in the Fatherland; and he gave the officers

distinctly to understand, from the first, that their existence

did not in any way diminish his authority, but that he should

often preside at their meetings, and at all times counsel them

in matters of importance. … A pew was set apart in the

church for the City Fathers; and on Sunday mornings these

worthies left their homes and families early to meet in the

City Hall, from which, preceded by the bell-ringer, carrying

their cushions of state, they marched in solemn procession to

the sanctuary in the fort. On all occasions of ceremony,

secular or religious, they were treated with distinguished

attention. Their position was eminently respectable, but it

had as yet no emoluments. … There were two burgomasters,

Arent van Hattam and Martin Cregier. … There were five

schepens,—Paulus Van der Grist, Maximilian Van Gheel, Allard

Anthony, Peter Van Couwenhoven, and William Beekman."

Mrs. M. J. Lamb,

History of the City of New York,

volume 1, chapter 10.

ALSO IN:

D. T. Valentine,

History of the City of New York,

chapter 5.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1654.

Threatened attack from New England.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1655.

Subjugation of the Swedes on the Delaware.

See DELAWARE: A. D. 1640-1656.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

The English conquest.

New Amsterdam becomes New York.

The Navigation Act of Cromwell, maintained by the English

after the Stuart Restoration, was continually evaded, almost

openly, in the British American colonies; and it was with the

Dutch at New Amsterdam that the illicit trade of the New

Englanders, the Virginians and the Marylanders was principally

carried on. "In 1663 the losses to the revenue were so

extensive that the framers of the customs … complained of

the great abuses which, they claimed, defrauded the revenue of

£10,000 a year. The interest of the kingdom was at stake, and

the conquest of the New Netherland was resolved upon. … The

next concern of the Chancellor [Clarendon] was to secure to

the Crown the full benefit of the proposed conquest. He was as

little satisfied with the self-rule of the New England

colonies as with the presence of Dutch sovereignty on American

soil; and in the conquest of the foreigner he found the means

to bring the English subject into closer dependence on the

King. James Duke of York, Grand Admiral, was the heir to the

Crown. … A patent to James as presumptive heir to the crown,

from the King his brother, would merge in the crown; and a

central authority strongly established over the territory

covered by it might well, under favorable circumstances, be

extended over the colonies on either side which were governed

under limitations and with privileges directly secured by

charter from the King. … The first step taken by Clarendon

was the purchase of the title conveyed to the Earl of Stirling

in 1635 by the grantees of the New England patent. This

covered the territory of Pemaquid, between the Saint Croix and

the Kennebec, in Maine, and the island of Matowack, or Long

Island. … A title being thus acquired by the adroitness of

Clarendon, a patent was, on the 12th of March, 1664, issued by

Charles II. to the Duke of York, granting him the Maine

territory of Pemaquid, all the islands between Cape Cod and

the Narrows, the Hudson River, and all the lands from the west

side of the Connecticut to the east side of Delaware Bay,

together with the islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket.

The inland boundary was 'a line from the head of Connecticut

River to the source of Hudson River, thence to the head of the

Mohawk branch of Hudson River, and thence to the east side of

Delaware Bay.' The patent gave to the Duke of York, his heirs,

deputies, and assigns, 'absolute power to govern within this

domain according to his own rules and discretions consistent

with the statutes of England.' In this patent the charter

granted by the King to the younger John Winthrop in 1662 for

Connecticut, in which it was stipulated that commissioners

should be sent to New England to settle the boundaries of each

colony, was entirely disregarded. The idea of commissioners

for boundaries now developed with larger scope, and the King

established a royal commission, consisting of four persons

recommended by the Duke of York, whose private instructions

were to reduce the Dutch to submission and to increase the

prerogatives of the Crown in the New England colonies, which

Clarendon considered to be 'already well nigh ripened, to a

commonwealth.' Three of these commissioners were officers in

the royal army,—Colonel Richard Nicolls, Sir Robert Carr,

Colonel George Cartwright. The fourth was Samuel Maverick. …

To Colonel Nicolls the Duke of York entrusted the charge of

taking possession of and governing the vast territory covered

by the King's patent. To one more capable and worthy the

delicate trust could not have been confided. … His title

under the new commission was that of Deputy-Governor; the

tenure of his office, the Duke's pleasure. … When the news

of the gathering of the fleet reached the Hague, and

explanation was demanded of Downing [the English ambassador]

as to the truth of the reports that it was intended for the

reduction of the New Netherland, he boldly insisted on the

English right to the territory by first possession. To a claim

so flimsy and impudent only one response was possible,—a

declaration of war. But the Dutch people at large had little

interest in the remote settlement, which was held to be a

trading-post rather than a colony, and not a profitable post

at best.

{2331}

The West India Company saw the danger of the situation, but

its appeals for assistance were disregarded. Its own resources

and credit were unequal to the task of defence. Meanwhile the

English fleet, composed of one ship of 36, one of 30, a third

of 16, and a transport of 10 guns, with three full companies

of the King's veterans,—in an 450 men, commanded by Colonels

Nicolls, Carr, and Cartwright,—sailed from Portsmouth for

Gardiner's Bay on the 15th of May. On the 23d of July Nicolls

and Cartwright reached Boston, where they demanded military

aid from the Governor and Council of the Colony. Calling upon

Winthrop for the assistance of Connecticut, and appointing a

rendezvous at the west end of Long Island, Nicolls set sail

with his ships and anchored in New Utrecht Bay, just outside

of Coney Island, a spot since historical as the landing-place

of Lord Howe's troops in 1776. Here Nicolls was joined by

militia from New Haven and Long Island. The city of New

Amsterdam … was defenceless. The Director, Stuyvesant, heard

of the approach of the English at Fort Orange (Albany),

whither he had gone to quell disturbances with the Indians.

Returning in haste, he summoned his council together. The

folly of resistance was apparent to all, and after delays, by

which the Director-General sought to save something of his

dignity, a commission for a surrender was agreed upon between

the Dutch authorities and Colonel Nicolls. The capitulation

confirmed the inhabitants in the possession of their property,

the exercise of their religion, and their freedom as citizens.

The municipal officers were continued in their rule. On the

29th of August, 1664, the articles were ratified … and the

city passed under English rule. The first act of Nicolls on

taking possession of the fort, in which he was welcomed by the

civic authorities, was to order that the city of New Amsterdam

be thereafter known as New York, and the fort as Fort James,

in honor of the title and name of his lord and patron. At the

time of the surrender the city gave small promise of its

magnificent future. Its entire population, which did not

exceed 1,500 souls, was housed within the triangle at the

point of the island. … Nicolls now established a new

government for the province. A force was sent up the Hudson

under Captain Cartwright, which took possession of Fort

Orange, the name of which was changed to Albany, in honor of a

title of the Duke of York."

J. A. Stevens,

The English in New York

(Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 3, chapter 10).

ALSO IN:

J. R. Brodhead,

History of New York,

volume 1, chapter 20.

Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York,

volumes 2-3.

See, also, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

The separation of New Jersey,

by grant to Berkeley and Carteret.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

The annexation of the Delaware settlements.

See DELAWARE: A. D. 1664.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1664-1674.

The province as the English received it.

Dutch institutions, their influence and survival.

"In the year 1664, when the government passed to the English,

New Netherland is said by the Chevalier Lambrechtsen to have

consisted of three cities and thirty villages. Its population

was then about ten thousand souls, exclusive of the Indians,

who were important auxiliaries for trade and peltries. The

inhabitants enjoyed a fair measure of freedom and protection.

High roads already existed, and there were numerous owners of

flourishing farms, or bouweries, and other real property,

while urban life was well policed by proper laws. The

treatment by the Dutch of the many English and other aliens

who already dwelt within the Dutch territory was rather in

advance of the age, while the jurisprudence established here

by the Dutch, being largely borrowed from the high

civilization of Rome, was certainly superior in refinement to

the contemporary feudal and folk law introduced by the English

in 1664. Theoretically, the administration of justice

conformed to a high standard, and both Dutch and aliens were

protected by adequate constitutional guaranties. We cannot for

an instant presume that the institutions which half a century

had reared were swept into oblivion by a single stroke of the

English conquerors in 1664. It would be more rational to

suppose that the subsidence of the Dutch institutions was as

gradual as the facts demonstrate it to have been. Negro

slavery was introduced by the Dutch, but it existed here only

under its least objectionable conditions. A large measure of

religious liberty was tolerated, although the Dutch Reformed

Church was the only one publicly sanctioned. On several

occasions delegates of the commonalty were brought into

consultation with the Director-General and Council, and thus,

to some extent, a principle of representative government was

at least recognized, although it was somewhat at variance with

the company's standard of colonial government, and savored too

much of the English idea and encroachment to be palatable. It

must not be forgotten that at home the Dutch were a

self-governing people and accustomed to that most important

principle of free government—self-assessment in taxation. In

common with all commercial peoples, they possessed a sturdy

independence of mind and demeanor. There is no proof that

these excellent qualities were diminished by transplantation

to the still freer air of the new country. New Netherland was

not altogether fortunate in its type of government, experience

demonstrating that the selfish spirit of a mercantile monopoly

is not the fit repository of governmental powers. Yet, on the

whole, it must be conceded that the company's government

introduced here much that was good and accomplished little

that was pernicious. In 1664 it certainly surrendered to the

English one of the finest and most flourishing colonies of

America, possessing a hardy, vigorous, and thrifty people,

well adapted to all the principles of civil and religious

freedom. History shows that this people speedily coalesced

with all that was good in the system introduced by the

English, and sturdily opposed all that was undesirable. … It

is certain … that after the overthrow of the Dutch political

authority the English proceeded gradually to introduce into

New York, by express command, their own laws and customs. Yet

it requires a very much more extended examination of original

sources than has ever been made to determine absolutely just

how much of the English laws and institutions was in force at

a particular epoch of colonial history. The subject perplexed

the colonial courts, and it is still perplexing."

R. L. Fowler,

Constitutional and Legal History, of New York

in the 17th Century

(Memorial History of the City of New York,

volume 1, chapter 14).

{2332}

"Although the New Netherland became a permanent English colony

under the Treaty of Westminster in 1674 [see below], its

population remained largely Dutch until nearly the middle of

the next century. The prosperity of New York, growing steadily

with the progress of trade and the exportation of grains,

attracted emigrants from Holland notwithstanding the change of

flag. Many families now living on Manhattan Island are

descended from Dutchmen who came out after the English

occupation. The old names with which we have become familiar

in the early annals of New Amsterdam continue in positions of

honour and prominence through the English colonial records. In

1673, we find among the city magistrates Johannes van Bruggh,

Johannes de Peyster, Ægidius Luyck, Jacob Kip, Laurans van der

Spiegel, Wilhelm Beeckman, Guleyn Verplanck, Stephen van

Courtlandt. In 1677, Stephanus van Courtlandt is mayor, and

Johannes de Peyster deputy mayor. In 1682, Cornelis Steenwyck

is mayor; in 1685, the office is filled by Nicholas Bayard; in

1686, by Van Courtlandt again. Abraham de Peyster was mayor

from 1691 to 1695; and in his time the following Dutchmen were

aldermen: W. Beeckman, Johannes Kip, Brandt Schuyler, Garrett

Douw, Arent van Scoyck, Gerard Douw, Rip van Dam, Jacobus van

Courtlandt, Samuel Bayard, Jacobus van Nostrandt, Jan

Hendricks Brevoort, Jan van Home, Petrus Bayard, Abraham

Wendell, John Brevoort. These names recur down to 1717. In

1718, John Roosevelt, Philip van Courtlandt, and Cornelius de

Peyster are aldermen. In 1719, Jacobus van Courtlandt is

mayor, and among the aldermen are Philip van Courtlandt,

Harmanus van Gilder, Jacobus Kip, Frederic Philipse, John

Roosevelt, Philip Schuyler. In 1745, Stephen Bayard is mayor.

During the last half of the eighteenth century the Dutch names

are more and more crowded out by the English. … By the

beginning of the nineteenth century, the Dutch names occur

only occasionally. These Dutchmen not only preserved their

leadership in public affairs, but carried on a large

proportion of the city's trade. New York was an English

colony, but its greatness was largely built on Dutch

foundations. It is often said that the city became flourishing

only after the English occupation. This is true, with the

qualification that the Dutch trader and the Dutch farmer after

that event had greater opportunities for successful activity.

… Dutch continued to be the language of New York until the

end of the seventeenth century, after which time English

contended for the mastery with steady success. In the outlying

towns of Long Island and New Jersey and along the Hudson

River, Dutch was generally used for a century later. … In

New York city the large English immigration, the requirements

of commerce, and the frequent intermarriages of Dutch and

English families had given to English the predominance by the

year 1750. … In New York city the high-stoop house, and the

peculiar observance of New Year's Day which continued until

1870, are two familiar relics of Holland. The valuable custom

of registering transfers of real estate has been received from

the same source."

B. Tuckerman,

Peter Stuyvesant,

chapter 4.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1665.

The Duke's Laws.

"At a general meeting held at Hempstead, on Long Island [March

1, 1665], attended by deputies from all the towns, Governor

Nichols presently published, on his own and the duke's

authority, a body of laws for the government of the new

province, alphabetically arranged, collated, and digested,

'out of the several laws now in force in his majesty's

American colonies and plantations,' exhibiting indeed, many

traces of Connecticut and Massachusetts legislation. … The

code [was] known as the 'Duke's Laws,' which Nichols imagined

'could not but be satisfactory even to the most factious

Republicans.' A considerable number of immigrants seem to have

come in on the strength of it from the neighboring colonies of

New England,"

R. Hildreth,

History of the United States,

chapter 17 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

The Duke of York's Book of Laws,

compiled and edited by S. George, et al.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1665-1666.

French invasions of the Iroquois country,

under Courcelles and Tracy.

See CANADA: A. D. 1640-1700.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

The reconquest of the city and province by the Dutch.

The seizure of New Netherland by the English in 1664 was one

of several acts of hostility which preceded an actual

declaration of war between England and Holland. The war became

formal, however, in the following year, and ended in 1666,

ingloriously for England although she retained her American

conquests.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1665-1666

Then followed a period of hypocritical alliance on the part of

Charles II. with the Dutch, which gave him an opportunity to

betray them in 1672, when he joined Louis XIV. of France in a

perfidious attack upon the sturdy republic.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.

During the second year of this last mentioned war, Cornelis

Evertsen, worthy son of a famous Dutch admiral, made an

unexpected reconquest of the lost province. Evertsen "had been

sent out from Zealand with fifteen ships to harass the enemy

in the West Indies, which was effectually done. At Martinico

he fell in with four ships dispatched from Amsterdam, under

the command of Jacob Binckes. Joining their forces, the two

commodores followed Krynssen's track to the Chesapeake, where

they took eight and burned five Virginia tobacco ships, in

spite of the gallantry of the frigates which were to convoy

them to England. As they were going out of the James River,

the Dutch commodores met a sloop from New York," and received

information from one of its passengers which satisfied them

that they might easily take possession of the town. "In a few

days [August 7, 1673] the Dutch fleet, which, with three ships

of war from Amsterdam, and four from Zealand, was now swelled

by prizes to 23 vessels, carrying 1,600 men, arrived off Sandy

Hook. The next morning they anchored under Staten Island." On

the following day the city, which could make no defense, and

all the Dutch inhabitants of which were eager to welcome their

countrymen, was unconditionally surrendered. "The recovery of

New York by the Dutch was an absolute conquest by an open

enemy in time of war. … 'Not the smallest' article of

capitulation, except military honors to the garrison, was

granted by the victors. …

{2333}

Their reconquest annihilated British sovereignty over ancient

New Netherland, and extinguished the duke's proprietary

government in New York, with that of his grantees in New

Jersey. Evertsen and Binckes for the time represented the

Dutch Republic, under the dominion of which its recovered

American provinces instantly passed, by right of successful

war. The effete West India Company was in no way connected

with the transaction. … The name of 'New Netherland' was of

course restored to the reconquered territory, which was held

to embrace not only all that the Dutch possessed according to

the Hartford agreement of 1650, but also the whole of Long

Island east of Oyster Bay, which originally belonged to the

province and which the king had granted to the Duke of York.

… It was, first of all, necessary to extemporize a

provisional government. No orders had been given to Evertsen

or Binckes about New Netherland. Its recovery was a lucky

accident, wholly due to the enterprise of the two commodores;

upon whom fell the responsibility of governing their conquest

until directions should come from the Hague." They appointed

Captain Anthony Colve to be Governor General of the Province.

"Colve's commission described his government as extending from

15 miles south of Cape Henlopen to the east end of Long Island

and Shelter Island, thence through the middle of the Sound to

Greenwich, and so northerly, according to the boundary made in

1650, including Delaware Bay and all the intermediate

territory, as possessed by the English under the Duke of York.

… The name of the city of New York was … changed to 'New

Orange,' in compliment to the prince stadtholder. … The

metropolis being secured, 200 men were sent up the river, in

several vessels, to reduce Esopus and Albany. No opposition

was shown." Albany was ordered to be called Willemstadt.

J. R. Brodhead,

History of the State of New York,

volume 2, chapters 4-5.

ALSO IN:

Mrs. M. J. Lamb,

History of the City of New York,

volume 1, chapter 14-15.

Documents Relating to Colonial History of New York,

volume 2.

Memorial History of the City of New York,

volume 1, chapter 9.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1674.

Restored to England by the Treaty of Westminster.

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

NEW YORK: A. D. 1674-1675.

Long Island annexed, with attempts against half of

Connecticut.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1675.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1684.

Doubtful origin of English claims to the sovereignty of the

Iroquois country.

"Colonel Dongan [governor of New York] was instrumental in

procuring a convention of the Five Nations, at Albany, in

1684, to meet Lord Howard of Effingham, Governor of Virginia,

at which he (Dongan) was likewise present. This meeting, or

council, was attended by the happiest results. … Colonel

Dongan succeeded in completely gaining the affections of the

Indians, who conceived for him the warmest esteem. They even

asked that the arms of the Duke of York might be put upon

their castles;—a request which it need not be said was most

readily complied with, since, should it afterwards become

necessary, the governor might find it convenient to construe

it into an act of at least partial submission to English

authority, although it has been asserted that the Indians

themselves looked upon the ducal insignia as a sort of charm,

that might protect them against the French."

W. L. Stone,

Life and Times of Sir W. Johnson,

volume 1, page 15.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1684-1687.

French invasions of the Iroquois country

under De La Barre and De Nonville.

See CANADA: A. D. 1640-1700.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1686.

The Dongan Charter.

"The year 1686 was distinguished by the granting of the

'Dongan Charter' to the city of New York. It was drafted by

Mayor Nicholas Bayard and Recorder James Graham, and was one

of the most liberal ever bestowed upon a colonial city. By it,

sources of immediate income became vested in the corporation.

Subsequent charters added nothing to the city property, save

in the matter of ferry rights, in immediate reference to which

the charters of 1708 and 1730 were obtained. … The

instrument was the basis of a plan of government for a great

city."

Mrs. M. J. Lamb,

History of the City of New York,

volume 1, page 317.

ALSO IN:

M. Benjamin,

Thomas Dongan and the Granting of the New York Charter

(Memorial History of the City of New York,

volume 1, chapter 11).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1688.

Joined with New England under the governorship of Andros.

In April, 1688, Sir Edmund Andros, who had been made

Governor-general of all New England in 1686, received a new

commission from the King which "constituted him Governor of

all the English possessions on the mainland of America, except

Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. The 'Territory

and Dominion' of New England was now to embrace the country

between the 40th degree of latitude and the River St. Croix,

thus including New York and the Jerseys. The seat of

government was to be at Boston; and a Deputy-Governor, to

reside at New York, was to be the immediate head of the

administration of that colony and of the Jerseys. The Governor

was to be assisted by a Council consisting of 42 members, of

whom five were to constitute a quorum. … The Governor in

Council might impose and collect taxes for the support of the

government, and might pass laws, which however were, within

three months of their enactment, to be sent over to the Privy

Council for approval or repeal. … The seal of New York was

to be broken, and the seal of New England to be used for the

whole jurisdiction. Liberty of conscience was to be allowed,

agreeably to the Declaration of Indulgence."

J. G. Palfrey,

Compendious History of New England,

book 3, chapter 14 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

Mrs. M. J. Lamb,

History of the City of New York,

volume 1, chapter 18.

J. R. Brodhead, editor

Documents Relative to Colonial History of New York,

volume 3, pages 537-554.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1689-1691.

The Revolution.

Jacob Leisler and his fate.

News of the revolution in England which drove James II. from

the throne, giving it to his daughter, Mary, and her husband,

William of Orange, reached New York, from Virginia, in

February, 1689, but was concealed as long as possible from the

public by Lieutenant-Governor Nicholson. No disturbance of the

authority of the latter occurred until after the people of

Boston had risen, in April, and seized the Governor-General,

Sir Edmund Andros, stripping his authority from him and

casting him into prison. This spirited movement was followed a

little later by like action in New York. Two parties had

quickly taken form, "one composed of the adherents of James,

the other of the friends of William and Mary. The former

embraced the aristocratic citizens, including Nicholas Bayard,

the commander of the city militia, the members of the council,

and the municipal authorities.

{2334}

The friends of the new monarchs formed a large majority of the

citizens. They maintained that the entire fabric of the

imperial government, including that of the colonies, had been

overthrown by the revolution, and that, as no person was

invested with authority in the province, it reverted to the

legitimate source of all authority—the people—who might

delegate their powers to whomsoever they would. Among the

principal supporters of this view was Jacob Leisler, a German

by birth, a merchant, the senior captain of one of the five

train-bands of the city commanded by Colonel Bayard, and one

of the oldest and wealthiest inhabitants. … He was a zealous

opponent of the Roman Catholics, and a man of great energy and

determination. … Rumors of terrible things contemplated by

the adherents of James spread over the town, and produced

great excitement. The five companies of militia and a crowd of

citizens gathered at the house of Leisler, and induced him to

become their leader and guide in this emergency. Colonel

Bayard attempted to disperse them, but he was compelled to fly

for his life. A distinct line was now drawn between the

'aristocrats,' led by Bayard, Van Cortlandt, Robert

Livingston, and others, and the 'democrats'—the majority of

the people—who regarded Leisler as their leader and

champion. At his suggestion a 'Committee of Safety' was

formed, composed of ten members—Dutch, Huguenot, and English.

They constituted Leisler 'Captain of the Fort,' and invested

him with the powers of commander-in-chief—really chief

magistrate—until orders should come from the new monarch.

This was the first really republican ruler that ever attained

to power in America. He took possession of Fort James and the

public funds that were in it, and, in June, 1689, he

proclaimed, with the sound of trumpets, William and Mary

sovereigns of Great Britain and the colonies. Then he sent a

letter to the king, giving him an account of what he had

done." Lieutenant-Governor Nicholson made little attempt to

assert his authority in the face of these demonstrations, but

departed presently for England, "after formally giving

authority to his councillors to preserve the peace during his

absence, and until their Majesties' pleasure should be made

known. … Nicholson's desertion of his post gave Leisler and

the Republicans great advantages. He ordered the several

counties of the province to elect their civil and military

officers. Some counties obeyed, and others did not. The

counter influence of Nicholson's councillors was continually

and persistently felt, and Leisler and his party became

greatly incensed against them, especially against Bayard, who

was the chief instigator of the opposition to the 'usurper,'

as he called the Republican leader. So hot became the

indignation of Leisler and his friends that Bayard was

compelled to fly for his life to Albany. The other

councillors, alarmed, soon followed him. At Albany they

acknowledged allegiance to William and Mary. They set up an

independent government, and claimed to be the true and only

rulers of the province. In this position they were sustained

by the civil authorities at Albany." Leisler's son-in-law,

Jacob Milborne, was sent with a force to take possession of

their seat of government, but failed to accomplish his

mission. "Soon after this event a letter arrived at New York

by a special messenger from the British Privy Council,

directed to 'Francis Nicholson, Esq., or, in his absence, to

such as, for the time being, take care for preserving the

peace and administering the laws in His Majesty's province of

New York.'" This letter was delivered by the messenger to

Leisler. Bayard, who had come to the city in disguise, and

attempted to secure the missive, was arrested and imprisoned.

"From this time the opposition to Leisler's government assumed

an organized shape, and was sleepless and relentless. Leisler

justly regarding himself as invested with supreme power by the

people and the spirit of the letter from the Privy Council, at

once assumed the title of lieutenant-governor; appointed

councillors; made a new provincial seal; established courts,

and called an assembly to provide means for carrying on war

with Canada. … Colonel Henry Sloughter was appointed

Governor of New York, but did not arrive until the spring of

1691. Richard Ingoldsby, a captain of foot, arrived early in

the year, with a company of regular soldiers, to take

possession of and hold the government until the arrival of the

governor. He was urged by Leisler's enemies to assume supreme

power at once, as he was the highest royal officer in the

province. He haughtily demanded of Leisler the surrender of

the fort, without deigning to show the governor his

credentials. Leisler, of course, refused, and ordered the

troops to be quartered in the city. Ingoldsby attempted to

take the fort by force, but failed. For several weeks the city

was fearfully excited by rival factions—'Leislerians' and

'anti-Leislerians.' On the arrival of Governor Sloughter, in

March (1691), Leisler at once loyally tendered to him the fort

and the province. Under the influence of the enemies of

Leisler, the royal governor responded to this meritorious

action by ordering the arrest of the lieutenant-governor; also

Milborne, and six other 'inferior insurgents' … , on a

charge of high treason." The accused were tried, convicted and

sentenced to be hanged; but all except Leisler and Milborne

received pardon. These two appealed to the king; but the

governor's councillors succeeded in suppressing the appeal. As

Sloughter hesitated to sign the death-warrant, they

intoxicated him at a dinner party and obtained his signature

to the fatal document while his judgment was overcome. Before

the drunken governor recovered his senses Jacob Leisler and

Jacob Milborne had been hanged. "When the governor became

sober, he was appalled at what he had done: He was so keenly

stung by remorse and afflicted by delirium tremens that he

died a few weeks afterward. Calm and impartial judgment,

enlightened by truth, now assigns to Jacob Leisler the high

position in history of a patriot and martyr."

B. J. Lossing,

The Empire State,

chapter 8.

"Leisler lacked judgment and wisdom in administrative affairs,

but his aims were comprehensive and patriotic. His words are

imbued with a reverent spirit, and were evidently the

utterances of an honest man. It was his lot to encounter an

opposition led by persons who held office under King James.

They pursued him with a relentless spirit. … It is the

office of history to bear witness to Jacob Leisler's integrity

as a man, his loyalty as a subject, and his purity as a

patriot."

R. Frothingham,

The Rise of the Republic,

chapter 3.

{2335}

"The founder of the Democracy of New York was Jacob Leisler.

… And Jacob Leisler was truly an honest man, who, though a

martyr to the cause of liberty, and sacrificed by injustice,

aristocracy, and party malignity, ought to be considered as

one in whom New York should take pride—although the ancestors

of many of her best men denounced him as a rebel and a

traitor."

W. Dunlap,

History of the New Netherlands,

volume 1, chapter 12.

ALSO IN:

C. F. Hoffman,

The Administration of Jacob Leisler

(Library of American Biographies,

series 2, volume 3).

Papers relating to

Lieutenant Governor Leisler's Administration

(O'Callaghan's Documentary History of New York, volume 2).

Documents Relating to Leisler's Administration

(New York Historical Society Collection, 1868).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1689-1697.

King William's War: The Schenectady massacre.

Abortive expedition against Montreal.

French plans of conquest.

See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697:

NEW YORK: A. D. 1690.

The first Colonial Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1692.

Bradford's press set up.

See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1696.

Count Frontenac's invasion of the Iroquois country.

See CANADA: A. D. 1696.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1696-1749.

Suppression of colonial manufactures.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1709-1711.

Queen Anne's War: Unsuccessful projects against Montreal.

Capture of Port Royal.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;

and CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1710.

Colonization of Palatines on the Hudson.

Settlement of Palatine Bridge and German Flats.

See PALATINES: A. D. 1709-1710.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1720-1734.

Conflicts of royal governors with the people.

Zenger's trial.

Vindication of the freedom of the press.

"In September 1720, William Burnet, the son of Bishop Burnet

and godson of William III., entered upon the government of New

York, burdened by instructions from England to keep alive the

assembly which had been chosen several years before. This he

did, to the great discontent of the people, until it had

lasted more than eleven years. … But he was intelligent, and

free from avarice. It was he who took possession of Oswego,

and he 'left no stone unturned to defeat the French designs at

Niagara.' Nevertheless, for all his merit, in 1728, he was

transferred to Massachusetts to make way for the groom of the

chamber of George II. while he was prince of Wales. At the

time when the ministry was warned that 'the American

assemblies aimed at nothing less than being independent of

Great Britain as fast as they could,' Newcastle sent as

governor to New York and New Jersey the dull and ignorant John

Montgomerie. Sluggish, yet humane, the pauper chief magistrate

had no object in America but to get money; and he escaped

contests with the legislatures by giving way to them in all

things. … He died in office in 1731. His successor, in 1732,

was William Cosby, a brother-in-law of the earl of Halifax,

and connected with Newcastle. A boisterous and irritable man,

broken in his fortunes, having little understanding and no

sense of decorum or of virtue, he had been sent over to clutch

at gain. Few men did more to hasten colonial emancipation. …

To gain very great perquisites, he followed the precedent of

Andros in Massachusetts in the days of the Stuarts, and

insisted on new surveys of lands and new grants, in lieu of

the old. To the objection of acting against law, he answered:

'Do you think I mind that? I have a great interest in

England.' The courts of law were not pliable; and Cosby

displaced and appointed judges, without soliciting the consent

of the council or waiting for the approbation of the

sovereign. Complaint could be heard only through the press. A

newspaper was established to defend the popular cause; and, in

November 1734, about a year after its establishment, its

printer, John Peter Zenger, a German by birth, who had been an

apprentice to the famous printer, William Bradford, and

afterward his partner, was imprisoned, by an order of the

council, on the charge of publishing false and seditious

libels. The grand jury would find no bill against him, and the

attorney-general filed an information. The counsel of Zenger

took exceptions to the commissions of the judges, because they

ran during pleasure, and because they had been granted without

the consent of council. The angry judge met the objection by

disbarring James Alexander who offered it, though he stood at

the head of his profession in New York for sagacity,

penetration, and application to business. All the central

colonies regarded the controversy as their own. At the trial

the publishing was confessed; but the aged and venerable

Andrew Hamilton, who came from Philadelphia to plead for

Zenger, justified the publication by asserting its truth. 'You

cannot be admitted,' interrupted the chief justice, 'to give

the truth of a libel in evidence.' 'Then,' said Hamilton to

the jury, 'we appeal to you for witnesses of the facts. The

jury have a right to determine both the law and the fact, and

they ought to do so.' 'The question before you,' he added, 'is

not the cause of a poor printer, nor of New York alone; it is

the cause of liberty.' … The jury gave their verdict, 'Not

guilty.' Hamilton received of the common council of New York

the franchises of the city for 'his learned and generous

defence of the rights of mankind and the liberty of the

press.'"

G. Bancroft,

History of the United States (Author's last Revision)

part 3, chapter 15 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

J. Grahame,

History of the United States (Colonial),

book 10, chapter 1 (volume 2).

W. L. Stone,

History of New York City,

2d period, chapter 2.

E. Lawrence,

William Cosby and the Freedom of the Press

(Memorial History of the City of New York,

volume 2, chapter 7).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1725.

The first Newspaper.

See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1704-1729.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1726.

How the Iroquois placed themselves

under the protection of England.

"Governour Burnet … assembled the chiefs of the Iroquois at

Albany [1726]; he reminded them of all the benefits they had

received from England, and all the injuries that had been

inflicted by France. He pointed out the evils that would flow

to them from a French fort at Niagara, on their territory. The

Indians declared their unwillingness to suffer this intrusion

of the French, but said they now had not power to prevent it.

They called upon the Governour of New York to write to the

King of England for help to regain their country from the

French of Canada. Burnet seized this opportunity to gain a

surrender of their country to England, to be protected for

their use. Such a surrender would be used by Europeans for

their own purposes; but (in the sense they viewed and

represented it), was altogether incomprehensible by the Indian

chiefs; and the deputies had no power from the Iroquois

confederacy to make any such surrender. … By the treaty of

Utrecht … France had acknowledged the Iroquois and their

territory to be subject to Great Britain."

W. Dunlap,

History of New York,

volume 1, page 289.

{2336}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1741.

The pretended Negro Plot.

Panic and merciless frenzy of the people.

In 1741, "the city of New York became the scene of a cruel and

bloody delusion, less notorious, but not less lamentable than

the Salem witchcraft. That city now contained some 7,000 or

8,000 inhabitants, of whom 1,200 or 1,500 were slaves. Nine

fires in rapid succession, most of them, however, merely the

burning of chimneys, produced a perfect insanity of terror. An

indented servant woman purchased her liberty and secured a

reward, of £100 by pretending to give information of a plot

formed by a low tavern-keeper, her master, and three negroes,

to burn the city and murder the whites. This story was

confirmed and amplified by an Irish prostitute, convicted of a

robbery, who, to recommend herself to mercy, reluctantly

turned informer. Numerous arrests had been already made among

the slaves and free blacks. Many others followed. The eight

lawyers who then composed the bar of New York all assisted by

turns on behalf of the prosecution. The prisoners, who had no

counsel, were tried and convicted upon most insufficient

evidence. The lawyers vied with each other in heaping all

sorts of abuse on their heads, and Chief-justice Delancey, in

passing sentence, vied with the lawyers. Many confessed to

save their lives, and then accused others. Thirteen unhappy

convicts were burned at the stake, eighteen were hanged, and

seventy-one transported. The war and the religious excitement

then prevailing tended to inflame the yet hot prejudices

against Catholics. A non-juring schoolmaster, accused of being

a Catholic priest in disguise, and of stimulating the negroes

to burn the city by promises of absolution, was condemned and

executed."

R. Hildreth,

History of the United States,

chapter 25 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

Mrs. Lamb,

History of the City of New York,

volume 1, chapter 26.

G. W. Williams,

History of the Negro Race in America,

volume 1, chapter 13.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1744.

Treaty with the Six Nations at Albany.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1744-1748.

King George's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1746-1754.

The founding of King's College.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1746-1787.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1749-1774.

The struggle for Vermont.

The disputed New Hampshire Grants,

and the Green Mountain Boys who defended them.

See VERMONT: A. D. 1749-1774.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1754.

The Colonial Congress at Albany and Franklin's Plan of Union.

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

NEW YORK: A. D. 1755.

The French and Indian War: Battle of Lake George.

Abortive expedition against Niagara.

Braddock's defeat.

See CANADA: A. D. 1755;

and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1756-1757.

The French and Indian War:

English loss of Oswego and of Fort William Henry.

See CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1758.

The French and Indian War:

Bloody defeat of the English at Ticonderoga.

Final capture of Louisburg and recovery of Fort Duquesne.

See CANADA: A. D. 1758;

and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1759.

The French and Indian War:

Niagara, Ticonderoga, Crown Point and Quebec taken.

See CANADA: A. D. 1759.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1760.

The French and Indian War:

Completed English conquest of Canada.

See CANADA: A. D. 1760.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1763-1764.

Pontiac's War.

Sir William Johnson's Treaty with the Indians at Fort Niagara.

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1763-1766.

The question of taxation by Parliament.

The Sugar Act.

The Stamp Act and its repeal.

The Declaratory Act.

The Stamp Act Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1765.

Patriotic self-denials.

Non-importation agreements.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1765-1768.

The Indian treaties of German Flats and Fort Stanwix.

Adjustment of boundaries with the Six Nations.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1766-1773.

Opening events of the Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1766-1767, to 1772-1773,

and BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774.

The Revolutionary spirit abroad.

The conflict of parties.

The Vigilance Committee, the Committee of Fifty-One,

and the Committee of Sixty.

"In 1773 the tax on tea was imposed. On October 25th the

Mohawks of New York, a band of the Sons of Liberty, were

ordered by their old leaders to be on the watch for the tea

ships; and it was merely the chances of time and tide that

gave the opportunity of fame first to the Mohawks of Boston.

… An 'association' was now circulated for signatures,

engaging to boycott, 'not deal with, or employ, or have any

connection with' any persons who should aid in landing, or

'selling, or buying tea, so long as it is subject to a duty by

Parliament'; and December 17th a meeting of the subscribers

was held and a committee of fifteen chosen as a Committee of

Correspondence that was soon known as the Vigilance Committee.

Letters also were exchanged between the speakers of many of

the houses of assembly in the different provinces; and January

20, 1774, the New York Assembly, which had been out of touch

with the people ever since the Stamp Act was passed in the

year after its election, appointed their Speaker, with twelve

others, a standing Committee of Correspondence and Enquiry, a

proof that the interest of all classes was now excited. April

15th, the 'Nancy' with a cargo of tea arrived off Sandy Hook,

followed shortly by the 'London.' The Committee of Vigilance

assembled, and, as soon as Captain Lockyier, of the' Nancy'

landed in spite of their warning, escorted him to a pilot boat

and set him on board again. … April 23d, the 'Nancy' stood

out to sea without landing her cargo, and with her carried

Captain Chambers of the 'London,' from which the evening

before eighteen chests of tea had been emptied into the sea by

the Liberty Boys. The bill closing the port of Boston was

enacted March 31st, and a copy of the act reached New York by

the ship Samson on the 12th.

{2337}

Two days later the Committee of Vigilance wrote to the Boston

Committee recommending vigorous measures as the most

effectual, and assuring them that their course would be

heartily supported by their brethren in New York. So rapid had

been the march of events that not till now did the merchants

and responsible citizens of New York take alarm. Without their

concurrence or even knowledge they were being rapidly

compromised by the unauthorized action of an irresponsible

committee, composed of men who for the most part were noted

more for enthusiasm than for judgment, and many of whom had

been not unconcerned in petty riots and demonstrations

condemned by the better part of the community. … 'The men

who at that time called themselves the Committee,' wrote

Lieutenant Governor Colden the next month, 'who dictated and

acted in the name of the people, were many of them of the

lower ranks, and all the warmest zealots of those called the

Sons of Liberty. The more considerable merchants and citizens

seldom or never appeared among them. … The principal

inhabitants, being now afraid that these hot-headed men might

run the city into dangerous measures, appeared in a

considerable body at the first meeting of the people after the

Boston Port Act was published here.' This meeting, convoked by

advertisement, was held May 16th, at the house of Samuel

Francis, 'to consult on the measures proper to be pursued.'

… A committee of fifty, Jay among them, instead of one of

twenty-five, as at first suggested, was nominated 'for the

approbation of the public,' 'to correspond with our sister

colonies on all matters of moment.' Three days later these

nominations were confirmed by a public meeting held at the

Coffee House, but not until a fifty-first member was added,

Francis Lewis, as a representative of the radical party which

had been as much as possible ignored. … At the Coffee House

again, on May 23d, the Committee of Fifty-one met and

organized; they repudiated the letter to Boston from the

Committee of Vigilance as unofficial," and prepared a response

to another communication just received from Boston, by the

famous messenger, Paul Revere. In this reply it was "urged

that 'a Congress of Deputies from the Colonies in General is

of the utmost moment,' to form 'some unanimous resolutions …

not only respecting your [Boston's] deplorable circumstances,

but for the security of our common rights;' and that the

advisability of a non-importation agreement should be left to

the Congress. … The importance of this letter can hardly be

exaggerated, for it was the first serious authoritative

suggestion of a General Congress to consider 'the common

rights' of the colonies in general. … The advice of New York

was followed gradually by the other colonies, but even before

a Continental Congress was a certainty, the Committee of

Fifty-one, with singular confidence, resolved that delegates

to it should be chosen, and called a meeting for that purpose

for July 19th. … Philip Livingston, John Alsop, James Duane,

and John Jay were nominated as delegates to be submitted to

the public meeting, July 19th. The people met accordingly at

the Coffee House, and after a stormy debate elected the

committee's candidates in spite of a strong effort to

substitute for Jay, McDougall, the hero of the Liberty Boys."

This election, however, was not thought to be an adequate

expression of the popular will, and polls were subsequently

opened in each ward, on the 28th of July. The result was a

unanimous vote for Jay and his colleagues. "Thus, fortunately,

at the very inception of the Revolution, before the faintest

clatter of arms, the popular movement was placed in charge of

the 'Patricians' as they were called, rather than of the

'Tribunes,' as respectively represented by Jay and McDougall."

G. Pellew,

John Jay,

chapter 2.

"The New York Committee of Fifty-One, having accomplished its

object, appointed a day for the choice, by the freeholders of

the city, of a 'Committee of Observation,' numbering sixty, to

enforce in New York the Non-Importation Act of the late

Congress; and when this new committee was duly elected and

organized, with Isaac Low as chairman, the Fifty-One was

dissolved."

Mrs. M. J. Lamb,

History of the City of New York,

volume 1, page 768.

ALSO IN:

I. Q. Leake,

Life and Times of General John Lamb,

chapter 6.

J. A. Stevens,

The Second Non-importation Agreement

(Memorial History of the City of New York,

volume 2, chapter 11).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1774.

The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,

and the Quebec Act.

The First Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April).

Disadvantages experienced by the patriots.

The first provincial Convention held.

"The republicans of the province of New York, composing by far

the greater portion of the inhabitants, labored under severe

disabilities. Acting Governor Colden was a Loyalist, and his

council held office by the King's will. The assembly, though

chosen by the people, continued in existence only by the

King's prerogative. They might be dissolved by the

representative of the crown (the acting governor) at any

moment. There was no legally constituted body to form a

rallying point for the patriots, as in Massachusetts, where

there was an elective council and an annually elected

assembly. In all the other colonies there was some nucleus of

power around which the people might assemble and claim to be

heard with respect. But in New York they were thrown back upon

their own resources, and nobly did they preserve their

integrity and maintain their cause, in spite of every

obstacle. The whole continent was now moving in the direction

of rebellion. … The excitement in New York was equally

intense. Toward the close of the preceding December, the

Liberty Boys were called to action by the seizure of arms and

ammunition, which some of them had imported, and had consigned

to Walter Franklin, a well known merchant. These were seized

by order of the collector, because, as he alleged, of the want

of cockets, or custom-house warrants, they having been in

store several days without them. While they were on their way

to the custom-house, some of the Sons of Liberty rallied and

seized them, but before they could be concealed they were

retaken by government officials and sent on board a man-of-war

in the harbor. … The republicans failed in their efforts, in

the New York Assembly, to procure the appointment of delegates

to the second Continental Congress, to be convened at

Philadelphia in May. Nothing was left for them to do but to

appeal to the people.

{2338}

The General Committee of sixty members, many of them of the

loyal majority in the assembly, yielding to the pressure of

popular sentiment, called a meeting of the freeholders and

freemen of the city at the Exchange, to take into

consideration the election of delegates to a convention of

representatives from such of the counties of the province as

should adopt the measure, the sole object of such convention

being the choice of proper persons to represent the colony in

the Continental Congress. This movement was opposed by the

loyalists. … At first there was confusion. This soon

subsided, and the meeting proceeded with calmness and dignity

to nominate eleven persons to represent the city in a

provincial convention to be held in New York on the 20th

[April], who were to be instructed to choose delegates to the

Continental Congress. On the following day the chairman of the

Committee of Sixty gave notice of the proposed convention on

the 20th to the chairmen of the committees of correspondence

in the different counties, advising them to choose delegates

to the same. There was a prompt response. … The convention

assembled at the Exchange, in New York, on the 20th, and

consisted of 42 members [representing seven counties outside

of New York city]. Colonel Schuyler was at the head of the

delegation from Albany, and took a leading part in the

convention. Philip Livingston was chosen president of the

convention, and John M'Kesson, secretary. This was the first

provincial convention in New York—the first positive

expression of the doctrine of popular sovereignty in that

province. They remained in session three days, and chose for

delegates to the Continental Congress Philip Livingston, James

Duane, John Alsop, John Jay, Simon Boerum, William Floyd,

Henry Wisner, Philip Schuyler, George Clinton, Lewis Morris,

Francis Lewis, and Robert R. Livingston, to whom were given

full power, 'or any five of them, to meet the delegates from

other colonies, and to concert and determine upon such

measures as shall be judged most effectual for the

preservation and reestablishment of American rights and

privileges, and for the restoration of harmony between Great

Britain and her colonies.' While this convention was in

session intelligence of the bloodshed at Lexington was on its

way, but it did not reach New York until the day after the

adjournment."

B. J. Lossing,

Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,

volume 1, chapters 17-18.

ALSO IN:

W. Dunlap,

History of New York,

volume 1, chapter 29.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April-May).

The Beginning of the War of the American Revolution.

Lexington.

Concord.

Action upon the news.

Ethan Allen at Ticonderoga.

Siege of Boston.

Bunker Hill.

The Second Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April-September).

The Sons of Liberty take control of the city.

The end of royal government.

Flight of Governor Tryon.

"On Sunday, the 24th of April, 1775, the news of the battle of

Lexington reached the city. This was the signal for open

hostilities. Business was at once suspended; the Sons of

Liberty assembled in large numbers, and, taking possession of

the City Hall, distributed the arms that were stored in it,

together with a quantity which had been deposited in the

arsenal for safe keeping, among the citizens, a party of whom

formed themselves into a voluntary corps under the command of

Samuel Broome, and assumed the temporary government of the

city. This done, they demanded and obtained the keys of the

custom house, closed the building and laid an embargo upon the

vessels in port destined for the eastern colonies. … It now

became necessary to organize some provisional government for

the city, and for this purpose, on the 5th of May, a meeting

of the citizens was called at the Coffee-House, at which a

Committee of One Hundred was chosen and invested with the

charge of municipal affairs, the people pledging themselves to

obey its orders until different arrangements should be made by

the Continental Congress. This committee was composed in part

of men inclined to the royalist cause, yet, such was the

popular excitement at the time, that they were carried away by

the current and forced to acquiesce in the measures of their

more zealous colleagues. … The committee at once assumed the

command of the city, and, retaining the corps of Broome as

their executive power, prohibited the sale of weapons to any

persons suspected of being hostile to the patriotic party. …

The moderate men of the committee succeeded in prevailing on

their colleagues to present a placable address to

Lieutenant-Governor Colden, explanatory of their appointment,

and assuring him that they should use every effort to preserve

the public peace; yet ominous precautions were taken to put

the arms of the city in a serviceable condition, and to survey

the neighboring grounds with a view to erecting

fortifications. … On the 25th of June, Washington entered

New York on his way from Mount Vernon to Cambridge to take

command of the army assembled there. The Provincial Congress

received him with a cautious address. Despite their

patriotism, they still clung to the shadow of loyalty; fearing

to go too far, they acted constantly under protest that they

desired nothing more than to secure to themselves the rights

of true-born British subjects. The next morning Washington

quitted the city, escorted on his way by the provincial

militia. Tryon [Governor Tryon, who had been absent, in England

since the spring of 1774, leaving the government in the hands

of Lieutenant-Governor Colden, and who now returned to resume

it] had entered it the night before, and thus had been brought

almost face to face with the rebel who was destined to work

such a transformation in his majesty's colonies of America.

The mayor and corporation received the returning governor with

expressions of joy, and even the patriot party were glad of

the change which relieved them from the government of Colden.

… Meanwhile, the colony of New York had been ordered by the

Continental Congress to contribute her quota of 3,000 men to

the general defence, and four regiments were accordingly

raised. … The city now presented a curious spectacle, as the

seat of two governments, each issuing its own edicts, and

denouncing those of the other as illegal authority. It was not

long before the two powers came into collision." This was

brought about by an order from the Provincial Congress,

directing the removal of guns from the Battery. Shots were

exchanged between the party executing this order and a boat

from the ship of war "Asia"; whereupon the "Asia" cannonaded

the town, riddling houses and wounding three citizens.

"Hitherto, the governor had remained firm at his post; but

finding his position daily growing more perilous, despite the

pledges of the corporation for his personal safety, he

determined to abandon the city, and took refuge on board the

'Asia.'"

Mary L. Booth,

History of the City of New York,

chapter 16.

ALSO IN:

I. Q. Leake,

Life and Times of General John Lamb,

chapter 7.

{2339}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1776 (January-August).

Flight of Governor Tryon.

New York City occupied by Washington.

Battle of Long Island.

Defeat of the American army.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1776 (September-November).

The struggle for the city.

Washington's retreat.

The British in possession.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1776 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1776-1777.

The Jersey Prison-ship and the Sugar-house Prisons.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1776-1777 PRISONERS AND EXCHANGES.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1776-1777.

The campaigns in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1776-1777. WASHINGTON'S RETREAT;

and 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1777.

Adoption of a Constitution and

organization of a State government.

Religious freedom established.

"After the Declaration of Independence, the several colonies

proceeded to form State governments, by adopting

constitutions. In that business New York moved early. On the

1st of August, 1776, a committee of the 'Convention of the

Representatives of New York,' as the provisional government

was called, sitting at White Plains, in Westchester County,

were appointed to draw up and report a constitution. The

committee consisted of the following named gentlemen: John

Jay, John Sloss Hobart, William Smith, William Duer,

Gouverneur Morris, Robert R. Livingston, John Broome, John

Morin Scott, Abraham Yates, Jr., Henry Wisner, Sen., Samuel

Townsend, Charles De Witt and Robert Yates. John Jay was the

chairman, and to him was assigned the duty of drafting the

Constitution. The Convention was made migratory by the

stirring events of the war during the ensuing autumn and

winter. First they held their sessions at Harlem Heights; then

at White Plains; afterward at Fishkill, in Dutchess County,

and finally at Kingston, in Ulster County, where they

continued from February till May, 1777. There undisturbed the

committee on the Constitution pursued their labors, and on the

12th of March, 1777, reported a draft of that instrument. It

was under consideration in the Convention for more than a

month after that, and was finally adopted on the 20th of

April. Under it a State government was established by an

ordinance of the Convention, passed in May, and the first

session of the Legislature was appointed to meet at Kingston

in July." The election of State officers was held in June. Jay

and others issued a circular recommending General Schuyler for

Governor and General George Clinton for Lieutenant Governor.

But Schuyler "declined the honor, because he considered the

situation of affairs in his Department too critical to be

neglected by dividing his duties. The elections were held in

all the Counties excepting New York, Kings, Queens, and

Suffolk, then occupied by the British, and Brigadier General

George Clinton was elected Governor, which office he held, by

successive elections, for eighteen years, and afterward for

three years. Pierre Van Courtlandt, the President of the

Senate, became Lieutenant Governor. Robert R. Livingston was

appointed Chancellor; John Jay Chief Justice; Robert Yates and

John Sloss Hobart judges of the Supreme Court, and Egbert

Benson attorney-general. So it was that the great State of New

York was organized and put into operation at a time when it

was disturbed by formidable invasions on its northern,

southern, and western frontiers."

B. J. Lossing,

Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,

volume 2, chapter 9.

The framers of this first constitution of the State of New

York "proceeded at the outset to do away with the established

church, repealing all such parts of the common law and all

such statutes of the province 'as may be construed to

establish or maintain any particular denomination of

Christians or their ministers.' Then followed a section …

which, it is believed, entitles New York to the honor of being

the first organized government of the world to assert by

constitutional provision the principle of perfect religious

freedom. It reads as follows: 'And whereas, we are required by

the benevolent principles of rational liberty, not only to

expel civil tyranny, but also to guard against that spiritual

oppression and intolerance wherewith the bigotry and ambition

of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind,

this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority

of the good people of this state, ordain, determine, and

declare that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious

profession and worship, without discrimination or preference,

shall forever hereafter be allowed within this state to all

mankind.' Thomas Jefferson, to whom Virginia is chiefly

indebted for her religious liberty [embodied in her

Declaration of Rights, in 1776] derived his religious as well

as his political ideas from the philosophers of France. But

the men who framed this constitutional provision for New York,

which has since spread over most of the United States, and

lies at the base of American religious liberty, were not

freethinkers, although they believed in freedom of thought.

Their Dutch ancestors had practised religious toleration, they

expanded toleration into liberty, and in this form transmitted

to posterity the heritage which Holland had sent across the

sea a century and a half before."

D. Campbell,

The Puritan in Holland, England and America,

volume 2, pages 251-252.

ALSO IN:

W. Jay,

Life of John Jay,

chapter 3 (volume 1).

T. Roosevelt,

Gouverneur Morris,

chapter 3.

B. F. Butler,

Outline of Constitutional History of New York

(New York Historical Society Collections,

series 2, volume 2).

See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1776-1779.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1777.

Opposition to the recognition of

the State independence of Vermont.

See VERMONT: A. D. 1777-1778.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1777-1778.

Burgoyne's invasion from Canada and his surrender.

The Articles of Confederation.

The alliance with France.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1777(JULY-OCTOBER), to 1778 (FEBRUARY).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1778.

Fortifying West Point.

See WEST POINT.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1778.

The war on the Indian Border.

Activity of Tories and Savages.

The Massacre at Cherry Valley.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER), and (JULY).

{2340}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1778-1779.

Washington's ceaseless guard upon the Hudson.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

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

NEW YORK: A. D. 1779.

Sullivan's expedition against the Senecas.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1780.

Arnold's attempted betrayal of West Point.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1780-1783.

The war in the South.

The surrender of Cornwallis.

Peace with Great Britain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780, to 1783.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1781.

Western territorial claims and

their cession to the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1783.

Flight of the Tories, or Loyalists.

See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1783.

Evacuation of New York City by the British.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1783 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1784.

Founding of the Bank of New York.

See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1780-1784.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1786.

Rejection of proposed amendments

to the Articles of Confederation.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783-1787.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

Land-fee of Western New York ceded to Massachusetts.

The Phelps and Gorham Purchase.

The Holland Purchase.

The founding of Buffalo.

The conflicting territorial claims of New York and

Massachusetts, caused by the overlapping grants of the English

crown, were not all settled by the cession of western claims

to the United States which New York made in 1781 and

Massachusetts in 1785 (see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.

1781-1786). "Although the nominal amount in controversy, by

these acts, was much diminished, it still left some 19,000

square miles of territory in dispute, but this controversy was

finally settled by a convention of Commissioners appointed by

the parties, held at Hartford, Connecticut, on the 16th day of

December, 1786. According to the stipulations entered into by

the convention, Massachusetts ceded to the state of New York

all her claim to the government, sovereignty, and jurisdiction

of all the territory lying west of the present east line of

the state of New York; and New York ceded to Massachusetts the

pre-emption right or fee of the land subject to the title of

the natives, of all that part of the state of New York lying

west of a line beginning at a point in the north line of

Pennsylvania, 82 miles west of the north-east corner of said

state, and running from thence due north through Seneca lake

to lake Ontario; excepting and reserving to the state of New

York a strip of land east of and adjoining the eastern bank of

Niagara river, one mile wide and extending its whole length.

The land, the pre-emption right of which was thus ceded,

amounted to about 6,000,000 of acres. In April, 1788,

Massachusetts contracted to sell to Nathaniel Gorham of

Charlestown, Middlesex county, and Oliver Phelps of Granville,

Hampshire county, of said state, their pre-emption right to

all the lands in Western New York, amounting to about

6,000,000 acres, for the sum of $1,000,000, to be paid in

three annual instalments, for which a kind of scrip

Massachusetts had issued, called consolidated securities, was

to be received, which was then in market much below par. In

July, 1788, Messrs. Gorham and Phelps purchased of the Indians

by treaty, at a convention held at Buffalo, the Indian title

to about 2,600,000 acres of the eastern part of their purchase

from Massachusetts. This purchase of the Indians being bounded

west by a line beginning at a point in the north line of the

state of Pennsylvania, due south of the corner or point of

land made by the confluence of the Kanahasgwaicon

(Cannnseraga) creek with the waters of Genesee river; thence

north on said meridian line to the corner or point at the

confluence aforesaid; thence northwardly along the waters of

said Genesee river to a point two miles north of Kanawageras

(Cannewagus) village; thence running due west 12 miles; thence

running northwardly, so as to be 12 miles distant from the

westward bounds of said river, to the shore of lake Ontario.

On the 21st day of November, 1788, the state of Massachusetts

conveyed and forever quitclaimed to N. Gorham and O. Phelps,

their heirs and assigns forever, all the right and title of

said state to all that tract of country of which Messrs.

Phelps and Gorham had extinguished the Indian title. This

tract, and this only, has since been designated as the Phelps

and Gorham Purchase. … So rapid were the sales of the

proprietors that before the 18th day of November, 1790, they

had disposed of about 50 townships [each six miles square],

which were mostly sold by whole townships or large portions of

townships, to sundry individuals and companies of farmers and

others, formed for that purpose. On the 18th day of November,

1790, they sold the residue of their tract (reserving two

townships only), amounting to upwards of a million and a

quarter acres of land, to Robert Morris of Philadelphia, who

soon sold the same to Sir William Pultney, an English

gentleman. … This property, or such part of it as was unsold

at the time of the decease of Sir William, together with other

property which he purchased in his lifetime in its vicinity,

is now [1849] called the Pultney Estate. … Messrs. Phelps

and Gorham, who had paid about one third of the purchase money

of the whole tract purchased of Massachusetts, in consequence

of the rise of the value of Massachusetts consolidated stock

(in which the payments for the land were to be received) from

20 per cent. to par, were unable further to comply with their

engagements." After long negotiations they were permitted to

relinquish to the state of Massachusetts all that western

section of their purchase of which they had not acquired the

Indian title, and this was resold in March, 1791, by

Massachusetts, to Samuel Ogden, acting for Robert Morris.

Morris made several sales from the eastern portion of his

purchase, to the state of Connecticut (investing its school

fund) and to others, in large blocks known subsequently as the

Ogden Tract, the Cragie Tract, the Connecticut Tract, etc. The

remainder or most of it, covering the greater part of western

New York, was disposed of to certain gentlemen in Holland, and

came to be generally known as the Holland Purchase.

O. Turner,

Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase,

pages 325 and 396-424.

{2341}

"Much has been written and more has been said about the

'Holland Company.' When people wished to be especially

precise, they called it the 'Holland Land Company.' … Yet

there never was any such thing as the Holland Company or the

Holland Land Company. Certain merchants and others of the city

of Amsterdam placed funds in the hands of friends who were

citizens of America to purchase several tracts of land in the

United States, which, being aliens, the Hollanders could not

hold in their own name at that time. One of these tracts,

comprising what was afterwards known as the Holland Purchase,

was bought from Robert Morris. … In the forepart of 1798 the

legislature of New York authorized those aliens to hold land

within the State, and in the latter part of that year the

American trustees conveyed the Holland Purchase to the real

owners." The great territory covered by the Purchase

surrounded several Indian "Reservations"—large blocks of

land, that is, which the aboriginal Seneca proprietors

reserved for their own occupancy when they parted with their

title to the rest, which they did at a council held in 1797.

One of these Reservations embraced the site now occupied by

the city of Buffalo. Joseph Ellicott, the agent of the Holland

proprietors, quickly discerned its prospective importance, and

made an arrangement with his Indian neighbors by which he

secured possession of the ground at the foot of Lake Erie and

the head of Niagara River, in exchange for another piece of

land six miles away. Here, in 1799, Ellicott began the

founding of a town which he called New Amsterdam, but which

subsequently took the name of the small stream, Buffalo Creek,

on which it grew up, and which, by deepening and enlargement,

became its harbor.

C. Johnson,

Centennial History of Erie Company, New York,

chapter 13.

ALSO IN:

O. Turner,

History of the Pioneer Settlement

of Phelps' and Gorham's Purchase,

part 2.

O. Turner,

Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase,

pages 401-424.

H. L. Osgood,

The Title of the Phelps and Gorham Purchase

(Rochester Historical Society Publications, volume 1).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1787-1788.

The formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

The chief battle ground of the contest.

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

NEW YORK: A. D. 1789.

Inauguration of President Washington in New York City.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1789.

The beginnings of Tammany.

See TAMMANY SOCIETY.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1790.

Renunciation of claims to Vermont.

See VERMONT: A. D. 1790-1791.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1799.

Gradual emancipation of Slaves enacted.

During the session of the legislature in April, 1799,

"emancipation was at last enacted. It was provided that all

children born of slave parents after the ensuing 4th of July

should be free, subject to apprenticeship, in the case of

males till the age of 28, in the case of females till the age

of 25, and the exportation of slaves was forbidden. By this

process of gradual emancipation there was avoided that

question of compensation which had been the secret of the

failure of earlier bills. At that time the number of slaves

was only 22,000, small in proportion to the total population

of nearly a million. So the change was effected peacefully and

without excitement."

G. Pellew,

John Jay,

page 328.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1805.

The Free School Society in New York City.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1880.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1807.

Fulton's first steamboat on the Hudson.

See STEAM NAVIGATION: THE BEGINNINGS.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1812-1815.

The war on the Canadian frontier.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);

1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER);

1813 (DECEMBER);

1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER);

1814 (SEPTEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1819.

The Clintonians and Bucktails.

During the first term of De Witt Clinton as governor of the

State, the feud in the Democratic Republican party, between

his supporters and his opponents, which began in 1812 when he

audaciously sought to attain the Presidency, against Madison,

assumed a fixed and definite form. "Clinton's Republican

adversaries were dubbed 'Bucktails,' from the ornaments worn

on ceremonial occasions by the Tammany men, who had long been

Clinton's enemies. The Bucktails and their successors were the

'regular' Republicans, or the Democrats as they were later

called; and they kept their regularity until, long afterwards,

the younger and greater Bucktail leader [Martin Van Buren],

when venerable and laden with honors, became the titular head

of the Barn-burner defection. The merits of the feud between

Bucktails and Clintonians it is now difficult to find. Each

accused the other of coquetting with the Federalists; and the

accusation of one of them was nearly always true."

E. M. Shepard,

Martin Van Buren,

page 56.

ALSO IN:

J. Schouler,

History of the United States,

volume 3, page 227.

J. D. Hammond,

History of Political Parties in the State of New York,

volume 1, page 450.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1825.

Construction of the Erie Canal.

"History will assign to Gouverneur Morris the merit of first

suggesting a direct and continuous communication from Lake

Erie to the Hudson. In 1800, he announced this idea from the

shore of the Niagara river to a friend in Europe. … The

praise awarded to Gouverneur Morris must be qualified by the

fact, that the scheme he conceived was that of a canal with a

uniform declination, and without locks, from Lake Erie to the

Hudson. Morris communicated his project to Simeon De Witt in

1803, by whom it was made known to James Geddes in 1804. It

afterward became the subject of conversation between Mr.

Geddes and Jesse Hawley, and this communication is supposed to

have given rise to the series of essays written by Mr. Hawley,

under the signature of 'Hercules,' in the 'Genesee Messenger,'

continued from October, 1807, until March, 1808, which first

brought the public mind into familiarity with the subject.

These essays, written in a jail, were the grateful return, by

a patriot, to a country which punished him with imprisonment

for being unable to pay debts owed to another citizen, and

displayed deep research, with singular vigor and

comprehensiveness of thought, and traced with prophetic

accuracy a large portion of the outline of the Erie canal. In

1807, Albert Gallatin, then secretary of the treasury, in

pursuance of a recommendation made by Thomas Jefferson,

president of the United States, reported a plan for

appropriating all the surplus revenues of the general

government to the construction of canals and turnpike roads;

and it embraced in one grand and comprehensive view, nearly

without exception, all the works which have since been

executed or attempted by the several states in the Union. …

{2342}

In 1808, Joshua Forman, a representative in the assembly from

Onondaga county, submitted his memorable resolution,"

referring to the recommendation made by President Jefferson to

the federal congress, and directing that "'a joint committee

be appointed to take into consideration the propriety of

exploring and causing an accurate survey to be made of the

most eligible and direct route for a canal, to open a

communication between the tide waters of the Hudson river and

Lake Erie, to the end that Congress may be enabled to

appropriate such sums as may be necessary to the

accomplishment of that great national object.'" The committee

was appointed, its report was favorable, and the survey was

directed to be made. "There was then no civil engineer in the

state. James Geddes, a land surveyor, who afterward became one

of our most distinguished engineers, by the force of native

genius and application in mature years, levelled and surveyed,

under instructions from the surveyor-general," several routes

to Lake Ontario and to Lake Erie. "Mr. Geddes' report showed

that a canal from Lake Erie to the Hudson was practicable, and

could be made without serious difficulty. In 1810, on motion

of Jonas Platt, of the senate, who was distinguished

throughout a pure and well-spent life by his zealous efforts

to promote this great undertaking, Gouverneur Morris, De Witt

Clinton, Stephen Van Rensselaer, Simeon De Witt, William

North, Thomas Eddy, and Peter B. Porter, were appointed

commissioners 'to explore the whole route for inland

navigation from the Hudson river to Lake Ontario and to Lake

Erie.' Cadwallader D. Colden, a contemporary historian,

himself one of the earliest and ablest advocates of the

canals, awards to Thomas Eddy the merit of having suggested

this motion to Mr. Platt, and to both these gentlemen that of

engaging De Witt Clinton's support, he being at that time a

member of the senate. … The commissioners in March, 1811,

submitted their report written by Gouverneur Morris, in which

they showed the practicability and advantages of a continuous

canal from Lake Erie to the Hudson, and stated their estimate

of the cost at $5,000,000. … On the presentation of this

report, De Witt Clinton introduced a bill, which became a law

on the 8th of April, 1811, under the title of 'An act to

provide for the improvement of the internal navigation of this

state.' … The act added Robert R. Livingston and Robert

Fulton to the board of commissioners, and authorized them to

consider all matters relating to such inland navigation, with

powers to make application in behalf of the state to Congress,

or to any state or territory, to cooperate and aid in the

undertaking. … Two of the commissioners, Mr. Morris and Mr.

Clinton, repaired to the federal capital, and submitted the

subject to the consideration of the President (Mr. Madison)

and of Congress. In 1812, the commissioners reported that,

although it was uncertain whether the national government

would do anything, it certainly would do nothing which would

afford immediate aid to the enterprise. … The commissioners

then submitted that, having offered the canal to the national

government, and that offer having virtually been declined,

the state was now at liberty to consult and pursue the maxims

of policy, and these seemed to demand imperatively that the

canal should be made by herself, and for her own account, as

soon as the circumstances would permit. … On the 19th of

June, 1812, a law was enacted, reappointing the commissioners

and authorizing them to borrow money and deposite it in the

treasury, and to take cessions of land, but prohibiting any

measures to construct the canals. … From 1812 to 1815, the

country suffered the calamities of war, and projects of

internal improvement necessarily gave place to the patriotic

efforts required to maintain the national security and honor."

But after peace had returned, the advocates of the enterprise

prevailed with considerable difficulty over its opponents, and

"ground was broken for the construction of the Erie canal on

the 4th day of July, 1817, at Rome, with ceremonies marking

the public estimation of that great event. De Witt Clinton,

having just before been elected to the chief magistracy of the

state, and being president of the board of canal

commissioners, enjoyed the high satisfaction of attending,

with his associates, on the auspicious occasion. … On the

26th of October, 1825, the Erie canal was in a navigable

condition throughout its entire length, affording an

uninterrupted passage from Lake Erie to tidewater in the

Hudson. … This auspicious consummation was celebrated by a

telegraphic discharge of cannon, commencing at Lake Erie [at

Buffalo], and continued along the banks of the canal and of

the Hudson, announcing to the city of New York the entrance on

the bosom of the canal of the first barge [bearing Governor

Clinton and his coadjutors] that was to arrive at the

commercial emporium from the American Mediterraneans."

W. H. Seward,

Notes on New York

(Works, volume 2), pages 88-117.

ALSO IN:

D. Hosack,

Memoir of De Witt Clinton,

pages 82-119 and 245-504.

J. Renwick,

Life of De Witt Clinton,

chapters 10-19.

C. D. Colden,

Memoir: Celebration of the

Completion of the New York Canals.

M. S. Hawley,

Origin of the Erie Canal.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1821.

Revision of the Constitution.

"The Constitution did not meet the expectations of its

framers. The cumbrous machinery by which it was sought to

insure the control of the People, through the supremacy of the

Assembly, had only resulted in fortifying power practically

beyond their reach. The Council of Revision was objected to

because it had exercised the veto power contrary to the spirit

of the Constitution, which was in harmony with the traditions

of the Colony from the earliest conflict with the executive

power; and because the officers who thus interposed their

objections to the will of the Legislature, holding office for

good behavior (except the Governor), were beyond the reach of

the People. It was seen that this power was a dangerous one,

in a Council so constituted; but it was thought that it could

be safely intrusted to the Governor alone, as he was directly

responsible to the People. The Council of Appointment,

although not vested with any judicial authority, and in fact

disclaiming it, nevertheless at an early day summoned its

appointees before it, for the purpose of hearing accusations

against them, and proving their truth or falsity. At a later

day, more summary proceedings were resorted to. The office

thus became very unpopular. Nearly every civil, military, and

judicial officer of the commonwealth was appointed by this

Council.

{2343}

In 1821, 8,287 military and 6,663 civil officers held their

commissions from it, and this vast system of centralized power

was naturally very obnoxious. The Legislature, in 1820, passed

'an act recommending a Convention of the People of this

State,' which came up for action in the Council of Revision,

on November 20th of the same year; present, Governor Clinton,

Chancellor Kent, Chief Justice Spencer, and Justices Yates and

Woodworth, on which day the Council, by the casting vote of

the Governor, adopted two objections to it; first, because it

did not provide for taking the sense of the People on the

question; and second, because it submitted the new

Constitution to the People in toto, instead of by sections.

These objections were referred to a select committee, Michael

Ulshoeffer, chairman, who submitted their report January 9,

1821, in opposition to the opinion of the Council, which was

adopted by the Assembly. The bill, however, failed to pass,

not receiving a two-third vote. Immediately thereupon a

committee was appointed to draft a new bill. The committee

subsequently introduced a bill for submitting the question to

the people, which passed both Houses; received the sanction of

the Council of Revision on the 13th of March, and was

subsequently amended, the amendments receiving the sanction of

the Council on the third of April. The popular vote on holding

the Convention was had in April, and resulted as follows: 'For

Convention' 109,346. 'For No Convention' 34,901. The

Convention assembled in Albany, August 28, and adjourned

November 10, 1821. The Council of Revision was abolished, and

its powers transferred to the Governor. The Council of

Appointment was abolished without a dissenting voice. The

principal department officers were directed to be appointed on

an open separate nomination by the two Houses, and subsequent

joint ballot. Of the remaining officers not made elective, the

power of appointment was conferred upon the Governor, by and

with the advice and consent of the Senate. In 1846, two

hundred and eighty-nine offices were thus filled. The elective

franchise was extended. The Constitution was adopted at an

election held in February, 1822, by the following vote:

Constitution—For, 74,732: Against, 41,402. … The People

took to themselves a large portion of the power they had felt

it necessary, in the exercise of a natural conservatism, to

intrust to the Assembly. They had learned that an elective

Governor and an elective Senate are equally their agents, and

interests which they thought ought to be conserved, they

intrusted to them, subject to their responsibility to the

People. The entire Senate were substituted in the place of the

members who chanced to be the favorites with a majority in the

Assembly, as a Council to the Governor, and thus the People of

all the State were given a voice in appointments. The Supreme

Judicial Tribunal remained the same. The direct sovereignty of

the People was thus rendered far more effective, and popular

government took the place of parliamentary administration."

E. A. Werner,

Civil List and Constitutional History of New York, 1887,

pages 126-128.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1823.

The rise of the Albany Regency.

"The adoption of the new constitution in 1822 placed the

political power of the State in the hands of Mr. Van Buren,

the recognized representative leader of the Democratic party.

Governor Clinton, as the end of his term of service

approached, became as powerless as he was in 1816. … William

L. Marcy was then State Comptroller, Samuel L. Talcott,

Attorney-General; Benjamin Knower, Treasurer; and Edwin

Crosswell, editor of the 'Argus' and state printer. These

gentlemen, with Mr. Van Buren as their chief, constituted the

nucleus of what became the Albany Regency. After adding Silas

Wright, Azariah C. Flagg, John A. Dix, James Porter, Thomas W.

Olcott, and Charles E. Dudley to their number, I do not

believe that a stronger political combination ever existed at

any state capital. … Their influence and power for nearly

twenty years was almost as potential in national as in state

politics."

T. Weed,

Autobiography,

volume 1, chapter 11.

"Even to our own day, the Albany Regency has been a strong and

generally a sagacious influence in its party. John A. Dix,

Horatio Seymour, Dean Richmond and Samuel J. Tilden long

directed its policy, and from the chief seat in its councils

the late secretary of the treasury, Daniel Manning, was chosen

in 1885."

E. M. Shepard,

Martin Van Buren,

page 96.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1826-1832.

Anti-Masonic excitement.

The abduction of Morgan.

"The society of free-masons included a large number of the

foremost citizens in all walks of life, and the belief existed

that they used their secret ties to advance their ambitions.

… This belief was used to create prejudice among those who

were not members, and it added fuel to the fires of faction.

At this juncture, September 11, 1826, William Morgan, of

Batavia, a free-mason, who had announced his intention to

print a pamphlet exposing the secrets of masonry, was arrested

on a charge of larceny, made by the master of a masonic lodge,

but found not guilty, and then arrested for debt, and

imprisoned in jail at Canandaigua. He was taken secretly from

that jail and conveyed to Fort Niagara, where he was kept

until September, when he disappeared. The masons were charged

with his abduction, and a body found in the Niagara River was

produced as proof that he was drowned to put him out of the

way. Thurlow Weed, then an editor in Rochester, was aggressive

in charging that Morgan was murdered by the masons, and as

late as 1882 he published an affidavit rehearsing a confession

made to him by John Whitney, that the drowning was in fact

perpetrated by himself and four other persons whom he named,

after a conference in a masonic lodge. In 1827, Weed, who was

active in identifying the drowned body, was charged with

mutilating it, to make it resemble Morgan, and the imputation

was often repeated; and the abduction and murder were in turn

laid at the door of the anti-masons. The disappearance became

the chief topic of partisan discussion. De Witt Clinton was

one of the highest officers in the masonic order, and it was

alleged that he commanded that Morgan's book should be

'suppressed at all hazards,' thus instigating the murder; but

the slander was soon exposed. The state was flooded with

volumes portraying masonry as a monstrous conspiracy, and the

literature of the period was as harrowing as a series of

sensational novels."

E. H. Roberts,

New York,

volume 2, chapter 33.

{2344}

"A party soon grew up in Western New York pledged to oppose

the election of any Free Mason to public office. The

Anti-Masonic Party acquired influence in other States, and

began to claim rank as a national political party. On most

points its principles were those of the National Republicans.

But Clay, as well as Jackson, was a Free Mason, and

consequently to be opposed by this party. … In 1832 it even

nominated a Presidential ticket of its own, but, having no

national principle of controlling importance, it soon after

declined."

A. Johnston,

History of American Politics,

chapter 12, section 3, with foot-note.

ALSO IN:

T. Weed,

Autobiography,

chapters 20-30, 36, and 40.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1827.

The last of Slavery in the state.

"On the 28th of January, 1817, the governor sent a message to

the legislature recommending the entire abolition of slavery

in the State of New York, to take place on the fourth day of

July, 1827. By an act passed some years before, all persons

born of parents who were slaves after July 1799, were to be

free; males at twenty-eight and females at twenty-five years

of age. The present legislature adopted the recommendation of

the governor. This great measure in behalf of human rights,

which was to obliterate forever the black and foul stain of

slavery from the escutcheon of our own favored state, was

produced by the energetic action of Cadwallader D. Colden,

Peter A. Jay, William Jay, Daniel D. Tompkins and other

distinguished philanthropists, chiefly residing in the city of

New York. The Society of Friends, who never slumber when the

principles of benevolence and a just regard to equal rights

call for their action, were zealously engaged in this great

enterprise."

J. D. Hammond,

History of Political Parties in the State of New York,

volume 1, chapter 22.

ALSO IN:

E. H. Roberts,

New York,

volume 2, page 565.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1835-1837.

The Loco-focos.

"The Van Buren party began to be called the Loco-focos, in

derision of the fancied extravagance of their financial

doctrines. The Loco-foco or Equal Rights party proper was

originally a division of the Democrats, strongly

anti-monopolist in their opinions, and especially hostile to

banks,—not only government banks but all banks,—which

enjoyed the privileges then long conferred by special and

exclusive charters. In the fall of 1835 some of the Democratic

candidates in New York were especially obnoxious to the

anti-monopolists of the party. When the meeting to regularly

confirm the nominations made in committee was called at

Tammany Hall, the anti-monopolist Democrats sought to capture

the meeting by a rush up the main stairs. The regulars,

however, showed themselves worthy of their regularity by

reaching the room up the back stairs. In a general scrimmage

the gas was put out. The anti-monopolists, perhaps used to the

devices to prevent meetings which might be hostile, were ready

with candles and loco-foco matches. The hall was quickly

illuminated; and the anti-monopolists claimed that they had

defeated the nominations. The regulars were successful,

however, at the election; and they and the Whigs dubbed the

anti-monopolists the Loco-foco men. … The hatred which Van

Buren after his message of September, 1837, received from the

banks commended him to the Loco-focos; and in October, 1837,

Tammany Hall witnessed their reconciliation with the regular

Democrats upon a moderate declaration for equal rights."

E. M. Shepard,

Martin Van Buren,

pages 293-295.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1838.

Passage of the Free Banking Act.

See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1838.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1839-1846.

The Anti-rent disturbances.

See LIVINGSTON MANOR.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1840-1841.

The McLeod Case.

See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1841.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1845-1846.

Schism in the Democratic party over Slavery extension.

Hunkers and Barnburners.

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

NEW YORK: A. D. 1846.

Constitutional revision.

During the twenty-five years of the existence of the

constitution of 1821, "ten different proposals for amendments

were submitted to the electors, who decided against choosing

presidential electors by districts, but in favor of extending

the franchise, in favor of electing mayors by the people, and

in 1846 for no license except in the city of New York. The

commonwealth grew not only in population, but in all the

elements of progress and prosperity and power, and by the

census of 1845 was shown to contain 2,604,495 inhabitants.

Legislation had tended to the substitution of rights for

privileges granted as favors. The tenure of land, especially

under the claims of the patroons, had caused difficulties for

which remedies were sought; and the large expenditures for

internal improvements, involving heavy indebtedness, prompted

demands for safe-guards for the creditor and the taxpayer. The

judiciary system had confessedly become independent, and

required radical reformation. When, therefore, in 1845, the

electors were called upon to decide whether a convention

should be held to amend the State constitution, 213,257 voted

in the affirmative, against 33,860 in the negative. The

convention met June 1, 1846, but soon adjourned until October

9, when it proceeded with its task. John Tracy of Chenango

presided; and among the members were Ira Harris of Albany,

George 'V. Patterson of Chautauqua, Michael Hoffman and

Arphaxed Loomis of Herkimer, Samuel J. Tilden of New York,

Samuel Nelson of Otsego, and others eminent at home and in

State affairs. The convention dealt radically with the

principles of government. The new constitution gave to the

people the election of many officers before appointed at

Albany. It provided for the election of members of both houses

of the legislature by separate districts. Instead of the

cumbrous court for the correction of errors, it established an

independent court of appeals. It abolished the court of

chancery and the circuit courts, and merged both into the

supreme court, and defined the jurisdiction of county courts.

All judges were to be elected by the people. Feudal tenures

were abolished, and no leases on agricultural lands for a

longer period than twelve years were to be valid, if any rent

or service were reserved. The financial articles established

sinking funds for both the canal and general fund debt,

forbade the loan of the credit of the State, and limited

rigidly the power of the legislature to create debts, except

to repel invasion or suppress insurrection, and declared the

school and literature funds inviolate. Provision was made for

general laws for the formation of corporations. The

constitution required the submission to the people once every

twenty years of the question whether a convention shall be

called or not."

E. H. Roberts,

New York,

volume 2, pages 567-569.

{2345}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1848.

The Free Soil movement.

The Buffalo Convention.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1848.

Legal Emancipation of Women.

See LAW, COMMON; A. D. 1839-1848.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1848.

Adoption of the Code of Civil Procedure.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1848-1883.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1861 (April).

The speeding of the Seventh Regiment

to the defense of Washington.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1862-1886.

The founding and growth of Cornell University.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1862-1886.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1863.

The Draft Riots in New York City.

"A new levy of 300,000 men was called for in April, 1863, with

the alternative of a draft if the quotas were not filled by

volunteering. The quota of the city of New York was not

filled, and a draft was begun there on Saturday, the 11th of

July. There had been premonitions of trouble when it was

attempted to take the names and addresses of those subject to

call, and in the tenement-house districts some of the marshals

had narrowly escaped with their lives. On the morning when the

draft was to begin, several of the most widely read Democratic

journals contained editorials that appeared to be written for

the very purpose of inciting a riot. They asserted that any

draft at all was unconstitutional and despotic, and that in

this case the quota demanded from the city was excessive, and

denounced the war as a 'mere abolition crusade.' It is

doubtful if there was any well-formed conspiracy, including

any large number of persons, to get up a riot; but the excited

state of the public mind, especially among the laboring

population, inflammatory handbills displayed in the

grog-shops, the presence of the dangerous classes, whose best

opportunity for plunder was in time of riot, and the absence

of the militia that had been called away to meet the invasion

of Pennsylvania, all favored an outbreak. It was unfortunate

that the draft was begun on Saturday, and the Sunday papers

published long lists of the names that were drawn—an instance

of the occasional mischievous results of journalistic

enterprise. … When the draft was resumed on Monday, the

serious work began. One provost-marshal's office was at the

corner of Third Avenue and Forty-Sixth street. It was guarded

by sixty policemen, and the wheel was set in motion at ten

o'clock. The building was surrounded by a dense, angry crowd,

who were freely cursing the draft, the police, the National

Government, and 'the nigger.' The drawing had been in progress

but a few minutes when there was a shout of 'stop the cars!'

and at once the cars were stopped, the horses released, the

conductors and passengers driven out, and a tumult created.

Then a great human wave was set in motion, which bore down

everything before it and rolled into the marshal's office,

driving out at the back windows the officials and the

policemen, whose clubs, though plied rapidly and knocking down

a rioter at every blow, could not dispose of them as fast as

they came on. The mob destroyed everything in the office, and

then set the building on fire. The firemen came promptly, but

were not permitted to throw any water upon the flames. At this

moment Superintendent John A. Kennedy, of the police,

approaching incautiously and unarmed, was recognized and set

upon by the crowd, who gave him half a hundred blows with

clubs and stones, and finally threw him face downward into a

mud-puddle, with the intention of drowning him. When rescued,

he was bruised beyond recognition, and was lifted into a wagon

and carried to the police headquarters. The command of the

force now devolved upon Commissioner Thomas C. Acton and

Inspector Daniel Carpenter, whose management during three

fearful days was worthy of the highest praise. Another

marshal's office, where the draft was in progress, was at

Broadway and Twenty-Ninth street, and here the mob burned the

whole block of stores on Broadway between Twenty-Eighth and

Twenty-Ninth streets. … In the afternoon a small police

force held possession of a gun-factory in Second Avenue for

four hours, and was then compelled to retire before the

persistent attacks of the rioters, who hurled stones through

the windows and beat in the doors. Toward evening a riotous

procession passed down Broadway, with drums, banners, muskets,

pistols, pitchforks, clubs, and boards inscribed 'No Draft!'

Inspector Carpenter, at the head of two hundred policemen,

marched up to meet it. His orders were, 'Take no prisoners,

but strike quick and hard.' The mob was met at the corner of

Amity (or West Third) street. The police charged at once in a

compact body, Carpenter knocking down the foremost rioter with

a blow that cracked his skull, and in a few moments the mob

scattered and fled, leaving Broadway strewn with their wounded

and dying. From this time, the police were victorious in every

encounter. During the next two days there was almost constant

rioting, mobs appearing at various points, both up-town and

down-town. The rioters set upon every negro that

appeared—whether man, woman, or child—and succeeded in

murdering eleven of them. … This phase of the outbreak found

its worst expression in the sacking and burning of the Colored

Orphan Asylum, at Fifth Avenue and Forty-Fourth street. The

two hundred helpless children were with great difficulty taken

away by the rear doors while the mob were battering at the

front. … One of the saddest incidents of the riot was the

murder of Colonel Henry J. O'Brien of the 11th New York

Volunteers, whose men had dispersed one mob with a deadly

volley. An hour or two later the Colonel returned to the spot

alone, when he was set upon and beaten and mangled and

tortured horribly for several hours, being at last killed by

some frenzied women. … Three days of this vigorous work by

the police and the soldiers brought the disturbance to an end.

About fifty policemen had been injured, three of whom died;

and the whole number of lives destroyed by the rioters was

eighteen. The exact number of rioters killed is unknown, but

it was more than 1,200. The mobs burned about 50 buildings,

destroying altogether between $2,000,000 and $3,000,000 worth

of property. Governor Seymour incurred odium by a speech to

the rioters, in which he addressed them as his friends, and

promised to have the draft stopped; and by his communications

to the President, in which he complained of the draft, and

asked to have it suspended till the question of its

constitutionality could be tested in the courts."

R. Johnson,

Short History of the War of Secession,

chapter 18.

ALSO IN:

J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,

Abraham Lincoln,

volume 7, chapter 1.

H. Greeley,

The American Conflict,

volume 2, chapter 21.

D. M. Barnes,

The Draft Riots in New York.

{2346}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.

The Tweed Ring.

Between 1863 and 1871 the city of New York, and, to a

considerable extent, the state at large, fell under the

control and into the power of a combination of corrupt

politicians commonly known as the Tweed Ring. Its chief was

one William Marcy Tweed, of Scotch parentage, who first

appeared in public life as an alderman of the city, in 1850.

Working himself upward, in the Democratic party, to which he

adhered, he attained in 1863 the powerful dignity of Grand

Sachem of the Tammany Society and chairman or "Boss" of the

general committee of Tammany Hall. "At this time, however, the

Tammany 'Ring,' as it afterwards was called, was not

completely formed, and Tammany Hall, though by far the most

important political organization in the city, was not absolute

even in the Democratic party. It had a bitter enemy in Mozart

Hall, a political organization led by Fernando Wood, a former

mayor of the city. The claims of Mozart Hall were satisfied in

this same year, 1863, by granting to its leader the Democratic

nomination to Congress. … Soon afterwards Tweed was

appointed deputy-commissioner of streets. The 'Ring' was now

fast consolidating. The enormous patronage possessed by its

members enabled them to control almost all the nominations of

the Democratic party to positions in the city. They provided

their adherents with places in the city government, and when

the supply of places became inadequate, they enlarged the city

pay-roll to create new places. By means of the political

influence they exerted over the Democratic party in the State,

they packed the State legislature with their followers, and

placed upon the bench judges on whom they could rely. … In

1865 the Ring obtained control of the mayoralty. Its

candidate, John T. Hoffman, was a man of much higher character

than his supporters and associates. He was personally honest,

but his ambition blinded him to the acts of his political

friends. … In 1868 … Hoffman was nominated for governor

and was elected. His election was secured by the grossest and

most extensive frauds ever perpetrated in the city, e. g.

illegal naturalization of foreigners, false registration,

repeating of votes, and unfair counting. The mayoralty, left

vacant by the promotion of Hoffman, was filled by the election

of Hall [A. Oakey Hall], who took his seat on the 1st day of

January 1869. As Samuel J. Tilden said, by this election 'the

Ring became completely organized and matured.' It controlled

the common council of the city and the legislature of the

State, and its nominee sat in the gubernatorial chair. Hall

was mayor; Sweeny [Peter B. Sweeny, 'the great schemer of the

Ring'] was city chamberlain or treasurer of both city and

county; Tweed was practically supreme in the street

department; Connolly [Richard B.] was city comptroller, and

thus had charge of the city finances; the city judiciary was

in sympathy with these men." But great as were the power and

the opportunities of the Ring, it obtained still more of both

through its well-paid creatures in the State legislature, by

amendments of the city charter and by acts which gave Tweed

and his partners free swing in debt-making for the city. In

1871, the last year of the existence of the Ring, it had more

than $48,000,000 of money at its disposal. Its methods of

fraud were varied and numerous. "But all the other enterprises

of the Ring dwindle into insignificance when compared with the

colossal frauds that were committed in the building of the new

court-house for the county. When this undertaking was begun,

it was stipulated that its total cost should not exceed

$250,000; but before the Ring was broken up, upwards of

$8,000,000 had been expended, and the work was not completed.

… Whenever a bill was brought in by one of the contractors,

he was directed to increase largely the total of his charge.

… A warrant was then drawn for the amount of the bill as

raised; the contractor was paid, perhaps the amount of his

original, bill, perhaps a little more; and the difference

between the original and the raised bills was divided between

the members of the Ring. It is said that about 65 per cent. of

the bills actually paid by the county represented fraudulent

addition of this sort." The beginning of the end of the reign

of the Ring came in July, 1871, when copies of some of the

fraudulent accounts, made by a clerk in the auditor's office,

came into the possession of the New York Times and were

published. "The result of these exposures was a meeting of

citizens early in September. … It was followed by the

formation of a sort of peaceable vigilance committee, under

the imposing title of the 'Committee of Seventy.' This

committee, together with Samuel J. Tilden (long a leading

Democratic politician, and afterwards candidate for the

presidency of the United States), went to work at once, and

with great energy, to obtain actual proof of the frauds

described by the 'Times.' It was owing mainly to the tireless

endeavours of Mr. Tilden … that this work was successful,

and that prosecutions were brought against several members of

the Ring." The Tammany leaders attempted to make a scapegoat

of Connolly; but the latter came to terms with Mr. Tilden, and

virtually turned over his office to Mr. Andrew H. Green, of

the Committee of Seventy, appointing him deputy-comptroller,

with full powers. "This move was a tremendous step forward for

the prosecution. The possession of the comptroller's office

gave access to papers which furnished almost all the evidence

afterwards used in the crusade against the Ring." At the

autumn election of 1871 there was a splendid rally of the

better citizens, in the city and throughout the state, and the

political power of the Ring was broken. "None of the leading

actors in the disgraceful drama failed to pay in some measure

the penalty of his deeds. Tweed, after a chequered experience

in eluding the grasp of justice, died in jail. Connolly passed

the remainder of his life in exile. Sweeny left the country

and long remained abroad. … Hall was tried and obtained a

favourable verdict, but he has chosen to live out of America.

Of the judges whose corrupt decisions so greatly aided the

Ring, Barnard and M'Cunn were impeached and removed from the

bench, while Cardozo resigned his position in time to avoid

impeachment. The following figures will give an approximate

idea of the amount the Ring cost the city of New York. In

1860, before Tweed came into power, the debt of the city was

reported as amounting only to $20,000,000 while the tax rate

was about 1.60 per cent. on the assessed valuation of the

property in the city liable to taxation.

{2347}

In the middle of the year 1871, the total debt of the city and

the county—which were coterminous, and for all practical

purposes the same—amounted to $100,955,333.33, and the tax

rate had risen to over 2 per cent. During the last two years

and a half of the government of the Ring the debt increased at

the rate of $28,652,000 a year."

F. J. Goodnow,

The Tweed Ring in New York City

(chapter 88 of Bryce's "American Commonwealth," volume 2).

ALSO IN:

S. J. Tilden,

The New York City "Ring": its Origin, Maturity and Fall.

C. F. Wingate,

An episode in Municipal Government

(N. A. Rev., Oct. 1874, January and July, 1875,

October. 1876).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1867.

The Public Schools made entirely free.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1867.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1867-1882.

Amendments of the Constitution.

The constitution of 1846 having provided for its own revision

at the end of twenty years, if so willed by the people, the

calling of a constitutional convention was approved by popular

vote in 1866, and the convention of elected delegates

assembled June 4, in the following year. Its final adjournment

was not reached until February 28, 1868. The constitution

proposed by the convention was submitted to the people in

1869, and rejected, with the exception of the judiciary

article, which reorganized the Court of Appeals, and provided

for a temporary Commission of Appeals, to determine the cases

pending in the Court, where business in arrears had

accumulated to a serious extent. The rejection of the

constitution framed in 1867 led, in 1872, to the creation by

the governor and legislature of a Commission for the revision

of the constitution, which met at Albany, December 4, 1872,

and adjourned March 15, 1873. Several amendments proposed by

the Commission were submitted to popular vote in 1874 and

1876, and were adopted. By the more important of these

amendments, colored citizens were admitted to the franchise

without property qualifications; a strong, specific enactment

for the prevention and punishment of bribery and corruption at

elections was embodied in the constitution itself; some

changes were made in the provisions for districting the state,

after each census, and the pay of members of the legislature

was increased to $1,500 per annum; the power of the

legislature to pass private bills was limited; the term of the

governor was extended from two years to three; the governor

was empowered to veto specific items in bills which

appropriate money, approving the remainder; the governor was

allowed thirty days for the consideration of bills left in his

hands at the adjournment of the legislature, which bills

become law only upon his approval within that time; a

superintendent of public works was created to take the place

of the Canal Commissioners previously existing, and a

superintendent of state prisons to take the place of the three

inspectors of state prisons; a selection of judges from the

bench of the Supreme Court of the state to act as Associate

Judges of the Court of Appeals was authorized; the loaning or

granting of the credit or money of the state, or that of any

county, city, town, or village to any association,

corporation, or private undertaking was forbidden; corrupt

conduct in office was declared to be felony. By an amendment

of the constitution submitted by the legislature to the people

in 1882, the canals of the state were made entirely free of

tolls.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1869.

Black Friday.

"During the war gold had swollen in value to 285, when the

promise of the nation to pay a dollar on demand was only worth

thirty-five cents. Thence it had gradually sunk. … All our

purchases from foreign nations, all duties on those purchases,

and all sales of domestic produce to other nations are payable

in gold. There is therefore a large and legitimate business in

the purchase and sale of gold, especially in New York, the

financial centre of the nation. But a much larger business of

a gambling nature had gradually grown up around that which was

legitimate. … These gambling operations were based on the

rise and fall of gold, and these in turn depended on

successful or unsuccessful battles, or on events in foreign

nations that could be neither foreseen nor guarded against.

The transactions were therefore essentially gambling. … So

large was the amount of this speculative business, gathering

up all the gold-betting of the nation in a single room, that

it more than equalled the legitimate purchase and sale of

gold. There were large and wealthy firms who made this their

chief business; and prominent among them was the firm of

Smith, Gould, Martin & Co., four gentlemen under one

partnership name, all wealthy and all accustomed to this

business for years. Their joint wealth and business skill made

them a power in Wall street. The leading mind of the firm,

though not the first named, was Mr. Jay Gould, President of

the Erie Railway, joint owner with Colonel James Fisk Jr., of

two lines of steamboats, and largely interested in a number of

railroads and other valuable properties. Mr. Gould looked upon

gold, railroads, and steamboats as the gilded dice wherewith

to gamble. … During the spring of 1869 he was a buyer of

gold. There was perhaps fifteen millions of that rare currency

in New York outside the Sub-Treasury; and he had bought half

that amount, paying therefor a bonus of a little more than two

millions of dollars. As fast as he had purchased the precious

metal he had loaned it out to those who needed it for the

payment of duties, and who hoped to repurchase it at a lower

rate. And so, though the owner of seven millions, he had none

of it in hand; he merely possessed the written acknowledgment

of certain leading merchants and brokers that they owed him

that amount of specie, which they would repay with interest on

demand. Having this amount obtainable at any moment, Mr. Gould

had the mercantile community at his mercy. But there was some

hundred millions of gold in the Treasury, more or less, and

the President of the United States or the Secretary of the

Treasury might at any time throw it on the market. On this

point it was very desirable to ascertain the opinion of

President Grant; more desirable to have constant access to his

private ear." In various ways, argumentative influences were

brought to bear on President Grant and the Secretary of the

Treasury, Mr. Boutwell, to persuade them that it was desirable

for the country, while the crops were being moved, to hold up

the price of gold. One important channel for such influences

was supplied by the President's brother-in-law, a retired New

York merchant, named Corbin, who was drawn into the

speculation and given a share in Gould's gold purchases.

{2348}

By strenuous exertions, Gould and his associates pushed up the

price till "in May it stood at 144 7/8; but as soon as they

ceased to buy, the price began to recede until in the latter

part of June it again stood at 136. The others were then

frightened and sold out. 'All these other fellows deserted me

like rats from a ship,' said Gould. But for him to sell out

then would involve a heavy loss, and he preferred a gain. He

therefore called upon his friend and partner Fisk to enter the

financial arena. It is but justice to Mr. Fisk to say that for

some time he declined; he clearly saw that the whole tendency

of gold was downward. But when Gould made the proposition more

palatable by suggesting corruption, Fisk immediately swallowed

the bait. … He … entered the market and purchased twelve

millions. There is an old adage that there is honor among

thieves. This appears not to be true on the Gold Exchange. All

Mr. Gould's statements to his own partner were false, except

those relating to Corbin and Butterfield. And Mr. Corbin did

his best. He not only talked and wrote to the President

himself; not only wrote for the New York 'Times,' but when

General Grant visited him in New York, he sent Gould to see

him so often that the President, unaware of the financial trap

set for him, rebuked the door servant for giving Mr. Gould

such ready access. But it is worthy of note that neither

Corbin, Gould, nor Fisk ever spoke to the President of their

personal interest in the matter. They were only patriots

urging a certain course of conduct for the good of the

country. These speculations as to the advantage to the country

of a higher price of gold seem to have had some effect on the

Presidential mind; for early in September he wrote to Mr.

Boutwell, then at his Massachusetts home, giving his opinion

of the financial condition of the country, and suggesting that

it would not be wise to lower the price of gold by sales from

the Treasury while the crops were moving to the seaboard. Mr.

Boutwell therefore telegraphed to the Assistant Secretary at

Washington only to sell gold sufficient to buy bonds for the

sinking fund. Through Mr. Corbin or in some other way this

letter came to the knowledge of the conspirators; for they at

once began to purchase and the price began to rise. … On the

13th of September, gold, swelling and falling like the tide,

stood at 135½. The clique then commenced their largest

purchases, and within nine days had bought enough to hold

sixty-six millions—nearly every cent of it fictitious, and

only included in promises to pay. On the evening of Wednesday,

September 22, the price was 140½; but it had taken the

purchase of thirty or forty millions to put it up that five

cents. Could it be forced five cents higher, and all sold, the

profits would be over ten millions of dollars! It was a stake

worth playing for. But the whole mercantile community was

opposed to them; bountiful harvests were strong arguments

against them; and more than all else, there stood the

Sub-Treasury of the United States, with its hundred millions

of dollars in its vaults, ready at any time to cast its

plethora of wealth on their unfortunate heads. … Corbin,

while assuring Gould that there was no danger of any

Government sale, and yet himself greatly in trepidation,

addressed a letter to General Grant urging him not to

interfere with the warfare then raging between the bulls and

the bears, nor to allow the Secretary of the Treasury to do

so. … The letter would probably have had some effect, but

unfortunately the ring overdid their business in the way in

which they sent it." The letter was conveyed by a private

messenger. The messenger, "Mr. Chapin, delivered his letter,

asked General Grant if there was any reply, and being told

there was none, started for his home, first telegraphing to

his employer, 'Letter delivered all right.' It was a most

unfortunate telegraphic message he sent back. He swears that

his meaning was that the letter was delivered all right; and

so the despatch reads. But the gold gamblers, blinded by the

greatness of the stake at risk, interpreted the 'all right' of

the message as an answer to the contents of Mr. Corbin's

letter—that the President thought the letter all right; and

on the strength of that reading Fisk rushed into the market

and made numerous purchases of gold. But that very letter,

which was intended to be their governmental safeguard, led to

their ruin. Carried by special messenger for a day and a half,

its urgency that the Administration should sell no gold,

coupled with frequent assertions in the newspapers that Mr.

Corbin was a great bull in gold, excited General Grant's

suspicions. He feared that Corbin was not actuated by

patriotic motives alone in this secret correspondence. At the

President's suggestion, therefore, Mrs. Grant wrote to her

sister, Mrs. Corbin, telling her that rumors had reached them

that Mr. Corbin was connected with speculators in New York,

and that she hoped if this was so he would at once disengage

himself from them; that the President was much distressed at

such rumors. On the receipt of this letter, Mr. Corbin was

greatly excited." Corbin showed the letter to Gould, and got

himself let out of the game, so that he might be able to say

to President Grant that he had no interest in gold; but Fisk

was not told of the President's suspicions. "On the evening of

Wednesday, September 21, it was determined to close the corner

within two days." A desperate attack on the market began next

morning. Gold opened that day at 39½; it closed at 44. The

next day was "Friday, September 24, commonly called Black

Friday, either from the black mark it caused on the characters

of dealers in gold, or, as is more probable, from the ruin it

brought to both sides. The Gold Room was crowded for two hours

before the time of business. … Fisk was there, gloating over

the prospect of great gains from others' ruin. His brokers

were there, noisy and betting on the rapid rise of gold and

the success of the corner. All alike were greatly excited,

palpitating between hope and fear, and not knowing what an

hour might bring forth. … Gold closed on Thursday at 144;

Speyers [principal broker of the conspirators] commenced his

work on Friday by offering 145, one per cent. higher than the

last purchase. Receiving no response, he offered to buy at

146, 147, 148, and 149 respectively, but without takers. Then

150 was offered, and half a million was sold him by Mr. James

Brown, who had quietly organized a band of prominent merchants

who were determined to meet the gold gamblers on their own

ground. … Amid the most tremendous confusion the voices of

the excited brokers could be heard slowly bidding up the value

of their artificial metal.

{2349}

Higher and higher rose the tide of speculation; from 156 to

159 there was no offer whatever; amid deep silence Speyers

called out, 'Any part of five millions for 160.' 'One million

taken at 160,' was the quiet response of James Brown. Further

offers were made by the brokers of the clique all the way from

160 to 163½. But Mr. Brown preferred to grapple the enemy by

the throat, and he sold Speyers five millions more, making

seven millions of gold sold that hour for which Speyers agreed

to pay eleven millions in currency. Such figures almost

stagger one to read of them! But Speyers continued to buy till

before noon he had purchased nearly sixty millions. … As the

price rose cent by cent, men's hearts were moved within them

as the trees are shaken by the swelling of the wind. But when

the first million was taken at 160 a great load was removed,

and when the second million was sold there was such a burst of

gladness, such a roar of multitudinous voices as that room,

tumultuous as it had always been, never heard before.

Everybody instantly began to sell, desiring to get rid of all

their gold before it had tumbled too deep. And just as the

precious metal was beginning to flow over the precipice, the

news was flashed into the room that Government had telegraphed

to sell four millions. Instantly the end was reached; gold

fell to 140, and then down, down, down, to 133. There were no

purchasers at any price. … The gold ring had that day bought

sixty millions of gold, paying or rather agreeing to pay

therefor ninety-six millions of dollars in currency!" But

Gould, Fisk & Co., who owned several venal New York judges,

placed injunctions and other legal obstacles in the way of a

settlement of claims against themselves. "Of course these

judicious and judicial orders put an end to all business

except that which was favorable to Fisk and Gould. They

continued to settle with all parties who owed them money; they

were judicially enjoined from settling with those to whom, if

their own brokers may be believed, they were indebted, and

they have not yet settled with them. … As the settlements

between the brokers employed by the ring and their victims

were all made in private, there is no means of knowing the

total result. But it is the opinion of Mr. James B. Hodskin,

Chairman of the Arbitration Committee of the Exchange, and

therefore better acquainted with its business than anyone

else, that the two days' profits of the clique from the

operations they acknowledged and settled for were not less

than twelve millions of dollars; and that the losses on those

transactions which they refused to acknowledge were not less

than twenty millions. The New York 'Tribune' a day or two

afterward put the gains of the clique at eleven million

dollars. Some months after 'Black Friday' had passed away,

Congress ordered an investigation into its causes. … For two

or three days the whole business of New York stood still

awaiting the result of the corner. … In good-will with all

the world, with grand harvests, with full markets on both

sides the Atlantic, came a panic that affected all business.

Foreign trade came to a stand-still. The East would not send

to Europe: the West could not ship to New York. Young men saw

millions of dollars made in a few days by dishonesty; they

beheld larger profits result from fraud than from long lives

of honesty. Old men saw their best-laid plans frustrated by

the operations of gamblers. Our national credit was affected

by it. Europe was told that our principal places of business

were nests of gamblers, and that it was possible for a small

clique, aided by our banking institutions, to get possession

of all the gold there was in the land; and that when one firm

had gone through business transactions to the amount of over

one hundred millions of dollars, the courts of the United

States would compel the completion of those bargains which

resulted in a profit, while those that ended in a loss were

forbidden. For two or three months the sale of bonds in Europe

was affected by the transactions of that day; and not until

the present generation of business men has passed away will

the evil influence of Black Friday be entirely lost."

W. R. Hooper,

Black Friday

(The Galaxy, December, 1871).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1875-1881.

Stalwarts and Half-breeds.

See STALWARTS.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1881.

Adoption of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1848-1883.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1892.

Restored Tammany government in the City.

The Tammany organization was greatly discredited and crippled

for a time by the exposure and overthrow of Tweed and his

"ring," in 1871; but after a few years, under the

chieftainship of John Kelly and Richard Croker, successive

"grand sachems," it recovered its control of the city

government so completely that, in 1892, Dr. Albert Shaw was

justified in describing the latter as follows: "There is in

New York no official body that corresponds with the London

Council. The New York Board of Aldermen, plus the Mayor, plus

the Commissioners who are the appointive heads of a number of

the working departments such as the Excise, Park, Health and

Police departments, plus the District Attorney, the Sheriff,

the Coroners, and other officials pertaining to the county of

New York as distinct from the city of New York, plus a few of

the head Tammany bosses and the local Tammany bosses of the

twenty-four Assembly Districts—all these men and a few other

officials and bosses, taken together, would make up a body of

men of about the same numerical strength as the London

Council; and these are the men who now dominate the official

life of the great community of nearly eighteen hundred

thousand souls. In London the 137 councillors fight out every

municipal question in perfectly open session upon its actual

merits before the eyes of all London, and of the whole British

empire. In New York, the governing group discusses nothing

openly. The Board of Aldermen is an obscure body of

twenty-five members, with limited power except for mischief,

its members being almost to a man high Tammany politicians who

are either engaged directly in the liquor business or are in

one way or another connected with that interest. So far as

there is any meeting in which the rulers of New York discuss

the public affairs of the community, such meetings are held in

the Tammany wigwam in Fourteenth Street. But Tammany is not an

organization which really concerns itself with any aspects of

public questions, either local or general, excepting the

'spoils' aspect. It is organized upon what is a military

rather than a political basis, and its machinery extends

through all the assembly districts and voting precincts of New

York, controlling enough votes to hold and wield the balance

of power, and thus to keep Tammany in the possession of the

offices.

{2350}

Its local hold is maintained by the dispensing of a vast

amount of patronage. The laborers on public works, the members

of the police force and the fire brigades, the employees of

the Sanitary Department, of the Excise Department, of the

Street Cleaning and Repair Department and of the Water and

Dock and Park Departments, the teachers in the public schools

and the nurses in the public hospitals, all are made to feel

that their livelihood depends on the favor of the Tammany

bosses; and they must not only be faithful to Tammany

themselves, but all their friends and relatives to the

remotest collateral degree must also be kept subservient to

the Tammany domination. The following characterization of

Tammany leadership and method is from the New York Evening

Post. … 'None of the members occupy themselves with any

legislation, except such as creates salaried offices and

contracts in this city, to be got hold of either by capture at

the polls or "deals" with the Republican politicians here or

in Albany. When such legislation has been successful, the only

thing in connection with it which Tammany leaders consider is

how the salaries shall be divided and what "assessments" the

places or contracts can stand. If any decent outsider could

make his way into the inner conferences at which these

questions are settled, he would hear not the grave discussion

of the public interests, how to keep streets clean, or how to

repave them, or how to light them or police them, or how to

supply the city with water, but stories of drunken or amorous

adventure, larded freely with curious and original oaths,

ridicule of reformers and "silk-stockinged" people generally,

abuse of "kickers," and examination of the claims of gamblers,

liquor-dealers, and pugilists to more money out of the public

treasury. In fact, as we have had of late frequent occasion to

observe, the society is simply an organization of clever

adventurers, most of them in some degree criminal, for the

control of the ignorant and vicious vote of the city in an

attack on the property of the tax-payers. There is not a

particle of politics in the concern any more than in any

combination of Western brigands to "hold up" a railroad train

and get at the express packages. Its sole object is plunder in

any form which will not attract the immediate notice of the

police.'"

A. Shaw,

Municipal Problems of New York and London

(Review of Reviews, April 1892).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1894.

Constitutional Convention.

A bill passed by the legislature of 1892, calling a convention

to revise the constitution of the State, provided for the

election of 128 delegates by Assembly districts, and 32 at

large, but added 9 more whom the Governor should appoint, 3 to

represent labor interests, 3 woman-suffrage claims, and 3 the

advocates of prohibition. By the legislature of 1893 this act

was set aside and a new enactment adopted, making the total

number of delegates to the Constitutional Convention 165, all

elective, and apportioning five to each senatorial district.

The convention assembled at Albany, May 9, 1894. Its labors

are unfinished at the time this volume goes to press.

Questions of reform in municipal government have claimed the

greatest attention.

----------NEW YORK: End----------

NEW YORK SOCIETY LIBRARY.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

----------NEW ZEALAND: Start--------

NEW ZEALAND:

The aborigines.

"The traditions of these people [the Maoris] lead to the

conclusion that they first came to New Zealand about 600 years

ago, from some of the islands between Samoa and Tahiti; but

some ethnologists put the migration as far back as 3,000

years. Their language is a dialect of the Polynesian, most

resembling that of Rarotonga, but their physical characters

vary greatly. Some are fair, with straight hair, and with the

best type of Polynesian features; others are dusky brown, with

curly or almost frizzly hair, and with the' long and broad

arched nose of the Papuan; while others have the coarse thick

features of the lower Melanesian races. Now these variations

of type cannot be explained unless we suppose the Maoris to

have found in the islands an indigenous Melanesian people, of

whom they exterminated the men, but took the better-looking of

the women for wives; and as their traditions decidedly state

that they did find such a race when they first arrived at New

Zealand, there seems no reason whatever for rejecting these

traditions, which accord with actual physical facts, just as

the tradition of a migration from 'Hawaiki,' a Polynesian

island, accords with linguistic facts."

Hellwald-Wallace,

Australasia

(Stanford's Compendium, new issue, 1893),

chapter 14, section 9 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

E. Shortland,

Traditions and Superstitions of the New Zealanders.

J. S. Polack,

Manners and Customs of the New Zealanders.

Lady Martin,

Our Maoris.

W. D. Hay,

Brighter Britain,

volume 2, chapters 3-5.

See, also, MALAYAN RACE.

NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1642-1856.

Discovery.

Colonization.

Early dealings with Natives.

Constitutional organization.

"The honour of the actual discovery of New Zealand must be

accorded to the Dutch Navigator, Tasman, who visited it in

1642, discovering Van Dieman's Land during the same voyage.

As, however, he does not appear to have landed, the knowledge

of the country derived by Europeans from his account of it

must have been of very limited extent. … It was our own

countryman, Captain Cook, to whom we are so largely indebted

for what we now know of the geography of the Pacific, who made

us acquainted with the nature of the country and the character

of its inhabitants. The aborigines were evidently of a much

higher type than those of the Australian continent. They are a

branch of the Polynesian race, and according to their own

traditions came about 600 years ago from 'Hawaiki,' which

ethnologists interpret to mean either Hawaii (the Sandwich

Islands), or Savaii in the Samoa group. They are divided into

some twenty clans, analogous to those of the Scottish

Highlands. Cook's first visit was paid in 1769, but he touched

at the islands on several occasions during his subsequent

voyages, and succeeded in making, before his final departure,

a more or less complete exploration of its coasts. The

aborigines were divided into numerous tribes, which were

engaged in almost constant wars one with another. … As has

been the case in so many distant lands, the first true

pioneers of civilization were the missionaries.

{2351}

In 1814, thirty-seven years after Captain Cook's last visit to

New Zealand, a few representatives of the English Church

Missionary Society landed in the North Island, less with the

intention of colonising than with the hope of converting the

natives to Christianity. The first practical steps in the

direction of settlement were taken by the New Zealand Land

Company, composed of a very strong and influential body of

gentlemen headed by Lord Durham, and having much the same

ideas as those which actuated the South Australian

Colonisation Society. The proposal to found a new Colony was

at first bitterly opposed by the Government of the day, but in

consequence of the energetic action of the Company, who sent

out agents with large funds to purchase land of the natives,

the Government ultimately gave way, and despatched as Consul

Captain Hobson, who arrived in January 1840. One of his first

steps on assuming office was to call a meeting of the natives

and explain to them the object of his mission, with the view

of entering into a treaty for placing the sovereignty of their

island in Her Majesty the Queen. He was not at first

successful, the natives fearing that if they acceded to the

proposal, their land would be taken from them; but being

reassured on this point, the majority of the chiefs ultimately

signed the treaty in February of the same year. By the terms

of this treaty, called the Treaty of Waitangi, the chiefs, in

return for their acknowledgment of the supremacy of the Queen

of England, were guaranteed for themselves and their people

the exclusive possession of their lands so long as they wished

to retain them, and they, on their side, accorded to the Crown

the exclusive right of pre-emption over such lands as might,

from time to time, come into the market. It will thus be seen

that the acquisition of land in New Zealand by European

settlers was effected in a manner entirely different from that

which obtained in other colonies; for, although the right of

pre-emption by the Crown was subsequently waived, no land

could be obtained from natives unless they were perfectly

willing to part with it. It is true that lands have in some

instances been confiscated as a punishment for native

insurrections, but, with this exception, all lands have passed

from natives to Europeans by the ordinary processes of bargain

and sale. Captain Hobson's next action was to place himself in

communication with the New Zealand Company's agents, and

ascertain what they were doing in the way of colonisation. He

found that besides acquiring various blocks of land in the

North and South Islands, they had formed a permanent

settlement at Wellington, at which they were organising a

system of government incompatible with the Queen's authority,

which he therefore promptly suppressed. … In June of 1840

the settlement was made a colony by Charter under the Great

Seal, Captain Hobson naturally becoming the first Governor.

This eminent public servant died at his post in September

1842, being succeeded by Captain R. Fitzroy, who, however, did

not reach the Colony till a year afterwards. In the interval

occurred that lamentable incident, the massacre of white

settlers by the natives at Wairu, in the South Island. Shortly

after this the Company made strenuous efforts to obtain a

share in the Executive Government, but this was twice

disallowed by the Home authorities. Captain Fitzroy's term of

office was in all respects a stormy one, the native chiefs

rising in rebellion, open and covert, against the terms of the

Waitangi treaty. With only 150 soldiers, and destitute of any

military facilities, this governor deemed it prudent to come

to a compromise with the rebels, fearing the effect upon the

minds of the natives generally of the certain defeat which he

must sustain in active warfare. Receiving, however,

reinforcements from Sidney, Captain Fitzroy took the field,

sustaining in his first expedition a decided defeat. Two other

expeditions followed this, and at length the success of the

British arms was assured, Captain Fitzroy suffering from the

irony of fate, since, having been neglected in his peril, he

was recalled in the moment of victory. Captain (afterwards Sir

George) Grey succeeded to the Governorship in November 1845;

having the good fortune to be surrounded by ministers of

exceptional ability, and arriving in the Colony at a fortunate

turn in its affairs, he takes his place among the successful

Governors of New Zealand. Colonel Gore Browne—after an

interregnum of nearly two years—succeeded to power, and

during his viceroyalty in 1853, responsible government, which,

however, did not provide for ministerial responsibility, was

inaugurated. … The Home Government shortly afterwards (May

1856) … established responsible government in its fullest

form, but unfortunately without any special provisions for the

representation of the native races. … Up to 1847 New Zealand

remained a Crown Colony, the Government being administered by

a Governor appointed by the Crown, an Executive Council, and a

Legislative Council. Under this system, the Governor had very

large powers, since the only control over him was that

exercised by the Home Government. The Executive Council

consisted of the Governor and three official members, while

the Legislative Council was made up of the Executive Council

and three non-official members nominated by the Governor. At

that time Auckland was the seat of Government, which has since

been moved to Wellington. In 1852, before the expiration of

the period over which the provisional charter granted in 1847

was to extend, the Imperial Parliament granted a new

constitution to New Zealand (15 & 16 Vic. cap. 72), and in the

following year it came into force and is still [1886]

operative. The Legislature, under this Constitution, consists

of a Governor, a Legislative Council, composed of life members

nominated by the Crown, and a House of Representatives elected

by the people, under a franchise which practically amounts to

household suffrage."

Her Majesty's Colonies

(Colonial and Ind. Exhibition, 1886),

pages 245-248.

ALSO IN:

G. W. Rusden,

History of New Zealand,

volume 1.

G. Tregarthen,

Story of Australasia.

NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1853-1883.

Land questions with the Natives.

The King movement.

The Maori War.

"In the course of years, as it was evident to the natives that

the Europeans were the coming power in the land, suspicion and

distrust were excited, and at last the tocsin sounded. … It

was considered that a head was needed to initiate a form of

Government among the tribes to resist the encroachments daily

made by the Europeans, and which seemed to threaten the

national extinction of the native race. The first to endeavour

to bring about a new order of things was a native chief named

Matene Te Whiwi, of Otaki.

{2352}

In 1853 he marched to Taupo and Rotorua, accompanied by a

number of followers, to obtain the consent of the different

tribes to the election of a king over the central parts of the

island, which were still exclusively Maori territory, and to

organize a form of government to protect the interests of the

native race. Matene … met with little success. … The

agitation, however, did not stop, the fire once kindled

rapidly spread, ardent followers of the new idea sprang up,

and their numbers soon increased, until finally, in 1854, a

tribal gathering was convened at Manawapou. … After many

points had been discussed, a resolution was come to among the

assembled tribes that no more land should be sold to

Europeans. A solemn league was entered into by an present for

the preservation of the native territory, and a tomahawk was

passed round as a pledge that all would agree to put the

individual to death who should break it. In 1854 another bold

stand was made, and Te Heuheu, who exercised a powerful sway

over the tribes of the interior, summoned a native council at

Taupo, when the King movement began in earnest. It was there

decided that the sacred mountain of Tongariro should be the

centre of a district in which no land was to be sold to the

government, and that the districts of Hauraki, Waikato,

Kawhia, Mokau, Taranaki, Whanganui, Rangitikei, and Titiokura,

should form the outlying portions of the boundary; that no

roads should be made by the Europeans within the area, and

that a king should be elected to reign over the Maoris. In

1857 Kingite meetings were held, … at which it was agreed

that Potatau Te Wherowhero, the most powerful chief of

Waikato, should be elected king, under the title of Potatau

the First, and finally, in June, 1858, his flag was formally

hoisted at Ngaruawahia. Potatau, who was far advanced in life

when raised to this high office, soon departed from the scene,

and was succeeded by his son Matutaera Te Wherowhero, under

the title of Potatau the Second. The events of the New Zealand

war need not here be recited, but it may be easily imagined

that during the continuance of the fighting the extensive area

of country ruled over by the Maori monarch was kept clear of

Europeans. But in 1863 and 1864 General Cameron, at the head

of about 20,000 troops, composed of Imperial and Colonial

forces, invaded the Waikato district, and drove the natives

southward and westward, till his advanced corps were at

Alexandra and Cambridge. Then followed the Waikato

confiscation of Maori lands and the military settlements. The

King territory was further broken into by the confiscations at

Taranaki and the East Coast. … Since the termination of the

lamentable war between the two races, the King natives have,

on all occasions, jealously preserved their hostile spirit to

Europeans. … The New Zealand war concluded, or rather died

out, in 1865, when the confiscated line was drawn, the

military settlements formed, and the King natives isolated

themselves from the Europeans. For ten years it may be said

that no attempt was mane to negotiate with them. They were not

in a humour to be dealt with. About 1874 and 1875, however, it

became evident that something would have to be done. The

colony had greatly advanced in population, and a system of

public works had been inaugurated, which made it intolerable

that large centres of population should be cut off from each

other by vast spaces of country which Europeans were not

allowed even to traverse." Then began a series of

negotiations, which, up to 1883, had borne no fruit.

J. H. Kerry-Nicholls,

The King Country, introduction.

ALSO IN:

G. W. Rusden,

History of New Zealand.

Colonel Sir J. E. Alexander,

Incidents of the Maori War.

NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1887-1893.

Maori representation.

Women Suffrage.

An act passed in 1887 created four districts in each of which

the Maoris elect a member of the House of Representatives.

Every adult Maori has a vote in this election. By an act

passed in 1893 the elective franchise was extended to women.

----------NEW ZEALAND: End----------

NEWAB-WUZEER,

OR NAWAB-VIZIER, of Oude.

See OUDE; also NABOB.

NEWARK, NEW JERSEY:

The founding of the city by migration

from New Haven (1666-1667).

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

NEWBERN, North Carolina: Capture by the national forces.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862

(JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

NEWBURGH, Washington's headquarters at.

"At the close of 1780, the army was cantoned at three points:

at Morristown and at Pompton, in New Jersey, and at

Phillipstown, in the Hudson Highlands. Washington established

his head-quarters at New Windsor in December, 1780, where he

remained until June, 1781, when the French, who had quartered

during the winter at Newport and Lebanon, formed a junction

with the Americans on the Hudson. In April, 1782, he

established his head-quarters at Newburgh, two miles above the

village of New Windsor, where he continued most of the time

until November, 1783, when the Continental army was

disbanded."

B. J. Lossing,

Field-book of the Revolution,

volume 1, page 671.

NEWBURGH ADDRESSES, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782-1783.

NEWBURN, Battles of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

NEWBURY, First Battles of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

NEWBURY, Second Battle.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE, Origin of.

See PONS ÆLII.

NEWCOMEN, and the invention of the steam engine.

See STEAM ENGINE: THE BEGINNINGS.

----------NEWFOUNDLAND: Start--------

NEWFOUNDLAND:

Aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BEOTHUKAN FAMILY.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1000.

Supposed identity with the Helluland of Norse Sagas.

See AMERICA: 10-11TH CENTURIES.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1498.

Discovery by Sebastian Cabot.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1498.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1500.

Visited by Cortereal, the Portuguese explorer.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1500.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

The Portuguese, Norman, Breton and Basque fisheries.

"It is a very curious circumstance, that the country in which

the Cabots started their idea for a navigation to the

north-west, and in which they at first proclaimed their

discovery of the rich fishing-banks near their

New-found-Isles, did not at once profit by it so much as their

neighbors, the French and the Portuguese. …

{2353}

During the first half of the 16th century we hear little of

English fishing and commercial expeditions to the great banks;

although they had a branch of commerce and fishery with

Iceland. … 'It was not until the year 1548 that the English

government passed the first act for the encouragement of the

fisheries on the banks of Newfoundland, after which they

became active competitors in this profitable occupation.'" In

Portugal, Cortereal's discovery had revealed "the wealth to be

derived from the fish, particularly cod-fish, which abounded

on that coast. The fishermen of Portugal and of the Western

Islands, when this news was spread among them, made

preparations for profiting by it, and soon extended their

fishing excursions to the other side of the ocean. According

to the statement of a Portuguese author, very soon after the

discoveries by the Cortereals, a Portuguese Fishing Company

was formed in the harbors of Vianna, Aveiro and Terceira, for

the purpose of colonizing Newfoundland and making

establishments upon it. Nay, already, in 1506, three years

after the return of the last searching expedition for the

Cortereals, Emanuel gave order, 'that the fishermen of

Portugal, at their return from Newfoundland, should pay a

tenth part of their profits at his custom-houses.' It is

certain, therefore, that the Portuguese fishermen must,

previous to that time, have been engaged in a profitable

business. And this is confirmed by the circumstance that they

originated the name of 'tierra de Bacalhas' [or Bacalhao] (the

Stockfish-country) and gave currency to it; though the word,

like the cod-fishery itself, appears to be of Germanic origin.

…. The nations who followed them in the fishing business

imitated their example, and adopted the name 'country of the

Bacalhas' (or, in the Spanish form, Baccallaos), though

sometimes interchanging it with names of their own invention,

as the 'Newfoundland: 'Terre neuve,' etc. … They [the

Portuguese] continued their expeditions to Newfoundland and

its neighborhood for a long time. They were often seen there

by later English and other visitors during the course of the

16th century; for instance, according to Herrera, in 1519;

again by the English in 1527; and again by Sir Humphrey

Gilbert in 1583. … The Portuguese engaged in this fishery as

early as 1501, according to good authorities, and perhaps

under the charter of Henry VII. In 1578, they had 50 ships

employed in that trade, and England as many more, and France

150. … The inhabitants of the little harbors of Normandy and

Brittany, the great peninsulas of France, … were also among

the first who profited by the discoveries of the Cabots and

Cortereals, and who followed in the wake of the Portuguese

fishermen toward the north-west cod-fish country. … The

first voyages of the Bretons of St. Malo and the Normans of

Dieppe to Newfoundland, are said to have occurred as early as

1504. … They probably visited places of which the Portuguese

had not taken possession; and we therefore find them at the

south of Newfoundland, and especially at the island of Cape

Breton, to which they gave the name, still retained,—the

oldest French name on the American north-east coast. … The

Spaniards, and more particularly the mariners and fishermen of

Biscay, have pretended, like those of Brittany and Normandy,

that they and their ancestors, from time immemorial, had

sailed to Newfoundland; and, even before Columbus, had

established their fisheries there. But the Spanish historian

Navarette, in more modern times, does not sustain this

pretension of his countrymen. … We may come to the

conclusion that, if the fisheries of the Spanish Basques on

the Banks of Newfoundland and in the vicinity, did not begin

with the voyage of Gomez [in 1525], they received from it a

new impulse. … From this time, for more than a century, they

[the Basques] appeared in these waters every year with a large

fleet, and took their place upon the banks as equals by the

side of the Bretons, Normans, and Basques of France, until the

middle of the 17th century, when rival nations dispossessed

them of their privileges."

J. G. Kohl,

History of the Discovery of Maine

(Maine Historical Society Collections, series 2, volume 1),

chapters 6 and 8, with foot-note.

ALSO IN:

R. Brown,

History of Cape Breton,

chapters 1-2.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1534.

Visited by Jacques Cartier.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1583.

Formal possession taken for England by Sir Humphrey Gilbert.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1583.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655.

Early English attempts at colonization.

The grants to Lord Baltimore and Sir David Kirke.

"For 27 years after the failure of the Gilbert expedition no

fresh attempt was made to establish a colony in the island.

During this interval fishermen of various nationalities

continued to frequent its shores. … The French were actively

engaged in the prosecution of the fisheries in the neighboring

seas. Their success in this direction strengthened their

desire to gain possession of Newfoundland. Hence it is that in

the history of the country France has always been an important

factor. Having from time to time held possession of various

points of the land, England's persistent rival in these

latitudes has given names to many towns, villages, creeks, and

harbors. To this day Newfoundland has not completely shaken

off French influence. … In 1610 another attempt was made to

plant a colony of Englishmen in Newfoundland. John Guy, a

merchant, and afterwards mayor of Bristol, published in 1609 a

pamphlet on the advantages which would result to England from

the establishment of a colony in the island. This publication

made such a deep impression on the public mind that a company

was formed to carry out the enterprise it suggested. The most

illustrious name on the roll was that of Lord Bacon. … The

importance of Newfoundland as a site for an English colony did

not escape the wide-ranging eye of Bacon. He pronounced its

fisheries 'more valuable than all the mines of Peru,' a

judgment which time has amply verified. … To this company

James I., by letters patent dated April, 1610, made a grant of

all the part of Newfoundland which lies between Cape Bonavista

in the north and Cape St. Mary. Mr. Guy was appointed

governor, and with a number of colonists he landed at Mosquito

Harbor, on the north side of Conception Bay, where he

proceeded to erect huts. … We have no authentic account of

the progress of this settlement, begun under such favourable

auspices, but it proved unsuccessful from some unexplained

cause. Guy and a number of the settlers returned to England,

the rest remaining to settle elsewhere in the New World.

{2354}

Five years afterwards, in 1615, Captain Richard Whitbourne,

mariner, of Exmouth, Devonshire, received a commission from

the Admiralty of England to proceed to Newfoundland for the

purpose of establishing order among the fishing population and

remedying certain abuses which had grown up. … It was shown

that there were upwards of 250 English vessels, having a

tonnage of 1,500 tons, engaged in the fisheries along the

coast. Fixed habitations extended at intervals along the shore

from St. John's to Cape Race. … Having done what he could

during the active part of his life to promote its interests,

on his return to England, in his advanced years, he

[Whitbourne] wrote an account of the country, entitled 'A

Discourse and Discovery of Newfoundland.' … His book made a

great impression at the time. … So highly did King James

think of the volume that he ordered a copy to be sent to every

parish in the kingdom. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York

issued a letter recommending it, with the view of encouraging

emigration to Newfoundland. … A year after the departure of

Whitbourne, in 1623, by far the most skilfully-organized

effort to carry out the settlement of Newfoundland was made,

under the guidance of Sir George Calvert, afterwards Lord

Baltimore. … When Secretary of State he obtained a patent

conveying to him the lordship of the whole southern peninsula

of Newfoundland, together with all the islands lying within

ten leagues of the eastern shores, as well as the right of

fishing in the surrounding waters, all English subjects

having, as before, free liberty of fishing. Being a Roman

Catholic, Lord Baltimore had in view to provide an asylum for

his co-religionists who were sufferers from the intolerant

spirit of the times. The immense tract thus granted to him

extended from Trinity Bay to Placentia, and was named by him

Avalon, from the ancient name of Glastonbury, where, it is

believed, Christianity was first preached in Britain. … Lord

Baltimore called his Newfoundland province Avalon and his

first settlement Verulam. The latter name, in course of time,

became corrupted into Ferulam, and then into the modern

Ferryland. At this spot, on the eastern coast of Newfoundland,

about 40 miles north of Cape Race, Lord Baltimore planted his

colony, and built a noble mansion, in which he resided with

his family during many years." But after expending some

£30,000 upon the establishment of his colony, Lord Baltimore

abandoned it, on account of the poor quality of the soil and

its exposure to the attacks of the French. Not long afterwards

he obtained his Maryland grant [see MARYLAND: A. D. 1632] and

resumed the enterprise under more favorable conditions. "Soon

after the departure of Lord Baltimore, Viscount Falkland,

Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, hoping to permanently increase the

scanty population of Newfoundland, sent out a number of

emigrants from that country. At a later date, these were so

largely reinforced by settlers from Ireland that the Celtic

part of the population at this day is not far short of

equality in numbers with the Saxon portion. In 1638, Sir David

Kirke, one of Britain's bravest sea-captains, arrived in

Newfoundland and took up his abode at Ferryland, where Lord

Baltimore had lived. Sir David was armed with the powers of a

Count Palatine over the island, having obtained from Charles

I. a grant of the whole." This was by way of reward for his

exploit in taking Quebec

See CANADA: A. D. 1628-1635.

Kirke "governed wisely and used every effort to promote the

colonization of the country. His settlement prospered greatly.

The Civil War, however, broke out in England, and, Kirke being

a staunch loyalist, all his possessions in Newfoundland were

confiscated by the victorious Commonwealth. By the aid of

Claypole, Cromwell's son-in-law, Kirke eventually got the

sequestration removed, and, returning to Ferryland, died there

in 1655, at the age of 56. At this time Newfoundland contained

a population of 350 families, or nearly 2,000 inhabitants,

distributed in 15 small settlements along the eastern coast."

J. Hatton and M. Harvey,

Newfoundland,

chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

H. Kirke,

The First English Conquest of Canada,

chapters 3-4.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1660-1688.

The French gain their footing.

"With the possession of Cape Breton, Acadia, and the vast

regions stretching from the gulf of the River St. Lawrence,

and the mighty lakes, Newfoundland obtained a new value in the

estimation of the government of France, as it formed one side

of the narrow entrance to its transatlantic dependencies:

consequently the pursuit of the fishery by its seamen was

encouraged, and every opportunity was improved to gain a

footing in the country itself. This encroaching tendency could

not, however, be manifested without a protest on the part of

the somewhat sluggish English, both by private individuals and

by the government. Charles I. … imposed a tribute of five

per cent. on the produce taken by foreigners in this fishery,

to which exaction the French, as well as others, were forced

to submit. During the distracted time of the Commonwealth, it

does not appear that the struggling government at home found

leisure to attend to these distant affairs, though the tribute

continued to be levied. The Restoration brought to England a

sovereign who owed much to the monarch of France, to whom he

was therefore attached by the ties of gratitude, and by the

desire to find a counterpoise to the refractory disposition of

which he was in continual apprehension among his own subjects.

It was not until 1675 that Louis XIV. prevailed on Charles to

give up the duty of five per cent., and by that time the

French had obtained a solid footing on the southern coast of

Newfoundland, so that, with Cape Breton in their possession,

they commanded both sides of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Over a

territory of some 200 miles in extent, belonging to the

British sovereignty, they had built up imperceptibly an almost

undisputed dominion. At Placentia, situated in the bay of that

name, a strong fort was erected, sustained by other forts

standing at intervals along the shore, and at the same place a

royal government was established. How real was the authority

assumed, and how completely was the English sovereignty

ignored, needs no better proof than is furnished in an

ordinance issued by Louis in the year 1681, concerning the

marine of France. In this state paper, Newfoundland is

reckoned as situate in those seas which are free and common to

all French subjects, provided that they take a license from

the admiral for every voyage. …

{2355}

Thus that period which is regarded as among the most

humiliating in the annals of our nation,—when the king was a

pensioner of France, and his ministers received bribes from

the same quarter, witnessed the partial sliding under this

alien power of the most ancient of the colonial possessions of

the Crown. Not less than half of the inhabited coast of

Newfoundland was thus taken under that despotic rule, which,

while swaying the councils of England to the furtherance of

its ambitious designs, was labouring for the subjugation of

the European continent. The revolution of 1688 broke the spell

of this encroaching autocracy."

C. Pedley,

History of Newfoundland,

chapter 2.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.

French success in the war with England.

The Treaty of Ryswick and its unsatisfactory terms.

"On the accession of William III. to the throne of England

hostilities broke out between the rival nations. In William's

declaration of war against the French, Newfoundland holds a

prominent place among the alleged causes which led to the

rupture of pacific relations. The grievance was tersely set

forth in the royal manifesto: 'It was not long since the

French took license from the Governor of Newfoundland to fish

upon that coast, and paid a tribute for such licenses as an

acknowledgement of the sole right of the Crown of England to

that island; but of late the encroachments of the French, and

His Majesty's subjects trading and fishing there, had been

more like the invasions of an enemy than becoming friends, who

enjoyed the advantages of that trade only by permission.'

Newfoundland now became the scene of military skirmishes,

naval battles, and sieges by land and water." In 1692 the

English made an unsuccessful attack on Placentia. In 1694, a

French fleet, under the Chevalier Nesmond, intended for an

attack upon Boston and New York, stopped at Newfoundland on

the way and made a descent on the harbor and town of St.

John's. Nesmond "was repulsed, and instead of going on to

Boston he returned to France. A more determined effort at

conquest was made later in the same year. The new expedition

was under the command of Iberville and Brouillan, the former

being at the head of a Canadian force. The garrison of St.

John's was weak in numbers, and, in want of military stores,

could only make a feeble resistance; capitulating on easy

terms, the troops were shipped to England. The fort and town

were burned to the ground, and the victors next proceeded to

destroy all the other adjacent English settlements; Carbonear

and Bonavista alone proved too strong for them. The English

Government at once commenced dispositions for dislodging the

invaders; but before anything was attempted the treaty of

Ryswick was signed, in 1697. This treaty proved most

unfortunate for Newfoundland. It revived in the island the

same state of division between France and England which had

existed at the beginning of the war. The enemy retired from

St. John's and the other settlements which they had forcibly

occupied. Their claims upon Placentia and all the other

positions on the south-west coast were, however, confirmed.

The British inhabitants of Newfoundland were, therefore, once

more left open to French attacks, should hostilities be again

renewed between the rival powers."

J. Hatton and M. Harvey,

Newfoundland,

part 1, chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

F. Parkman,

Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV.,

chapter 18.

W. Kingsford,

History of Canada,

book 4, chapter 7 (volume 2).

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1705.

English settlements destroyed by the French.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713.

Relinquished to Great Britain by the Treaty of Utrecht.

French fishing rights reserved.

In the 12th and 13th articles of the Treaty signed at Utrecht,

April 11, 1713, which terminated the War of the Spanish

Succession (commonly known in American history as Queen Anne's

War) it was stipulated that "All Nova Scotia or Acadié, with

its ancient boundaries, as also the city of Port Royal, now

called Annapolis Royal, … the island of Newfoundland, with

the adjacent islands, … the town and fortress of Placentia,

and whatever other places in the island are in possession of

the French, shall from this time forward belong of right

wholly to Great Britain. … That the subjects of France

should be allowed to catch fish and dry them on that part of

the island of Newfoundland which stretches from Cape Bonavista

to the northern point of the island, and from thence down the

western side as far as Point Riché; but that no fortifications

or any buildings should be erected there, besides Stages made

of Boards, and Huts necessary and usual for drying fish. …

But the island of Cape Breton, as also all others, both in the

mouth of the river of St. Lawrence and in the gulf of the same

name, shall hereafter belong of Right to the King of France,

who shall have liberty to fortify any place or places there."

R. Brown,

History of the Island of Cape Breton,

letter 9.

ALSO IN:

J. Hatton and M. Harvey,

Newfoundland,

part 1, chapters 3-4;

and part 3, chapter 7.

See, also, UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1744.

Attack on Placentia by the French.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1748.

The islands of St. Pierre and Michelon ceded to France.

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

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1763.

Ceded to England by the Treaty of Paris,

with rights of fishing reserved to France.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES;

also FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1763.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1778.

French fishery rights on the banks recognized

in the Franco-American Treaty.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1778 (FEBRUARY).

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1783.

American fishing rights conceded in the

Treaty of Peace with the United States.

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

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1818.

Fisheries Treaty between Great Britain and the United States.

See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1814-1818.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1854-1866.

Reciprocity Treaty with the United States.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION

(UNITED STATES AND CANADA): A. D. 1854-1866.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1871.

The Treaty of Washington.

See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1877.

The Halifax Fishery award.

Termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington.

Renewed fishery disputes.

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

----------NEWFOUNDLAND: End----------

NEWNHAM HALL.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1865-1883.

NEWPORT, England, The Treaty at.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER),

and (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

{2356}

----------NEWPORT, Rhode Island: Start--------

NEWPORT, Rhode Island: A. D. 1524.

Visited by Verrazano.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

NEWPORT, Rhode Island: A. D. 1639.

The first settlement.

See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

NEWPORT, Rhode Island: A. D. 1778.

Held by the British.

Failure of French-American attack.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1778 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

----------NEWPORT, Rhode Island: End--------

NEWSPAPERS.

See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1612-1650, and after.

NEWTON BUTLER, Battle of (1689).

See IRELAND: A. D. 1688-1689.

NEWTONIA, Battles of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS);

and 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

NEY, Marshal, Campaigns and execution of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER),

1806-1807, 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);

SPAIN: A. D. 1809;

RUSSIA: A. D. 1812;

GERMANY: A. D. 1813;

FRANCE: A. D. 1815, and 1815-1830.

NEZ PERCÉS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: NEZ PERCÉS.

----------NIAGARA: Start--------

NIAGARA:

The name and its original applications.

"Colden wrote it [the name] 'O-ni-ag-a-ra,' in 1741, and he

must have received it from the Mohawks or Oneidas. It was the

name of a Seneca village at the mouth of the Niagara river;

located as early as 1650, near the site of Youngstown. It was

also the place where the Marquis de Nonville constructed a

fort in 1687, the building of which brought this locality

under the particular notice of the English. The name of this

Indian village in the dialect of the Senecas was 'Ne-ah'-gä,'

in Tuscarora 'O-ne-ä'-kars,' in Onondaga 'O-ne-ah'-gä,' in

Oneida 'O-ne-ah'-gäle,' and in Mohawk 'O-ne-a'-gä-rä.' These

names are but the same word under dialectical changes. It is

clear that Niagara was derived from some one of them, and thus

came direct from the Iroquois language. The signification of

the word is lost, unless it is derived, as some of the present

Iroquois suppose, from the word which signifies 'neck,' in

Seneca 'O-ne-ah'-ä,' in Onondaga 'O-ne-yä'-ä' and in Oneida

'O-ne-arle.' The name of this Indian village was bestowed by

the Iroquois upon Youngstown; upon the river Niagara, from the

falls to the Lake; and upon Lake Ontario."

L. H. Morgan,

League of the Iroquois,

book 3, chapter 3.

"It [the name Niagara] is the oldest of all the local

geographical terms which have come down to us from the

aborigines. It was not at first thus written by the English,

for with them it passed through almost every possible

alphabetical variation before its present orthography was

established. We find its germ in the 'On-gui-aah-ra' of the

Neutral Nation, as given by Father L'Allemant in a letter

dated in 1641, at the mission station of Sainte Marie, on Lake

Huron. … The name of the river next occurs on Sanson's map

of Canada, published in Paris in 1656, where it is spelled

'Ongiara.' Its first appearance as Niagara is on Coronelli's

map, published in Paris in 1688. From that time to the

present, the French have been consistent in their orthography,

the numerous variations alluded to occurring only among

English writers. The word was probably derived from the

Mohawks, through whom the French had their first intercourse

with the Iroquois. The Mohawks pronounced it Nyah,-ga-rah',

with the primary accent on the first syllable; and the

secondary on the last. … The corresponding Seneca name,

Nyah'-gaah, was always confined by the Iroquois to the section

of the river below the Falls, and to Lake Ontario. That

portion of the river above the Falls being sometimes called

Gni-gwaah-geh, one of their names for Lake Erie."

O. H. Marshall,

The Niagara Frontier

(Historical Writings, page 283).

NIAGARA: A. D. 1687-1688.

Fort constructed by De Nonville and destroyed a year later.

"We arrived there [at Niagara] on the morning of the 30th [of

July, 1687]. We immediately set about choosing a place, and

collecting stakes for the construction of the Fort which I had

resolved to build at the extremity of a tongue of land,

between the river Niagara and Lake Ontario, on the Iroquois

side. On the 31st of July and 1st of August we continued this

work, which was the more difficult from there being no wood on

the place suitable for making palisades, and from its being

necessary to draw them up the height. We performed this labor

so diligently that the fort was in a state of defence on the

last mentioned day. … The 2d day of August, the militia

having performed their allotted task, and the fort being in a

condition of defence in case of assault, they set out at noon,

in order to reach the end of the lake on their return to their

own country. On the morning of the 3d, being the next day, I

embarked for the purpose of joining the militia, leaving the

regular troops under the direction of M. de Vaudreuil to

finish what was the most essential, and to render the fort not

only capable of defence, but also of being occupied by a

detachment of 100 soldiers, which are to winter there under

the command of M. Troyes."

Marquis de Nonville,

Journal of Expedition against the Senecas

(translated in Historical Writings of O. H. Marshall, p. 173).

"De Nonville's journal removes the doubt which has been

entertained as to the location of this fortress, some having

supposed it to have been first built at Lewiston. … It

occupied the site of the present fort on the angle formed by

the junction of the Niagara with Lake Ontario. … De Nonville

left De Troyes with provisions and munitions for eight months.

A sickness soon after broke out in the garrison, by which they

nearly all perished, including their commander. … They were

so closely besieged by the Iroquois that they were unable to

supply themselves with fresh provisions. The fortress was soon

after abandoned and destroyed [1688], much to the regret of De

Nonville."

Marquis de Nonville,

Journal of Expedition against the Senecas

(translated in Historical Writings of O. H. Marshall, p. 173).

Foot-notes

ALSO IN:

F. Parkman,

Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV.,

pages 155 and 166.

NIAGARA: A. D. 1725-1726.

The stone fort built.

How the French gained their footing.

Joncaire's wigwam.

Captain Joncaire "had been taken prisoner when quite young by

the Iroquois, and adopted into one of their tribes. This was

the making of his fortune. He had grown up among them,

acquired their language, adapted himself to their habits, and

was considered by them as one of themselves. On returning to

civilized life he became a prime instrument in the hands of

the Canadian government, for managing and cajoling the

Indians. … When the French wanted to get a commanding site

for a post on the Iroquois lands, near Niagara, Joncaire was

the man to manage it.

{2357}

He craved a situation where he might put up a wigwam, and

dwell among his Iroquois brethren. It was granted, of course,

'for was he not a son of the tribe—was he not one of

themselves?' By degrees his wigwam grew into an important

trading post; ultimately it became Fort Niagara."

W. Irving,

Life of Washington,

volume 1, chapter 5.

"In 1725 the Fort of Niagara was commenced by Chaussegross de

Léry, on the spot where the wooden structure of de Denonville

formerly stood; it was built of stone and completed in 1726."

W. Kingsford,

History of Canada,

volume 2, page 516.

NIAGARA: A. D. 1755.

Abortive expedition against the fort, by the English.

See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).

NIAGARA: A. D. 1756.

The fort rebuilt by Pouchot.

See CANADA: A. D. 1756.

NIAGARA: A. D. 1759.

The fort taken by the English.

See CANADA: A. D. 1759 (JULY-AUGUST).

NIAGARA: A. D. 1763.

The ambuscade and massacre at Devil's Hole.

See DEVIL'S HOLE.

NIAGARA: A. D. 1764.

Sir William Johnson's treaty with the Indians.

Cession of the Four Mile Strip' along both banks of the river.

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

NIAGARA: A. D. 1783.

Retention of the Fort by Great Britain

after peace with the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784-1788.

NIAGARA: A. D. 1796.

Surrender of the fort by Great Britain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1794-1795.

NIAGARA: A. D. 1813.

Surprise and capture of the fort by the British.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1813 (DECEMBER).

----------NIAGARA: End--------

NIAGARA, OR LUNDY'S LANE, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

NIAGARA FRONTIER: A. D. 1812-1814.

The War.

Queenstown.

Buffalo.

Chippewa.

Lundy's Lane.

Fort Erie.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);

1813 (DECEMBER);

1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

NIAGARA PEACE MISSION, The.

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

NIAGARA RIVER, Navigated by La Salle (1679).

See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

NIBELUNGEN LIED, The.

"Of the bequests made to us of the [German] Popular Poetry of

the time of the Hohenstauffen, by far the most important, in

fact the most important literary memorial of any kind, is the

epic of between nine and ten thousand lines known as the

Nibelungen Lied. The manuscripts which have preserved for us

the poem come from about the year 1200. For full a thousand

years before that, however, many of the lays from which it was

composed had been in existence; some indeed proceed from a

still remoter antiquity, sung by primitive minstrels when the

Germans were at their wildest, untouched by Christianity or

civilization. These lays had been handed down orally, until at

length a poet of genius elaborated them and intrusted them to

parchment."

J. K. Hosmer,

Short History of German Literature,

part 1, chapter 1.

"In the year 1757, the Swiss Professor Bodmer printed an

ancient poetical manuscript, under the title of Chriemhilden

Rache und die Kluge (Chriemhilde's Revenge, and the Lament);

which may be considered as the first of a series, or stream of

publications and speculations still rolling on, with increased

current, to the present day. … Some fifteen years after

Bodmer's publication, which, for the rest, is not celebrated

as an editorial feat, one C. H. Müller undertook a Collection

of German Poems from the Twelfth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth

Centuries; wherein, among other articles, he reprinted

Bodmer's Chriemhilde and Klage, with a highly remarkable

addition prefixed to the former, essential indeed to the right

understanding of it; and the whole now stood before the world

as one Poem, under the name of the Nibelungen Lied, or Lay of

the Nibelungen. It has since been ascertained that the Klage

is a foreign inferior appendage; at best related only as

epilogue to the main work: meanwhile out of this Nibelungen,

such as it was, there soon proceeded new inquiries and kindred

enterprises. For much as the Poem, in the shape it here bore,

was defaced and marred, it failed not to attract observation:

to all open-minded lovers of poetry, especially where a strong

patriotic feeling existed, the singular antique Nibelungen was

an interesting appearance. Johannes Müller, in his famous

Swiss History, spoke of it in warm terms: subsequently, August

Wilhelm Schlegel, through the medium of the Deutsche Museum,

succeeded in awakening something like a universal popular

feeling on the subject; and, as a natural consequence, a whole

host of Editors and Critics, of deep and of shallow endeavour,

whose labours we yet see in progress. The Nibelungen has now

been investigated, translated, collated, commented upon, with

more or less result, to almost boundless lengths. … Apart

from its antiquarian value, and not only as by far the finest

monument of old German art; but intrinsically, and as a mere

detached composition, this Nibelungen has an excellence that

cannot but surprise us. With little preparation, any reader of

poetry, even in these days, might find it interesting. It is

not without a certain Unity of interest and purport, an

internal coherence and completeness; it is a Whole, and some

spirit of Music informs it: these are the highest

characteristics of a true Poem. Considering farther what

intellectual environment we now find it in, it is doubly to be

prized and wondered at; for it differs from those Hero-books,

as molten or carved metal does from rude agglomerated ore;

almost as some Shakspeare from his fellow Dramatist, whose

Tamburlaines and Island Princesses, themselves not destitute

of merit, first show us clearly in what pure loftiness and

loneliness the Hamlets and Tempests reign. The unknown Singer

of the Nibelungen, though no Shakspeare, must have had a deep

poetic soul; wherein things discontinuous and inanimate shaped

themselves together into life, and the Universe with its

wondrous purport stood significantly imaged; overarching, as

with heavenly firmaments and eternal harmonies, the little

scene where men strut and fret their hour, His Poem, unlike so

many old and new pretenders to that name, has a basis and

organic structure, a beginning, middle and end; there is one

great principle and idea set forth in it, round which all its

multifarious parts combine in living union. … With an

instinctive art, far different from acquired artifice, this

Poet of the Nibelungen, working in the same province with his

contemporaries of the Heldenbuch [Hero-book] on the same

material of tradition, has, in a wonderful degree, possessed

himself of what these could only strive after; and with his

'clear feeling of fictitious truth,' avoid as false the errors

and monstrous perplexities in which they vainly struggled.

{2358}

He is of another species than they; in language, in purity and

depth of feeling, in fineness of invention, stands quite apart

from them.' The language of the Heldenbuch … was a feeble

half-articulate child's-speech, the metre nothing better than

a miserable doggerel; whereas here in the old Frankish

(Oberdeutsch) dialect of the Nibelungen, we have a clear

decisive utterance, and in a real system of verse not without

essential regularity, great liveliness, and now and then even

harmony of rhythm. … No less striking than the verse and

language is the quality of the invention manifested here. Of

the Fable, or narrative material of the Nibelungen we should

say that it had high, almost the highest merit; so daintily

yet firmly is it put together; with such felicitous selection

of the beautiful, the essential, and no less felicitous

rejection of whatever was unbeautiful or even extraneous. The

reader is no longer afflicted with that chaotic brood of

Fire-drakes, Giants, and malicious turbaned Turks, so fatally

rife in the Heldenbuch: all this is swept away, or only hovers

in faint shadows afar off; and free field is open for

legitimate perennial interests. Yet neither is the Nibelungen

without its wonders; for it is poetry and not prose; here too,

a supernatural world encompasses the natural, and, though at

rare intervals and in calm manner, reveals itself there. …

The whole story of the Nibelungen is fateful, mysterious,

guided on by unseen influences; yet the actual marvels are

few, and done in the far distance; those Dwarfs, and Cloaks of

Darkness, and charmed Treasure-caves, are heard of rather than

beheld, the tidings of them seem to issue from unknown space.

Vain were it to inquire where that Nibelungen-land specially

is: its very name is Nebel-land or Nift-land, the land of

Darkness, of Invisibility. The 'Nibelungen Heroes' that muster

in thousands and tens of thousands, though they march to the

Rhine or Danube, and we see their strong limbs and shining

armour, we could almost fancy to be children of the air."

T. Carlyle,

The Nibelungen Lied

(Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, volume 3).

"The traditions of German heroic poetry extend over more than

300 years, and are drawn from various German tribes. King

Ostrogotha reigned over the Goths about the year 250, and was

the contemporary of the emperors Philip and Decius. Ermanaric

governed the Ostrogoths about 100 years later, and was a very

warlike king, ruling over a large extent of territory. The

invasion of the Huns drove him to despair, and he fell by his

own hand before the year 374. Soon after the year 400 the

Burgundians founded a mighty empire in the most fertile part

of the Upper Rhine, where Cæsar had already fought with the

Germans, near Spiers, Worms, and Mayence. The Roman Aëtius,

who ruled Gaul with the aid of his Hun allies, defeated the

Burgundians by means of these barbarians in a terrible battle

about the year 437; 20,000 men fell, amongst them their king

Gundicarius (Gunther). The Burgundians seemed to be

annihilated, and soon after retreated to Savoy. About the same

time Attila was king of the Huns and Ostrogoths to the terror

of the world. His name is Gothic, the arrangements of his

court were Gothic, and he reckoned among his knights

Theodomer; the king of the Ostrogoths. The West had just

learnt all the terror of this 'Scourge of God,' when news came

of his sudden death (453), and in the following year his

followers succumbed to the attacks of the Germans (454).

Twenty-two years later, Odoacer deposed the last shadow of a

Roman emperor; and again, twelve years later, Theodoric led

the Ostrogoths into Italy and Odoacer fell by his hand. About

the same period the Merovingian Clovis founded the kingdom of

the Franks; about the year 530 his sons destroyed the

Thuringian empire; and his grandson Theodebert extended his

kingdom so far, that, starting from Hungary, he planned an

attack on the Byzantine emperor. The Merovingians also offered

a successful resistance to the Vikings, who were the terror of

the North Sea, and who appeared even at the mouths of the

Rhine. From another quarter the Longobards in little more than

a century reached Italy, having started from Lüneburg, in the

neighbourhood of Brunswick, and their King Alboin took

possession of the crown of Italy in 568. These wonderful

transferences of power, and this rapid founding of new

empires, furnished the historical background of the German

hero-legends. The fact that the movement was originally

against Rome was forgotten; the migration was treated as a

mere incident in the internal history of the German nation.

There is no trace of chronology. … Legend adheres to the

fact of the enmity between Odoacer and Theodoric, but it

really confuses Theodoric with his father Theodomer,

transplants him accordingly to Attila's court, and supposes

that he was an exile there in hiding from the wrath of

Odoacer. Attila becomes the representative of everything

connected with the Huns. He is regarded as Ermanaric's and

Gunther's enemy, and as having destroyed the Burgundians.

These again are confused with a mythical race, the Nibelungen,

Siegfried's enemies, and thus arose the great and complicated

scheme of the Nibelungen legend. … This Middle High-German

Epic is like an old church, in the building of which many

architects have successively taken part. … Karl Lachmann

attempted the work of restoring the Nibelungen lied and

analysing its various elements, and accomplished the task, not

indeed faultlessly, yet on the whole correctly. He has pointed

out later interpolations, which hide the original sequence of

the story, and has divided the narrative which remains after

the removal of these accretions into twenty songs, some of

which are connected, while others embody isolated incidents of

the legend. Some of them, but certainly only a few, may be by

the same author. … We recognise in most of these songs such

differences in conception, treatment, and style, as point to

separate authorship. The whole may have been finished in about

twenty years, from 1190-1210. Lachmann's theory has indeed

been contested. Many students still believe that the poem, as

we have it, was the work of one hand; but on this hypothesis

no one has succeeded in explaining the strange contradictions

which pervade the work, parts of which show the highest art,

while the rest is valueless."

W. Scherer,

History of German Literature,

chapters 2 and 5 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

B. Taylor,

Studies in German Literature,

chapter 4.

*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ***

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 Project Gutenberg eBook of History for ready reference, Volume 3 (of 6), Greece to Nibelungen, by J. N. Larned

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE